Jump to content


Loyal Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by hooliganmedia

  1. I think that Hollywood needs to start being a bit more responsible when it comes to films. The Christopher Nolan Batman films are NOT for children - but they're PG-13 anyway. The Heath Ledger Joker was NOT the Caesar Romero Joker. Ledger was actually terrifying. That is not a movie I would allow my children to see (if I had kids). Batman is a character that appeals to children. There were some pretty sadistic acts of violence in all three Dark Knight movies (like bombs beings sewn inside a character's stomach).


    That's another reason why any new films about The Punisher should be Rated R. Frank Castle is NOT a character for children. He is a very adult character, and to make a PG-13 film about him would be done just to make him more accessible to children. It would be very irresponsible. Castle is not only an R-rated character, but he's a hard R.


    Frank is all about punishing people who are clearly guilty, and if you go by the 2004 version alone, he makes the punishment fit the crime. He's very "fair" in how he goes about taking care of business. For example, if you're just a psycho who's harassing your girlfriend, you get smacked on the nose with your own knife and thrown down the stairs. Lesson learned. However, if you're a big Russian dude who makes a living by butchering people in cold blood, you get a pot of boiling soup in the face and your head smashed open.


    But none if this is for children. Children should not be exposed to Frank's exploits. That's why they have Superman and Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four. Frank Castle does not belong in a PG-13 film and he does not belong on television (unless it's HBO). Doing so would only be done to widen the audience and make him more accessible to children, and that would be wrong. Really wrong.


    As for there being too much violence in Hollywood films, I don't see them changing any time soon. As for the "Batman massacre," - blame the sicko who did it. He's the one who is ultimately responsible. I will personally never understand why anyone would do what he did.


    The only real blame that Warner Bros. has to shoulder is that they somehow made three Batman movies that should have been R-rated into PG-13 fare. When you think about the content, they're not really PG-13 movies - but they didn't show much actual blood and said "fuck" less than two times. Doing something like that with The Punisher would be the height of irresponsibility.


    Everything else aside, I'd like to know what possessed parents to literally bring infants to a midnight screening of TDKR. First of all, that's way too late to be bringing a kid that age to a screening of Bambi. The Dark Knight Rises had imagery that would terrify small children.


    It's been awhile since I've read actual comic books, but I'd like to know if the "Comics Code" is still in effect or being enforced? Can anyone answer that?


    I agree with the majority of this. Frank Castle should never be a PG13 character. Just because a character is in a comic book doesn't automatically make him/her pg13 or kid friendly. Even the original TMNT weren't kid friendly. I think there are versions of Batman that are, but the best Batman stories are not for kids. By kids, I mean anyone under 13. Teen being up at a midnight screening or reading No Man's Land is okay, depending how involved the parents are.


    Take it from me, my 10 yr old daughter had a Leatherface night light...... just kidding.

  2. If you want a pg13 Punisher, have him make a cameo in a pg13 movie like Spiderman or Capt. America, as his first comic book appearance was in a Spidey issue. If the reaction is positive, do a solo Punisher film at pg13... But that's a steep hill to climb. And if they're doing a pg13 flick, there's a good chance they'll op for a younger or more currently popular actor... I'm not supporting any Punisher movie without Tom because I saw first hand at Comic Con how much the guy loves and wants to be that character. Until then we may have The Cleaner webseries.... Whatever I can do to help the Raw Studios family. I'm in.

  3. Perhaps to a degree. Disney owns Marvel and I can't help but think they have some branding and creative influence. After having worked at Disney studios for a bit, I know they are very protective of the Disney brand and since Marvel is their pride n joy purchase, they will Disney'fy to an extent. I'm not sure how much creative freedom Marvel projects have under Disney, that's what it boils down to. I think?

  4. Pulp Fiction is technically Disney, but under the Miramax flag. That was a Weinstein bros deal. Miramax was sold I think in 2009 or 2010 from Disney. Pulp Fiction was released in 94 but I think it was bought at the 93 Cannes Film fest, but Miramax was purchased the year before or in 93 - I think Pulp Fiction was already a done deal when Miramax was bought by Disney - could be wrong.


    I think if Disney retains the rights on The Punisher and decides to release it as a standalone movie, PG13 (likely), it wouldn't work. The early Punisher work was indeed PG13 by comic standards, however I think most of the fans, including myself, would want a MAX version of the story, which is R. Also, even if they were to make a PG13 Punisher, I think they know it will fail and be panned by loyal comic readers as Frank Castle's best stories where during the MAX story arc. There's just no sugar coating it. ...and with the sad situation that happened earlier this morning, I doubt Disney wants that kind of character/movie under their banner. It would be years before we'd hear Disney doing a Punisher movie. It's just that The Punisher isn't a glossy, sci-fi, fantasy guy... he f'ing kills the crap out of bad guys and those guys are humans, mostly. So that would have to be R, by MPAA standards, if you do it right.


    Just my two cents. I enjoy the back n forth. It's always great to hear the other side of things.

  5. I think LGE still retains The Punisher rights.... I'll ask around..



    Nope, LGE lost the rights, they went back to Marvel/Disney - however, Marvel could sell the film rights back to another entity, Sony, Fox, LGE as everyone knows a PG13 Punisher would never fly - and Disney would want nothing to do with that property. So business-wise, Marvel can make more $$$ by auctioning the rights off. That's the best way to do it. The Punisher doesn't really fit in their universe as it is. The only character Marvel/Disney should make a play for, and they won't, is Spider-Man.

  6. pretty good flick. man there's been much worse put out there. the disturb system is dying though fellas. digital offers so many more choices. Mel Gibson's been talking to me for years about taking down the Man. His mexican prison flick? 20 million DL's off the PPV. KILLED it.

    and now Netflix is becoming a major network...


    Yeah, that's what I saying earlier in this thing. Now it's confirmed by you ;) So many platforms!

  7. I hope to God that gets me a Producer credit on THE CLEANER. :) I think it'd be a great idea. Marvel will surely take note if TJ has a web-series with over 500k views where he is Punisher'esque. They could've went young for Nick Fury, but they got SLJ. The Punisher was never a clean cut kinda guy to begin with.

  8. Hi guys, since the reaction has been very positive about a new Punisher flick with Thomas Jane, why not get Terry Dougas @ 1821 to fork over some cash for a Punisher webseries? I figure you can shoot 1 per month, each one at 10-15mins... Use the Dirty Laundry as a prologue. I'm not sure you can monetize it due to legal reasons :*(

  • Create New...