11 Comic Book Movies Coming in 2022...WOW

[WebLurker]

She's getting a colossal upgrade to the leading hero, in an opportunity not being afforded to any other incredible superheroines. Either way, of all the actresses, she deserved it the least.

Captain Marvel and Black Widow already got to be the stars of a solo movie. Sersi was the primary protagonist of the Eternals cast. Wasp was the co-lead of the second Ant-Man movie, as was Black Widow arguably in Winter Soldier. While there's certainly room for more female characters getting the spotlight, Jane Foster is hardly the only one to do so so far.

[Castle]

Out of all the ones coming out Batman excites me the most. Strange is the one that worries me the most as I do think it will run the risk of being a indulgent fan service fest but Raimi being behind the camera puts me somewhat at ease, even though I’m somewhat mixed on his filmography. Morbius is probably the only one of these that I won’t bother to see in theaters. I’ll wait for streaming for that. I don’t have interest in Thor 4. Ragnarok was a dumb fun, but it simply should’ve taken itself more seriously given the story that was being told; the movie was borderline a comedy and if Taika doesn’t the same thing with this one then count me out and frankly Natalie Portman returning is a big turn off for me considering I don’t think much of her as an actress, and her Jane Foster is probably her worst role she’s ever played second to maybe Padme in the Star Wars prequels. I’ll need a good trailer and good reviews to sway me enough to see this one in theaters.

As for Black Panther 2, it’s a tough one as the tragic circumstances left Marvel with only bad options, request the role or do the movie without Chadwick and they choose the latter. I hope for the best with BP2 but I have no interest in a movie without T’Challa, and it’s going to be a tough hill to climb to convince me otherwise.

As for ITSV2, after the Batman, this is my most anticipated superhero movie of the year. That looks to be another groundbreaking film within the genre and animation in general.

Agreed with Spiderverse 2 and The Batman. Unless something really goes wrong, it is safe to predict that they will be the two best films of the 11, artistically speaking of course. Although I will say both are in competition with their past-selves.

The Batman will get compared to the Nolan movies and Spiderverse 2 will get compared to Spiderverse 1, however those films are the films they will have to equal or be better than, not the other films coming out in 2022. it is a different level for higher expectations with The Batman and Spiderverse 2.

[Kieran_Frost]

And what other female character should become a hero that hasn't yet?

Based purely on actresses who tried harder... every single female in the MCU. Every one. I'm pretty sure a lady handing someone coffee in the background shot of one film was trying harder. Natalie Portman does not deserve a chance at a lead in the MCU, based purely on how lazy she was, how little she tried... recast her and sure, get Jane in there. It's not the character's fault Natalie Portman is unprofessional. But if you want names, purely in Thor's world, I'd rather see Frigga (she was epic). Sif! SIF!!! Come on, Sif would be so fantastic, and she really tries whenever she's on screen (loved her appearance in Loki). Bring Alice Krige back as Eir, and make a Doctor Eir, Medicine Goddess camp classic! Who doesn't want more Hela? We all love Cate Blanchett. Cart out Leah! She'd be epic, Leah and Kid Loki for the win! Or the Enchantress! Get her on our screens. See, even actress who've not yet been cast would be better choices, and I'd bet good money would try harder. At this point I'd rather see Darcy get a lead over Natalie Portman, I'd totally watch a science solving mystery film, she was so much fun in WandaVision.

But is it a question of which actress deserves it, or which character?

I think it comes down to which actress. All the ones I listed above would probably jump at the chance to be given a lead role in a Marvel film, to give their character real room to shine (when they've already impressed in much smaller screen time). From a fan's point of view, I get what you mean... but if we want the character, re-cast Jane. Simple. Best of both worlds, lose the bad, giving opportunities to a much more interesting Jane (and giving a different actress a chance to shine).

Anyway, Tessa Thompson is also getting spotlight in this movie and is listed second after Hemsworth, before Portman, on both wikipedia and Marvel's website. And at least for me is the actual reason to watch, since they promise not to downplay her orientation like they did in Ragnarok.

I really hope this is true. Sadly Disney has made lots of big announcements about how hugely vital LGBT+ representation is... and we all know how those turned out in Beauty and Beast, in Lando, in Thor: Ragnarok.

Captain Marvel and Black Widow already got to be the stars of a solo movie. Sersi was the primary protagonist of the Eternals cast. Wasp was the co-lead of the second Ant-Man movie, as was Black Widow arguably in Winter Soldier. While there's certainly room for more female characters getting the spotlight, Jane Foster is hardly the only one to do so so far.

Errrr... I think you're mistaking this as an attack on Jane Foster, based on your last line. Let me be clear, this has nothing to do with Jane Foster (the character). Promise.

[Castle]

She was paid well enough to try. And she didn't. It's so rude that she gets a starring film over every other bad ass female in the MCU. And the idea she needs to be 'sold' on her own boring character is... frankly down to her.


She's getting a colossal upgrade to the leading hero, in an opportunity not being afforded to any other incredible superheroines. Either way, of all the actresses, she deserved it the least.


Heavily disagree there.


No, Robert Patterson, the actor in Batman! I can see your confusion, because it's clearly not a mistake made due to the fact I don't know (or care) how to spell his name. It is instead me fully believing there is a separate entity called Robert Patterson, who I believe is playing Batman. Even though I am aware of the existence of the actor Robert Pattinson, I truly believe Robert Patterson is playing Batman in the upcoming movie instead of Pattinson.

Either that or it's a type.

why. is it that you don't like Cumberbatch's acting? May not surprise me, I feel most of the way he acts is more method acting, which can be a turn off or too jaring for some, especially when given directions by a so-so director like JJ Abrams. (See his performance as Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness)

But I like Cummberbatch overall and I feel he is deemed to be in a higher actors class to Chris(s) of the MCU. (Hemsworth, Evans, Pratt)

I have not really hated him in anything I have seen. Also I would day his performance in Dr Strange 1 was better than every other aspect of the film.

[Kieran_Frost]

why. is it that you don't like Cumberbatch's acting?

In terms of acting, I think he can be excellent, such as in Sherlock or the Imitation Game (2014). But those are VERY specific characters, and actually somewhat similar. In terms of range it's actually not that astounding. But he is getting so lauded, and it's like... come on guys, he's actually not that impressive in most things. The Hobbit, Star Trek, as Sheer Khan, it's all quite... meh. He was the only jarring part of 1917 (2019). And while certain parts of his performance in Power of the Dog (2021) is good... again, calm down people. He's actually depthless in a lot of it.

May not surprise me, I feel most of the way he acts is more method acting, which can be a turn off or too jaring for some, especially when given directions by a so-so director like JJ Abrams. (See his performance as Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness)

He's not a method actor.

But I like Cummberbatch overall and I feel he is deemed to be in a higher actors class to Chris(s) of the MCU. (Hemsworth, Evans, Pratt)

For my money, I actually think Chris Hemsworth is the most interesting of the ones you listed. He doesn't get enough credit for how damn versatile he is with Thor. To me, Hemsworth is getting the Brad Pitt treatment (earlier in his career). People assume his beauty is what makes him awesome, and no; the guy is a damn good actor, his looks are secondary to why we love Thor.

I have not really hated him in anything I have seen. Also I would day his performance in Dr Strange 1 was better than every other aspect of the film.

Hate is too strong. He's talented enough he'll probably never be flat out bad in anything, unless he really starts getting lazy. But his presence in something is not always a good sign for me.

[WebLurker]

Errrr... I think you're mistaking this as an attack on Jane Foster, based on your last line. Let me be clear, this has nothing to do with Jane Foster (the character). Promise.

Then what was the point?

[babyblob]

Then what was the point?

The Point is He would rather see anyone else Portman get a big chance. He does not hate the Character of Foster. But finds Portman very lazy and under whleming in the role. And that Portman should not get the shot. Recast Foster and give it to some one better.

At least that is how I took it.

[Thezmage]

Cumberbatch’a acting in Star Trek Into Darkness was positively Edwardian. As in it was like Edward from Twilight

[Jack The Tripper]

I think Portman is getting a lot of flack here considering that her character was barely a character in those first two Thor films.

Although I understand people having doubts, I think we should give her a chance now that she hopefully has something decent to work with. Personally, my only worry is that Waititi’s fitting a lot of stuff into this film, I hope he finds a way to make it all work. I’ve loved all of his movies though, so I’m optimistic!

[Kieran_Frost]

Then what was the point?

The point is Natalie Portman didn't put in the effort to suddenly get rewarded by an upgrade to lead hero of an MCU film, over every other actress in the franchise (who tried way harder). It has nothing to do with her character. If Chris Hemsworth was fully replaced (as in not even in it) but a female Thor I wouldn't care, he had a great run, and I'd be excited to see Enchantress take the mantle and keep Asgard alive. The issue is solely Natalie Portman.

The Point is He would rather see anyone else Portman get a big chance. He does not hate the Character of Foster. But finds Portman very lazy and under whleming in the role. And that Portman should not get the shot. Recast Foster and give it to some one better.

At least that is how I took it.

You would be 100% correct.

I think Portman is getting a lot of flack here considering that her character was barely a character in those first two Thor films.

Is she? If your character is a little depthless, it's the actor's job to enrich it. To add nuance, cleverness, unexpected quirks. If you're given less to play with, you roll and your sleeves and give even more, because you're a professional. She has an Oscar and was paid millions, did you see evidence of either of those facts in her work in Thor? I know this sounds like I hate Natalie Portman, I don't. She's a wonderful actress. Her recent work in Jackie (2016) was utterly fantastic. And she's had a very impressive career. But in Star Wars, in the MCU... she is (at the very least) 'accepting' the thread-bare character and not fighting to make it better. Cashing the cheque and moving on. And I just think when you're paid over a million pounds to do something... it's just rude and ungrateful of your career's privilege to not try very hard. It's not an endearing quality.

Although I understand people having doubts, I think we should give her a chance now that she hopefully has something decent to work with.

I don't think we need to 'give her a chance', I think she needs to comeback and prove us wrong. The ball is in her court, not ours.

Personally, my only worry is that Waititi’s fitting a lot of stuff into this film, I hope he finds a way to make it all work. I’ve loved all of his movies though, so I’m optimistic!

As long as Disney don't interfere too much, I think it'll be very very cool. Here's hoping.

[babyblob]

Is she? If your character is a little depthless, it's the actor's job to enrich it. To add nuance, cleverness, unexpected quirks. If you're given less to play with, you roll and your sleeves and give even more, because you're a professional. She has an Oscar and was paid millions, did you see evidence of either of those facts in her work in Thor? I know this sounds like I hate Natalie Portman, I don't. She's a wonderful actress. Her recent work in Jackie (2016) was utterly fantastic. And she's had a very impressive career. But in Star Wars, in the MCU... she is (at the very least) 'accepting' the thread-bare character and not fighting to make it better. Cashing the cheque and moving on. And I just think when you're paid over a million pounds to do something... it's just rude and ungrateful of your career's privilege to not try very hard. It's not an endearing quality.


I don't think we need to 'give her a chance', I think she needs to comeback and prove us wrong. The ball is in her court, not ours.

100 percent this.

There are quit a few actors who have been sub par and people are like "Well give them a chance." In Star Wars in the MCU Portman had her chance and she did not do well. it is not people being unfair to her. It is her being unfair to the fans. I will say this on any actor who phones it in. Cant give them a pass because they were good in something else. Nope they did a bad job here. And she has not done a good job in the MCU.

[Jack The Tripper]

She did fine lmao, she wasn’t laughably bad, and she wasn’t a stand out. I don’t think there’s any reason to be actively annoyed she’s been given another chance at (what is hopefully) a better role. When Portman’s at her best she’s better than a lot of actors/actresses already in the MCU imo.

Also, some actors just aren’t as good as others at finding life in a lifeless role and they need better writing and direction. Like how some great musicians are great musicians despite not being able to write a song. It just doesn’t seem like something to be annoyed about, especially when it isn’t a solo movie where she’s the only lead.

[The Kid]

I thought Portman was fine in the first Thor movie. The sequel yeah she was just there for the paycheck and you could tell she was done with the franchise but she was fine as 'regular love interest' in the first film

[Catlady in training]

I never thought that Portman didn't try enough. But it's some time since I watched the first two Thors. I thought there wasn't that much to work with to be honest, it's not like her character was that important to the storyline. I think she's a very good actress and that she'll be good in the next movie.

I really hope this is true. Sadly Disney has made lots of big announcements about how hugely vital LGBT+ representation is... and we all know how those turned out in Beauty and Beast, in Lando, in Thor: Ragnarok.

This, I sadly agree with. Hope they finally deliver.

[Frobisher]

Cumberbatch’a acting in Star Trek Into Darkness was positively Edwardian. As in it was like Edward from Twilight

While I generally prefer it if an actor still gives it their all and chews some scenery when they turn up on set and it's immediately obvious that "this is ****" I have some sympathy, as I can't swear hand-on-heart that I wouldn't just say the lines I was paid to and go home if that was my job.