h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Kudos and salutations!

I've seen and enjoyed most of the films listed here. I did not see "Howard the Duck," though, as critical responses were uniformly negative. And I got Blade mixed up with Blade Runner, so I didn't go out of my way to see it, as I had seen "Blade Runner" and thought it didn't need any sequels, being fine standing alone.

My only quibble with the Marvel remakes has been with the ongoing reboots of "Spiderman." The films with Tobey Maguire seemed fine, so why make movies with someone els ei that role? If Tobey was getting too old for the character, then make movies about something else! Likewise the more recent Hulk movies. To do a reboot, you need someone appropriate for the title character, or what you end up with will be a mess. Lou Ferrigno was identified with the Hulk in a TV series, so the first movie version deserved better than Eric Bana. Not content with that fiasco, they tried again, this time with equally inappropriate Ed Norton.

For what it's worth, I enjoy knowing the Stan Lee will have cameos. I hope he lives to be 120!

I hadn't spotted your comment here, I'm glad you enjoyed reading it!

With regards 'Spider-Man', the film rights are currently owned by Columbia Pictures, but only if they keep making 'Spider-Man' films. If they don't make a film, the film rights revert back to Marvel. So Columbia Pictures will probably keep making 'Spider-Man' films every few years just to keep hold of the rights until they lose a fortune. Especially as they've now signed a deal in which Sony (who own Columbia) finances and distributes 'Spider-Man' films but Marvel Studios produce and direct them, and are allowed to use 'Spider-Man' characters in 'Avengers' films and vice versa for a total of 6 films.

You're definitely right that the 'Hulk' films have been a disappointment, so the Hulk's been pretty much relegated to being a support character in 'Avengers' films.

<BB<

I was on my soapbox a bit much.