Warner Brothers Announces 10 New DC Comics Movies 187
wired_parrot writes After being criticized for being slow to respond to Marvel's string of blockbuster superhero movies, Warner Brothers finally announced their plan for DC comic universe movie franchise. Yesterday at their annual shareholder meeting, WB announced 10 DC comics movies. The studio has unveiled an ambitious schedule that features two Justice League films, plus standalone titles for Wonder Woman, Flash, Shazam (Captain Marvel), Green Lantern, Cyborg and even Aquaman. Also announced were plans for 3 Lego movies and a three-part Harry Potter spinoff.
To quote TBBT (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They should get Adrian Grenier to star as Aquaman.
It couldn't make it any more of a flop, and it would at least have some comedic value.
Re:To quote FG (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just Aquaman (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly...beyond Superman and Batman, DC doesn't have much—at least that anyone has heard of and/or cares about. Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern do at least have some following, but they haven't aged well and I'm not sure they can translate to film nearly as well as, say, Iron Man.
IMHO, they'd be better off finding some more offbeat superheroes from their back catalog (a la Guardians of the Galaxy) or biting the bullet and inventing some new ones.
Still, Marvel has done an amazing job of refurbishing characters like Captain America and Thor, so maybe DC can do the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. DCAU, along with Jeffrey Combs, took the Question and made him into a star.
And created Harley Quinn from whole cloth.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true for most Marvel characters as well. Short of Spider-man and the X-men, Marvel didn't have anyone popular with everyone. Ironman changed that, and DC can do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the movies cam out I'd say it was about the same for Marvel too. Spider-Man was, as far as I recall anyway, way more well known than Iron Man and Thor, but Marvel successfully popularized them. Marvel pulled off Guardians of the Galaxy pretty well and how many people, one year ago, had ever even heard of them? If DC promotes and makes their films well (Green Lantern was pretty awful IMO), I think they could successfully promote not only the characters listed here but also some of their other chara
Marvel used back-catalog heroes too... (Score:2)
You have to remember, if you don't read comic books, nearly EVERY hero is from the "back-catalog." Beyond the Hulk (who was in a TV series and a couple of movies), and a passing familiarity that Captain America existed at one time, the remaining characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe are virtually complete unknowns to the general public. Did a bunch of the other ones have active comic books going on when the movies were planned and were huge "hits" in every comic book store in the land? Maybe; I hav
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised WB didn't pull their idea for a Bleach movie out of development hell rather than trying some of these ideas. I realize it would have major trouble getting viewers outside of the existing fanbase, but that has to be more people than would pay to see Aquaman.
Re: (Score:2)
He saved Superman's ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa there, have you actually seen any good Aquaman related material? I mean, besides some campy old cartoon from decades ago? Bulletproof, super strength, super speed, the standard suite of DC powers, along with some magical abilities, ruler of a kingdom, master of the seas...and yeah, command of marine life.
If you don't know much about Aquaman I suggest reading over this [reddit.com] or this [imgur.com] to understand. Aquaman kicks ass. The common kneejerk 'Aquaman sucks' thing is not accurate.
Hollywood is mentally bankrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything these days is reboots, reboots of reboots, sequels, prequels, sequels to prequels, prequels to sequels, comic book adaptations, games adaptations, movies made from tv series, remakes, remakes of remakes, japanese remakes.
Seems like they're not even trying anymore.
Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
Where does Game of Thrones fit in that list? Or do adaptations of books also count?
Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
Or do adaptations of books also count?
As long as no one fucks up another book-made-into-movie as they did with HHGTTG.
Re: (Score:2)
Or worst, The Postman by David Brin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The book has significant departures from the radio play to accommodate the needs of a written text. Which one is authoritative? Douglas Adams is on record as having approved the changes made for the movie, recognizing that storytelling needs to make allowances for the media it is presented in. That being said the movie could have been better.
If you thought HHGTTG was bad... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh puh-lease, G.R.R. Martin put all the mental effort. All the producers had to do was not fuck it up with bad cast options and script changes for "appealing to the target audience".
Re: (Score:3)
every thing suck!
what about these great things?
Those don't count.
Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood is mentally bankrupt!
What about these great things?
Hollywood didn't put any mental effort in them.
Personal attack!
FTFY
Game of Thrones (Score:3)
Plantagenet reboot
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the "new" stories (or characters or books or whatever) were just repackaged versions of some older story anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Everything these days is reboots, reboots of reboots, sequels, prequels, sequels to prequels, prequels to sequels, comic book adaptations, games adaptations, movies made from tv series, remakes, remakes of remakes, japanese remakes.
Seems like they're not even trying anymore.
That has always been the case. When I say The Wizard of Oz, the movie you are thinking of was the fifth one made, making it just a reboot. Do you know how many Tarzan, Jackie Chan, and other characters that had endless series of reboots, sequels, and prequels there were in the history of film? They're always trying and this is what you get. If you think you can do better, start writing screen plays or form a production company and make your millions.
Wizard of Oz reboot? (Score:3)
ignatius
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and I've had the hots for Charlotte Rampling ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
well it was from the golden age of sci fi movies.
rollerball, zardoz.. ridiculous outfits, yet they still managed to be serious hardcore science fiction. rollerball maybe not so much(it's more society story than scifi).
but yeah, why the fuck can't they manage to make films like that nowadays, films that say something while at it?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When I say The Wizard of Oz, the movie you are thinking of was the fifth one made, making it just a reboot.
And it was crap. MGM took a magnificent kids' adventure story and turned it into a frothy, brainless musical...then they crowned their travesty by tacking on an "It was all a dream" ending.
46 years later, Disney of all people made a real Oz story, Return to Oz, from two of the later books...and the critics savaged it because it was dark and scary and didn't have any singing and dancing.
Re: (Score:2)
Jackie Chan is the actor, not the character. Most of his films were one-offs with original stories, although there were some series. The Police Story trilogy is excellent, by the way.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets see the last several movies I went to:
Lego movie -- creative and fun movie, based on lego, of course, but I didn't see that on your list of complaints.
Guardians of the Galaxy -- comic book inspired (although I'd never read nor heard of it before)
Edge of Tomorrow -- unless it was a Japanese remake this seemed pretty original. Sure it had elements of Groundhog day but to call it a reboot of groundhog day would be stretching it. ;)
Wreck-It-Ralph -- original, featured 2ndary characters from a variety of ex
Re: (Score:2)
Frozen - original (and ok, by now its probably clear I have kids)
I don't think you have to apologize for liking Wreak-It Ralph or Frozen. WIR's comic demolition of the state-of-the-art first-person shooter was alone worth the price of entry.
To Ralph, playing straight man: "One more, one more. Why did the hero flush the toilet..."
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. There's still plenty of interesting movies out of there.
Some of it is that they aren't necessarily hitting the theaters--or staying very long. Speaking for myself, If I'm going to pay $12 for a movie, it better be a blockbuster. It better be huge, explosive, with lots of action and adventure. Otherwise, I'll wait for it to come out on Redbox, Pay-per-View, or HBO/Showtime/Epix and watch it on my TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lego movie -- creative and fun movie, based on lego, of course, but I didn't see that on your list of complaints.
Well, I'll complain. Lego movies are proof of the death of creativity. Whatever happened to playing with Lego? I guess as expensive as they are, cinema trips are actually cheaper. Them little plastic bricks are expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what annoys people are lame reboots like Robocop, or the fact that they made three shit Spiderman movies and then decided to make another three that were only marginally better due to contractual obligations. The worst part of that debacle is that when Marvel does Civil War they might not even be able to use Spider Man, one of the most important characters, due to Sony clinging on to the rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like they're not even trying anymore.
Oh, they're trying alright, but how many ideas for movies can there even be? By the time I was 6 (I'm from the 70's) I knew that eventually movies wouldn't be a thing as they once were. I figured that one day movies and games would merge. When I first saw that game "Dragon's Lair" I thought it'd begun. I was obviously wrong.
It seems like people take movies less seriously than they used to, and there really aren't that many ideas for movies that'd be very interesting. The result is that movies are stuc
Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt (Score:5, Informative)
you are wrong. Movies have always been like this.
I'm from the 60's.
Lets list some great 70's culture, shall we?
Six Million Dollar Man -from a book.
Planet of the Apes - Book
Soylent Green - Book.
The Godfather - book
Spaghetti westerns? Many of them are remakes.
I could go on and on.
Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt (Score:5, Interesting)
No..
Actually, patrons are mentally bankrupt. Hollywood puts original content in front of audiences every now and then, and it underwhelms at the box office.
Brand familiarity and the powerful psychological pull it has on consumers are just as responsible for you wanting to see the next Star Trek movie as you are likely to keep buying the same laundry detergent.
Re: (Score:2)
Formula is formula because it's proven to work. If audiences truly were wanting something different, they'd be in the indie festivals, at the small off-beat theaters, or happily watching things with subtitles and so forth. Instead (it seems) they just want fast hard simple plots with lots of explosions and beautiful people. Or infantile fart jokes. Hollywood just sees 'everyone is wanting Super Heroes, we'll make Variation #245 on SuperHero Plotmachine'. "This year is fairy tale
Aquaman isn't really even a superhero (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a feeling he may come out a little different with Jason Momoa (Khal Drogo) in the role.
more GrandFathers in the back row (Score:2)
I don't get it... (Score:5, Interesting)
I read sci-fi(Niven, Asimov, Bradbury, etc) and fantasy(Tolkien, Lovecraft, Howard, etc).
I don't get this thing with comics. Most of the comic book based films are ok at best...
Are they really going to make that many comic book based films?
That is just sad.
There are so many good sci-fi and fantasy books/stories out there.
It would be nice if something not ending in "man" was made into a film.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am no expert, but I believe it's because they are easy.
They are easy to pitch. You just use the comic book to explain the concept.
They are easy to script. Logic and reason fly out the window. You don't want mutants to be exterminated ? Declare war on the U.S. in their name.
The action scenes and big explosions are built in. Just take it straight from the storyboard aka comic book.
They have a built in market. Pre sold to the comic fans.
The people that go to them don't expect much and hence are rarely disappointed
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
The people that go to them don't expect much and hence are rarely disappointed
That about sums it up!
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Funny)
The people that go to them don't expect much and hence are rarely disappointed
I saw Spiderman 3, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, The Amazing Spiderman, Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Man of Steel, The Dark Knight Rises, The Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Hulk, The Incredible Hulk, Fantastic 4, Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer, X-Men, X-Men 2, X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men: Wolverine Origins, The Wolverine, X-Men: First Class, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Daredevil, The Green Lantern, Ghost Rider, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, Superman Returns, The Punisher, and Ninja Turtles, you insensitive clod!
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am no expert, but I believe it's because they are easy.
I would add that they are also able to mine decades of stories for the ones that have proven themselves over time and have a following. Comics as a business compared to the film industry is almost not worth mentioning, but for what it is worth, they can essentially run scripts (complete with storyboards) past the public monthly to see what resonates with them and which ones turn out to be good, and even have them pay for themselves. Most of the movies that have been made have been the classic story lines that were getting printed into graphic novels and have highly sought after issues by collectors for years. Marvel even has a large collection of test marketing with updating such stories to a modern setting and sensibilities with the Ultimate series. It's no surprise that the movies are a combination of the regular Marvel stories and the Ultimate stories as they've already seen what people like and don't like with updating such. Comics seem to be an excellent marketing test field for movies and I'm actually sort of surprised they didn't end up experimenting with it way before now (probably because comic code kept them from really being useful to the movie industry).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, prior to X-Men, we were regularly disappointed. Because everyone who tried to make a comic-based movie did a terrible job prior to that. There's almost not a single comic-based movie before this which treated the material well and didn't devolve into some corny parody,
Are they escapism and popcorn cinema? Absolutely they are.
But, what you can't argue with is the bottom line -- they make money. Lots and lots of money.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)
"Actually, prior to X-Men, we were regularly disappointed. Because everyone who tried to make a comic-based movie did a terrible job prior to that. There's almost not a single comic-based movie before this which treated the material well and didn't devolve into some corny parody,"
Um, I can recall several excellent Superman and Batman movies that predate X-men. I'd put the first TMNT movie in that list as well. Some other fairly good, and successfu and somewhat accurate to the material, comic book movies before X-Men: Rocketeer, Robocop, and The Crow.
Re: (Score:3)
I think your best point is "They have a built in market." It's true that, if you release a big-budget movie about a popular character, there are some people who will watch it pretty much no matter what. That's why so many new movies are some kind of adaptation or remake-- so that they can count on a pre-existing audience who will see it, even if it's bad, if only out of curiousity or loyalty to the original work.
The rest of your points aren't quite fair, though. You could argue that the writing isn't am
Re: (Score:2)
"I am no expert, "
clearly. They aren't easy to pitch at all. The people who they are pitched to ask questions like "What separates this from other comic book movies" "how will the enhance are market", "whereismycocaine?", and so on. Most of them won't have heard of the title unless its on of the top 10.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why so popular? Because the storyboarding and visuals are already sketched out by the original issues of the comics themselves.
Adapting a novel requires an imaginitive F/X team to create the F/X from mere text descriptions of the scenes and items to be depicted. Having existing pictures makes it cheap and easy to skip that creativity in the process.
There is also the fact that an awful lot of movies adapted from novels just tank at the box office because they don't express a vision that the readers of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never read comics when I was a kid.(well, thats not true, I read Heavy Metal)
I read sci-fi(Niven, Asimov, Bradbury, etc) and fantasy(Tolkien, Lovecraft, Howard, etc).
I don't get this thing with comics. Most of the comic book based films are ok at best...
Are they really going to make that many comic book based films?
That is just sad.
There are so many good sci-fi and fantasy books/stories out there.
It would be nice if something not ending in "man" was made into a film.
I think there's two factors. First successful comics consist of a long running series. Even the best science fictions stories are pretty niche on a society level, how many people have actually read Caves of Steel or Ringworld?
But as for comics, even someone like myself who never read a comic book is familiar with every character listen there besides Shazam and Cyborg. Every comic movie already has a huge potential audience already familiar with and sympathetic to the source material, it's hard for books to
Re: (Score:2)
Matter of opinion really. Personally I like comic book films and the recent releases have been fantastic. People go to cinemas for different reasons. Myself in a fan of senseless entertainment. I like explosions, action, cheesy love stories, and displays of excessive strength or superpowers. Some people can't stand the above and need to see complex character development etc.
Based on the money coming in it would appear the vast majority of movie goers would not make very good judges at the academy awards, un
Re: (Score:2)
Comic book films are just sci-fi films.
And who cares, as long as they are good?
What is inherently wrong with a story line that started as a comic?
Re: (Score:2)
I read sci-fi(Niven, Asimov, Bradbury, etc) and fantasy(Tolkien, Lovecraft, Howard, etc). I don't get this thing with comics.
Hitchcock began storyboarding his films around 1935.
The adventure comic strip, which was coming into its own about the same time, became increasingly cinematic in its story-telling.
The film and the comic are both essentially visual media. There isn't much time or space for dialog and none for long-winded exposition. That doesn't make dialog unimportant in a film or comic --- it just means that every word has to count.
The comics weren't always about superheroes --- and the superhero comic wasn't always a so
Re: (Score:2)
You list Tolkien as though those properties haven't had their share of movies. In fact, I'd say that the second Captain America movie is, all told, a better movie than any of the Hobbit movies.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem like you would love comics. Many of the stories are very mature and have greater plot and character development than most books or movies.
The universes are amazing...a way to blend sci-fi and fantasy all together in one amazing cohesive universe.
You shouldn't be so dismissive of an entire genre.
Re: (Score:2)
Many books and movies are very mature and have greater plot and character development than most comics.
Works both ways. And, cohesive isn't exactly a word I'd use for a set of tales that re-origin themselves every few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of spending time playing at semantics you should have tried to understand my point.
Let me paraphrase.
Most comics today have better plot and character development and deal with more mature content than most mainstream movies and books.
There.
Re: (Score:2)
Comics isn't a genre. "Superhero" is a genre. Comics is a *medium* (cue joke about being "neither rare nor well-done."). Comics is way of presenting content, like TV, or books, or video games. It is not the content itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Comics is both a genre and a medium. "Superhero" is a subset of the comic genre. There are many comics, such as The Walking Dead and Clone that have all the staples of the genre, without being anything to do with superheroes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tolkien wasn't brought to the screen. Something was, and it was ok, but it wasn't Tolkien.
I reread the books and honestly, it was better than Tolkien. Tolkien's stories show their age with their writing and lack of modern attitudes, no women, classist social structures sometimes bordering on racism. He was writing for his own personal experiment with the biases of his time and it shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, the authors you refer to (Niven, Asimov, Bradbury) appeal mainly to a crowd of Poindexters. It's no surprise that people on a News for Nerds site would clamor for film adaptations, but please try to remember that everything isn't you, and this kind of literature scares a lot of your fellow Americans away, both because of its obtuse themes and because of the Aspie readership is associated with.
I think you're on the wrong website... How did you end up here?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Niven write a bunch of Green Lantern stuff?
http://www.graspingforthewind.... [graspingforthewind.com]
Coincidence... (Score:2)
Last studio on the bandwagon... (Score:2)
Well, throw enough shit at the wall and something is bound to stick. If they need any more movie ideas here's a few.
"Slightly better than average guy"
"Stick figure man"
"Powdered Toast Man"
"Turd sandwich vs. Giant Douche"
"Harry Potter and the Raiders of the Lost Ark"
And "Didn't quite do it Justice League"
Re: (Score:2)
A Justice League of Their Own
Re: (Score:2)
Bicycle Repair Man.
Just-Us League.
You could trawl the indy comics for ideas, plenty of really obscure publishers who'd sell the rights for fifty bucks and a shot at fame.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the list, that was my thought too...
10 more (Score:2)
movies that I won't go to see.
Miracleman! (Score:2)
Linky [wikipedia.org]
I know, I know, it's legally impossible, but hey, I can always hope for a miracle, man!
Kimota!
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
Warner Bros. announce ten new exciting trailers (Score:2)
...and ten POS films to go with them.
A note from Warner Bros CEO: (Score:2)
Fuck everything, we're doing ten movies. [theonion.com]
How about Teen Titans? (Score:2)
seems a better prospect than a Shazam or Aquaman movie.
TV vs Film (Score:5, Insightful)
DC does a lot better with TV than film. Consider
- Smallville was a huge success, very long run
- Arrow has been renewed twice, has a good audience and is doing very well
- The Flash looks like it has legs
- Gotham is getting rave reviews and looks like it has legs as well
Now let's look at their last couple of films:
- Man of Steel - OK this wasn't that bad
- Green Lantern - horrible
- Watchmen - Good movie but flopped
- Jonah Hex - Did anyone even know this movie came out?
- Superman Returns - horrible
The only saving grace has been the Nolan Batman films.
Re: (Score:3)
"Man of Steel" represents how WB has been managing mismanaging their stuff for movies which makes me dread what they are going to do for this next one.
The big issue with "Man of Steel" was that it was so joyless and unfun. Clark's dad is way more concerned about making Clark mopey and conflicted instead of recognizing how great it is to save lives. Throwing down downtown Metropolis without recognition about how destructive or dangerous that was. Then when he retreats he mopes about worried about how people
Re: (Score:2)
It gets better in Season 2.
The thing I loved about Arrow is how real it is. It's the only superhero movie or show I have seen in which the hero comes right out of the gate killing everyone he battles. None of this "letting them live" nonsense. This changes in the later seasons but it gave the character a much more realistic story arc, and made the show a lot more gritty.
And now... (Score:2)
A DC comic movie or two makes some money, then they inundate us with more and more. Ain't going ot end pretty folks.
Movies seriously suck these days, makes me yearn for the days of serious actors, like Jar Jar Binks.
I saw the Shazam movie already (Score:3)
Out of tone, mile of origin (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the big problems DC comics has had since they no longer were, you know, about detectives, is that they generally tell the large stories like Marvel, but in a similar universe with fewer characters and often crazier origin stories and power sources.
I would argue that this difference has been a key to their success, but also has hurt them badly. Superman's origin story- the lone orphan survivor of an amazing race- resonates pretty ludicrously well, but the frequently paired Amazonian warrior or Galactic Cop both presuppose the existence of an entire universe of other stuff. Suddenly you need to have Amazonians in the modern era, and suddenly you need a galactic everything in place, and etc.
The Marvelverse, meanwhile, just takes random events and decides that they just happened to make a super hero now. Gamma radiation, radioactive spider bite, radiation in the upper atmosphere, random genetic powers- these are all "more realistic", but importantly, they don't drag a bunch of bullshit into the story from the sidelines. While Krypton conveniently self destructed, meaning that you can have as much or as little Krypton in your superman story as you need, most of the DC guys bring with them a whole wide world of junk you need to wade through and consider.
Even the divine characters are much more tied to reality for Marvel, with the Norse Gods being a fine set of guys to throw on screen any old time. Meanwhile, the "new gods" of DC are alien, bizarre, and require much devotion to understand what the heck is going on.
The Marvel universe has given us a ton of X-Men, Spiderman, the Hulk, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, Thor, Captain America, and they are all very well loved. Soon we'll see Dr. Strange as well. To explain these we have:
"Some people are mutants", "Radiation can give you powers", "there's some magic", "super serum, one time only offer".
Meanwhile, just to get us to Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, The Flash, Martian Manhunter, and Aquaman, a reasonable superfriends crew, you end up needing Themyscira, a modern Amazon place, a whole race of Amazons to go with it, Atlantis as a living and actual kingdom under the sea, a whole race of martian (or alternately, several of them left with a destroyed race and a host of badguys that killed them), a whole lot of crazy stuff in Gotham, a bunch of alien superpower guys doling out willpower rings, meaning, oh yea, a galaxy spanning set of everything imaginable.
The other thing hurting them in a movie format is that they have a relatively light tone in many of the comics, and when they do not, they don't try to avoid whatever they are talking about. The race of goofy green aliens with the dumb rings are meaningful if they are being exterminated, and you feel bad for them, etc. Is a movie going to make you feel bad for these CGI freaks you learned about 15 minutes prior, in the space of two hours? Unlikely.
Instead, they will often darken everything, and just leave out most of the lore, trying to make them more marvel-like. Wonder woman is going to look like she's dressed as a robot, superman couldn't even keep his actual outfit and had to straight up murder some dude, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The other issue DC has it that many of the characters are insanely powerful. Superman is practically a living god, and Wonder Woman is on a par for strength and the ability to fly. Green Lantern can only really be hurt of caught off guard, and the Martian can become non-corporeal at any time. At the same time they are hanging around with The Flash and Batman, a guy who has no super powers at all and could die from a single punch by the kind of guys they need to challenge Superman.
Meh... Marvel Stomps DC! (Score:2)
Meh... Marvel Stomps DC!
*ducks*
FLAME ON!
Re:Ugh.. (Score:5, Funny)
Think of it like a piñata that drops millions of dollars every time you hit it.
I wouldn't let go of the stick, until they yanked it from my hands.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish my dead horses each grossed roughly 1BN worldwide, and that my last dead horse reviewed better than the 7 previous and was the #4 worldwide highest grossing dead horse of all time.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were dead horses, they wouldn't be making any money.
Fucking hipster.
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly possible to make money from dead horses, as Tesco proved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"and a three-part Harry Potter spinoff."
Gotta keep beating that dead horse...
Are any of these horses alive? It's a horse epidemic of deathly proportions!
There are actually nine horses. They are undead and carry around the nazgul who are enslaved by voldemort.