Faster, Jessica, kill, kill!
That’s because nothing, absolutely nothing, could be as bad a comic book movie as Spawn.
In fact, I think it’s right up there in the running with Manos for “worst movie ever.”
I dunno. There are a couple of closeups of the Thing suit in the trailer, and I fell back in my seat and groaned at how awful he looked.
Looks to be one of the more badly cast movies of all time. I can’t resist (when it comes out on DVD, anyway).
For the record, Gymkata remains the worstbestworst movie ever. I recommend it for one and all.
Having seen the original (a POV shot from the POV of a blind woman? Lighting a set with a nightlight? SURE!) this one can’t be worse. If nothing else, this one had a catering budget greater than the money Roger Corman had to work with.
And hey, it can’t be worse than Dolph Lundgren’s Punisher. Or that awful Captain America movie. Or Superman IV.
I see your Spawn and raise you one Howard the Duck.
Has anyone here seen the Garfield movie and care to comment? (Hey, it’s a comic, it was in some books, it’s a comic book movie 
)
I went to see Garfield because my four-year-old insisted on seeing it. :rolleyes:
40 minutes into the movie, he wanted to leave because “it’s boring.” 
I’m not so young, and Spawn is still the worst comic book movie, and I’ve seen Captain America and the Dolph Lundgren Punisher. It had a happy ending for christ sake!!! Spawn has never had a happy ending!!!
What was this thread about again? Oh yeah. I’m not going to see it. I’ve just never liked the comic. The reviews aren’t helping either.
Just make sure you don’t get your ass kicked by Homer Simpson.
What happened in 2003? 
rjung, a four-year-old has the attention span of a fruit fly. There’s a reason Sesame Street and Barney break their shows up into tiny skits rather than a single, continued plot. If he could last forty minutes, that says GOOD for the movie.
My nine-year-old, seven-year-old and six-year-old loved the Garfield movie.
Ah, but The Incredibles had a surreal style to it, anchoring it in a comic-book stylised look which allowed for some silly things to be more acceptable. If Fantastic Four had gone for that same approach it might have worked better, but it also would’ve been a step backward in the legitimization of comic-book movies that’s being attempted elsewhere.
See, X-Men works if you call yourselves cool things like Wolverine or Rogue. But it wouldn’t work if they’re called Captain Dogboy and Wonderkid.
This month’s are 828 and 808, respectively.
Checking the math, that checks out for them having continuous runs since their inception.
Neither has starred Superman or Batman exclusively for the whole of their runs, but both have been around consistantly for more than 60 years.
FF might be the longest running strictly superhero book, or the longest run of a single character/team in a single title, or Marvel’s single longest running title, but Action and Detective have it beat for longest running comic book title. I don’t think Superman and Batman (the titles) have had uninterrupted runs, and I know for sure none of their other titles have.
Ooh…and I’m pretty sure a few of the Archie titles have been running continuously since the 40s, at least. Pep comes to mind.
I got confused there, because “Volume 4” ended in 2003, and it looped back to “Volume 1,” although they’re still cranking 'em out. 
Well, I’ll be buggered, Tengu.
Although Action Comics went on hiatus a couple of times (the first time in '86,) Detective Comics has been published continuously. At any rate, you’re right, they both easily beat out Fantastic Four as “longest running.”
I never would have guessed – both titles scream “1930s” to me.
I’ll never be a comic book guy, I guess.
Will they do battle with the likes of the misunderstood mole men?..if so then I’m in. 
Hmm…didn’t know about Action’s breaks. Wonder if I ran the math wrong, or if they ran multiple issues in a month often enough to catch up to what they should be at…
plans to look into that when he has less on his plate
Action was weekly for a while.