It's too bad that Marvel has decided to give the Defenders name to the Heroes for Hire crew, because it seems to me that makes it much less likely that wee will ever see a live action version of the classic Non-Team. I loved the core group of Dr. Strange, The Hulk, Namor and The Silver Surfer - and enjoyed the group even more when lesser know heroes like Hellcat, Valkyrie, Nighthawk and The Gargoyle joined the ranks. Hopefully some of the Defenders will find a home on the big screen one of these days.
These two teams first met n STF #384...
23 comments:
This is awesome, although I can't fathom why vision and Scarlet Witch are here... Maybe there is a connection between Raven and Scarle Witch's magic?
I think the problem with the Classic Defenders line-up is that both The Hulk and Namor are licensed to Universal and Silver Surfer to FOX. That leaves Dr. Strange. I'd also believe that the special effects would be a challenge for television. I'd love to see a big screen version of Defenders, just as much as a big screen version of The Invaders!
The Vision and SW were on leave from the Avengers, starring in at least two now cult-classic limited series of comics, at the time the Defenders were still a non-team led by Dr. Strange.
As to a cinematic representation? I'd love to see that happen. Especially if Marvel Films built up interest for it the same way they built up interest in the Avengers flicks. Individual solo features! But, as Air Dave pointed out, separately licensed rights to the core characters makes that virtually impossible for the foreseeable future.
Plus, given the comparatively lackluster return on the Cumberbatch Dr. Strange (it was in and out of my hometown multiplex in less than two weeks), they might have to recast the role using someone who appears to have _more_ box office appeal as a good guy wizard. For example: Eddie Redmayne!
@Carycomic: you're kidding, right? :-|
@Anon: Dead serious! :P
"someone who appears to have _more_ box office appeal as a good guy wizard"
Daniel Radcliffe confirmed for Doctor Strange 2.
Cary, Doctor Strange had a lacklustre return? Financially or something else? I don't see a recast for the character happening in the future.
There was nothing lackluster about the financial return on Doctor Strange. It made $659 million on a $165 million budget.That put's it in the same neighborhood as Ant-Man and the original Iron Man, and even better than films such as the first X-Men and Spider-Man 2.
@Kevin and Maleus:
DR. STRANGE: $659.2 million, worldwide.
FANTASTIC BEASTS: $808.2 million, worldwide.
Nuff said.
That's a ridiculous comparison. So Beasts made 4.5 times its budget and DS made "only" 4 times its budget, and you think that's a reason to dump Cumberbatch and recast with an actor from another franchise? Any way you look at it, DS made hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. That in no way fits the definition of "lackluster," which was your term, not ours.
Just because Fantastic Beasts outgrossed Doctor Strange doesn't mean it's lackluster. In fact, it beat Iron Man's record as the highest-grossing single character MCU debut film.
I agree with Kevin, it is a ridiculous comparison and like I said, I don't see the role recast happening for the time being.
That's like comparing the film to The Incredible Hulk as the role of Bruce Banner was recast not because of the film underperforming at the box office but because of the creative differences between Edward Norton and Marvel Studios.
Well said. Also, it's been confirmed that Cumberbatch will reprise his role in Thor: Ragnarok, so rumours of a recast is most likely debunked.
@Karen: Nope! Undeniably valid.
@Mateus: Edward Norton should have won that battle of creative differences. His version of Banner was undeniably superior to Eric Bana's and the other guy, put together!
Like I said, just because Fantastic Beasts outgrossed Doctor Strange doesn't mean it had a lackluster performance. In fact, it beat Iron Man's record as the highest-grossing single character MCU debut film. It's not even a valid reason to determine if it's lackluster and also, Cumberbatch is reprising his role in Thor: Ragnarok, so your theory that Doctor Strange being recast after the film is debunked and Kevin does have a point. The reason why Doctor Strange was outgrossed wasn't because of Cumberbatch not being a box office draw but because people were more interested in seeing Fantastic Beasts due to it being part of the Harry Potter film series, which were commercially successful. A $659 million worldwide gross isn't actually bad.
Had there been no creative differences between him and Marvel, then Norton would've appeared in The Avengers and also there would've been the sequel to The Incredible Hulk had it not been on development hell due to the legal wrangling between Universal and Marvel over the distribution rights. The creative differences are partly the reason why the events of The Incredible Hulk are rarely mentioned in later films though the closest thing was when General Ross reappeared in Captain America: Civil War.
OK! Enough is enough.
FB was commercially more successful than DR. STRANGE. But, DR. STRANGE was creatively superior to FB. Can all grouches concerned permanently settle for _that_ compromise?
Agreed because I began to think that it went too far.
Yes, I can. Because, yes, Mateus did.
Oh, for God's sake, Cary: stop stealing my screen name!
Big fan of the classic Defenders, this is a very cool cover!
Hey, I said it first it went too far, OK? Can we just move on and be done with this?
I second the motion.
Post a Comment