Cage says it's happening, and possibly to be set in Europe.

Why would this happen? The movie bombed and the Marvel Comics character is hardly ever used!

For one thing, back in the '90s, Ghost Rider was one of the most popular characters Marvel Comics had. For another, as terrible as I think the movie is (and any superhero film Mark Steven Johnson has done so far), I do believe it did pretty well at the box office. And for Hollywood that's all that matters. Then again, Hulk was kinda sucky, but it still got a sequel. The same is true for The Punisher.

Andre, in reading Benn's post, it appears that he was merely trying to answer your question, which is one of the reasons for message boards like this. I do not see any evidence that he thinks he "knows everything about everything".

Your behavior, on the other hand, violates Nitcentral's rules regarding civility. This is supposed to be a CIVIL website, as per Phil Farrand's wishes. There is no profanity (regardless of whether the censorware turns it into red dots), no insults, no flaming, etc. If you are not capable of following these rules, then please, go elsewhere, or you'll find yourself banned from yet one more site. We do not require you or anyone else to "stir anything up."

Well then, why were all the other posts removed from this thread?

And who is in charge of censoring this site exactly?

Inquiring minds (namely me) want to know!

Is anypne going to answer my question?

I still need to know who to blame for the unconstitutional censorship going on around here!

As moderator of the Movie boards, I removed the other posts because they were made in response to the posts you made that were not in keeping with the site's rules, Andre.

None of this is precluded by the Constitution. The Constitution precludes government censorship. It does not preclude someone from conducting things on their private property as they see fit, nor appointing others to do for them, and Nitcentral is indeed Phil Farrand's private property. The Constitution does not permit people to conduct themselves on others' property against the wishes of those properties' owners.

If you don't like this, then go elsewhere.

Andre, I have warned you not to violate Nitcentral's rules of conduct, yet your last three posts each did so. Your first one contained a profane word, even though I warned not to attempt to use them, regardless of the censorware. Most of your second post was off-topic, and your third contained uncivil words to ScottN and profanity.

You don't tell anyone to shut up here. Ever. Nitcentral is an open website, and anyone who follows its rules of conduct are welcome to share their opinions, and do not require your permission to do so.

That said, posting here is a privilege, one granted to us by the site's owners and moderators. Not a right. That privilege can easily be taken away from those who come here only to violate the rules, and it has.

This is your final warning. The next time you violate Nitcentral's rules of conduct, you will be blocked from posting on any boards I moderate.

It'll be darker, says screenwriter David Goyer, who cowrote Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, and is one of the co-creators of Flash Forward.

I didn't know Goyer was on this. Knowing this, I might just check it out.

I won't if Mark Steven Johnson is directing again. Daredevil, Elektra and Ghost Rider were all disappointing (to be charitable) as far as I'm concerned. I absolutely will not EVER watch another superhero film Johnson directs.

Trailer.

The trailer looks good, but there are two things I didn't care for:

First, the introduction by the directors. This is redundant. Trailers do not need this, and having it is like the trailer equivalent of someone explaining a joke to you. Before the joke. It blunts the natural narrative feel of watching a trailer for the first time. Just start the trailer, and be done with it.

Second, the gag at the end. I don't want to GR to be "goofy".

Really cool-looking poster.

Too bad reviewers who attended a preview screening said it was awful, with one commenting that it made the first Ghost Rider look like Dark Knight.

The new trailer is pretty darn good, much like the poster. But if it's as bad as those preview reviewers say, then it's a shame. I might've been curious enough to see it on the basis of the trailer (though not the "Roadkill" line and the "You should be" cliche.)

I noticed, when the trialer ran before Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, that Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is a "Marvel Knight" movie. Is this the first one or was Punisher: War Zone the first one with that tag?

I may still go see this movie. The first one was horrible, IMHO. I'm not a Ghost rider fan by any means, but still... I may go see it just to see it.

I just saw the commercial for this the other day. Had no idea it was already coming out. It actually doesn't look that bad, particularly considering the low quality I hear the first one had.

The bus ads are up here in NYC. Opens this February 17. In 3-D.

I thought this was an okay movie, but I definitely liked the first one better. In fact, this was how dark I thought the first one was going to be.

Nicholas Cage didn't seem to play the same character, and seemed to play it a little more manic, but that was somewhat explained as the Ghost Rider's control was getting stronger. Cage even seemed a little 'puffy' in the face, seemingly showing his age.

Violante Placido was a decent replacement for Eva Mendes as the female lead, usually looking rather sexy.

The first had more laughs, so the bit about the Twinkie that wouldn't decay in Carrigan's hand was a welcome joke.

The 3-D element was forgotten me, unfortunately. I actually forgot that I was watching a 3-D movie, since there weren't objects flying towards the camera.

Just saw it a little ago myself. Some nits:

So when Blaze is Ghost Rider, his leather jacket bubbles up from the heat, huh? If this is the case, then why doesn't the leather start to look progressively worse as the movie goes on? Moreover, the leather does look fairly normal when the Rider reverts back to Blaze.

Does Carrigan consciously control his decay powers or not? Some scenes indicate they are always on, but yet, Carrigan is able to drive the ambulance without destroying it. But at the same time, the sandwich and apple in the ambulance decayed as soon as he touched them. And why didn't the plastic wrapper the Twinkie was in decay?

While I kinda understand why Carrigan's hair turned white after Roark resurrected him and gave Carrigan superpowers, but why did his hair grow so long?

Instead of giving Blaze the Spirit of Vengeance curse again, why didn't Danny take away Carrigan's decay powers? Or do both at the same time?

After losing his powers, Johnny Blaze tells Danny it's for the best since the Rider might one day attack Danny and his mom. Really? Earlier in the film, Danny stopped Ghost Rider in his track without even working up a sweat.

This wasn't a great movie. Decent. Slightly better than the first one, to me.

Now that I think of it, why does Carrigan even bother trying to eat the sandwich, apple and finally the Twinkie^©? Unless I'm mistaken, he's dead. He was certainly dead when Roarke got to him. I thought Carrigan had become of the walking dead. So would he really need to eat conventional food?