It's official...
Samuel L. Jackson signed a 9, yes, N-I-N-E.. NINE... picture deal with Paramount/Marvel Studios to return as Nick Fury. He has a larger role in Iron Man 2 which starts filming in 6 to 7 weeks but his other appearances include Thor (brief appearance), Captain America: The First Avenger (rumored to be as Sgt. Fury), The Avengers, and a picture of his own called "Nick Fury Of SHIELD". So that counts up to 5 pictures thus far.. what would the other 4 remaining films be? "I can't wait to find out myself." was quoted Jackson.
Looks like I can relax about worrying if I need to do another voice pack for Nick Fury.. :cool:
- CQ
I'm glad they got the deal done. Nick Fury not played by Sam would have ruined things for me. Probably my favorite part of the entire Ultimate Universe was basing Fury on him.
Samuel Jackson is like Christopher Walken, he refuses to turn down work so if Marvel wants continuity between movies they could not have picked a better guy.
The other 4 movies are probably options for potential sequels to Avengers, Thor, Iron Man 3, etc.
Ant- Man.
Not enthusiastic about Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. He wouldn't have been my first pick, but I think he'll do well.
I guess one of those unnamed appearances will be in the
ROM: Space Knight direct-to-dumpster release next year.
Spoiler
Relax. There's no ROM movie in the making. Yet.
an animated ROM would be cool.
Quote from: Spring Heeled Jack on February 26, 2009, 05:13:01 PM
Not enthusiastic about Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. He wouldn't have been my first pick, but I think he'll do well.
I guess one of those unnamed appearances will be in the ROM: Space Knight direct-to-dumpster release next year.
Spoiler
Relax. There's no ROM movie in the making. Yet.
Let me guess: You liked David Hasselhoff as Nick Fury?
I'd say casting superhero movies has set very low standards for everyone.
I would give my left thumb for a ROM movie.
Quote from: Spring Heeled Jack on February 26, 2009, 06:33:12 PM
I'd say casting superhero movies has set very low standards for everyone.
Not too bad...
Christian Bale is a great bruce wayne, athough his growling batman makes me laugh.
Ledger was a great Joker, although I disagree a little with the makeup they put on him.
Jackman is a great Wolverine, although he is a bit tall for cannon.
Tobey MaGuire was a great spiderman (although the 3rd movie gave him some bad lines) and pretty much every villain has rocked.
Same goes for Patrick Steward, Ian Mkellen, Kevin Spacey, Ed Norton, ROBERT DOWNEY JR... mostly really good actors in good roles for them.
Hmm. Fair point. So it's the writing that makes the movies bad. :D
Quote from: Spring Heeled Jack on February 26, 2009, 09:48:47 PM
Hmm. Fair point. So it's the writing that makes the movies bad. :D
Why so cynical?
...kill me.
Cynicism implies distrust or pessimism. There's nothing distrustful about saying comic book movies generally have very bad writing. Though I guess you could say I'm pessimistic about Frank Miller's ability to touch anything on film without turning it to crap. :D
I will watch The Watchmen, though, and hope it turns out great. It looks pretty awesome.
I think you are clinging to a perception based on superhero films of the past, which did have horrible actor choices and writing. The more recent crop have been much improved in both areas.
So basically, you're betraying your age, you crotchety old man.
Spoiler
Of course I know you're really far younger than even I am.
You're so old you've lost perspective of time!! :P
No, by and large, comic book movies are plodding, formulaic action movies that can't kindle one-tenth the depth their ink-and-paper progenitors can. Which is my opinion, and if anyone else really likes comic book movies, well, that's fine by me.
Man, I guess we must have just been watching different movies the last few years. Anyway, considering the direction they're taking, this is decent news, but I would have vastly preferred classic Fury. I just love that character...and Jackson ain't him. He's not meant to be, but still.
I, too, prefer classic Fury. It seemed like basing Ultimate Fury on Sammy Jack was Marvel trying its hardest to be hip and cool and appeal to the youth crowd that loves him. Which, I guess, is what a lot of things do.
Still, I can play the Sega Punisher game and be the Nick Fury I love.
True, and that is an AWESOME game.
I'd love to see the old school Nick Fury protrayed in a movie but that version is based on the '60s/70s stereotypical superspy from Flynn, James Bond, to every other knock-off that followed. The only actor that could pull off THAT nick would be Clint Eastwood or some slightly younger actor (he would have to be in his late 50s or higher) to pull off the gruff wartorn vet that's always chewing on cigars and being the hardcase we know and love. We have all seen how badly Nick can be done by getting the wrong actor, a production studio who barely read any of the classic comics he appeared in, and a budget so low that superspy technology couldn't be achieved without horrible CGI and weapons from futuristic episodes of MacGuyver. I can't blame Marvel Studios trying to distance themselves from that version after the bitter taste it left us. And with Hollywood revamping James Bond in the last few years even MGM/UA knew that keeping the same character locked in a time capsule forever was just keeping the franchise stuck in a loop.
Now, Marvel's Ultimates crew took a risk at basing Nick Fury on Samuel L. Jackson.. Nick Fury needed to be a hard arse man who knew that breaking the rules or pissing off the wrong people was part of doing the job that running SHIELD required. A few other filmmakers obviously read the comics because Sammy showed up as a guy running a superspy agency in two movies called xXx (Triple X, for those of you who never saw it) and saw Ultimate Nick Fury on screen but not in the world he belonged in. Sam is a major comic book fan, likes to keep busy making movies, and allowed Marvel to use his likeness so it makes perfect sense for them to use Nick and SHIELD to branch all of Marvels movies together.