Comments on: New Details On Rob Liefeld’s ‘Youngblood’ & ‘Capeshooters’

By: Phil

Phil — Sat, 16 May 2009 21:46:16 +0000

I was about to say the same thing as INK. Your statement still implied that Shadowhawk might have had a possible appearance in the Youngblood movie, hence the confusion. Speaking of which: that’s a hero they should definitely explore as far as movies, especially with his battle with AIDs.

As far as Youngblood goes, I have a feeling this will do about as well as the first Spawn movie, ha.

By: Kofi Outlaw

Kofi Outlaw — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:07:03 +0000

@INK

…Correct you are sir.

By: INK

INK — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:08:14 +0000

@Kofi

Ok, Ok, I give. A misinterpretation on my part. Sorry ’bout that.

BTW I think the saying is “You have nothing to stand on.”

By: kofi outlaw

kofi outlaw — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:47:37 +0000

@INK

You have nothing to stand by! Go back and read my quote

“The first 12 issues or so were a welcome (read: violent) departure from the candy-coated Avengers comics of the time, and introduced me to Shadowhawk, who is still one of my favorite Image heroes.”

Never did I say Shadowhawk WAS a Youngblood or anything like that. What I said is factually accurate.

By: Farradin

Farradin — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:54:50 +0000

I truly think that this is an attempt by Brett Ratner to reignite his appeal to fanboys, after the whole X3 affair. To prove that it was the script and not the directing that was the problem.

Unfortunately, the fact that he inserted no creative input into the film is what led to him being called a hack; and I’m not sure has learned his lesson.

By: INK

INK — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:11:35 +0000

@Kofi

I own it too. And I stand by original post of Shadowhawk having nothing to do with Youngblood. That was a promotion of the comic nothing more, nothing less.

By: Matt K

Matt K — Thu, 14 May 2009 04:44:23 +0000

The fact that Brett Ratner is directing is enough to turn me away.

By: Longshanks

Longshanks — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:28:05 +0000

I’ve met Rob in person before and he’s a really cool guy,but let’s face it,most of his ideas are totally unoriginal.The character Badrock was originally called “Bedrock”,but they changed the name because Rob was sued by Hanna Barbara(bedrock,as in the Flinstones).All of his characters are pretty much Marvel knock-offs and I just don’t even see Youngblood even making it to a wide release.

Now Capeshooters,that’s actually a very interesting concept and they should really be focused on that.I di think that it would benefit from having a different name though.

By: Kofi.outlaw@gmail.com

Kofi.outlaw@gmail.com — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:09:22 +0000

@INK

Always do your comic book homework, my man:

Shadowhawk was first introduced in a preview comic by Valentino that appeared at the end of Youngblood issue# 2. I own it.

By: INK

INK — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:24:33 +0000

@Kofi

Shadowhawk had nothing to do with Youngblood.
It was a separate comic book by Jim Valentino.
Both were published under the Image label but that is as far as any involvement between the two.

As far as Youngblood the movie goes … I feel another “black eye for comics in the making.

By: Paul Young

Paul Young — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:00:25 +0000

I am very disappointed to hear that Badrock will NOT be included in this film. I agree with you Kofi, he would have been the perfect rookie guy to bring in but I guess they have other plans for them film. Or it could be they just don’t have the budget for it since they are using all those extra cameras.

Alas, I fear fanboys are going to have to settle for mediocre or poor comic-to-film and video game-to-film adaptations.

By: Cat

Cat — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:58:04 +0000

I’m glad badrock isn’t it. Just another what’s his name from fantastic four.
Ratner is a hack and will ruin the comic adaptation.
Capeshooters does sound more interesting.