The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

 And at that point it will be really hard to convince people that it hasn't been years within the MCU since we last saw these characters.

Maybe? Because there are always questions about "Where is Whoever?" The remaining Avengers while Wanda was having her crackup. Bucky during the time Erik Killmonger was trying to usurp the throne of Wakanda. Ghost after the Snap, because Scott being stuck in the Quantum Realm is because he went there to help her and I don't believe it was made clear if she was also lost. Suspending disbelief also requires knowing that the missing characters aren't put into a box and set aside until it's time to utilize them again, that we should know they're doing stuff offscreen, including Kate, who must have been coming home from patrol or a stakeout since she had her bow with her and it must have been very late.  I would even argue that Kamala's apparently self-appointed duties as recruiter means she's fresh off of meeting her hero in The Marvels, and despite being significantly younger than Kate she's being trusted to handle it by Fury, even if he's keeping tabs on developments. So I could see it the other way too.

[BetterButter]

‘The Fantastic Four’: Julia Garner Joins Marvel Studios Movie As A Shalla-Bal Version Of Silver Surfer

[Trini]

21 minutes ago, BetterButter said:

‘The Fantastic Four’: Julia Garner Joins Marvel Studios Movie As A Shalla-Bal Version Of Silver Surfer

Skimming wikipedia, it seems like there is NOT a Shalla-Bal version of Silver Surfer, so maybe the details of this casting aren't all correct.

[baldryanr]

Looks pretty silvery to me.

And I'm sure a certain segment of the fandom is getting ready to rant about not using the original (male) version of the character.

Edited April 3 by baldryanr

[Anduin]

31 minutes ago, Trini said:

Skimming wikipedia, it seems like there is NOT a Shalla-Bal version of Silver Surfer, so maybe the details of this casting aren't all correct.

Even if there wasn't previously, there clearly is now.

[Raja]

I guess a misread of the wiki, I am seeing something called Universe X in 1999 had another herald of Galactus gaining the Silver Surfer powers. 

Of course to why her. For the same reason Tuskegee Airmen represented fighter pilots and a woman SOE officer represented spies in the Masters of the Air miniseries. Instead of making someone up use a minority who was already in place.

[Trini]

Okay, cool; there is a version. I don't care one way or another. My main concern is how wrong info gets spread in the rush to be first to 'scoop' movie news.

[Morrigan2575]

Isn't that his girlfriend? Pretty sure she does become a Herald in some AU. I wonder if this is a sign that Fantastic Four aren't from the 60s in MCU but another universe altogether?

I kind of thought they'd have the FOX universe as a single Universe but, it's totally possible they are playing at F4-Univer and X-Universe,  Sony-Spiderverse and MCU

[Cobalt Stargazer]

7 hours ago, BetterButter said:

‘The Fantastic Four’: Julia Garner Joins Marvel Studios Movie As A Shalla-Bal Version Of Silver Surfer

Bonus points if she uses her Ruth Langmore accent.

[Raja]

4 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Isn't that his girlfriend? Pretty sure she does become a Herald in some AU. I wonder if this is a sign that Fantastic Four aren't from the 60s in MCU but another universe altogether?

I kind of thought they'd have the FOX universe as a single Universe but, it's totally possible they are playing at F4-Univer and X-Universe,  Sony-Spiderverse and MCU

While probably done for real world balance to the gate keepers it is like the MCU doing to themselves what was done when they held the popular Ghost Riders for possible later use themselves and would only allow the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. to  use the third most popular Ghost Rider.

So once again, as with The Mighty Thor, Ironheart, and Kate Bishop the question is it the power set that gets a character over or the characterization? In the coming weeks we will see the videos of the gatekeepers saying that it is  the original Silver Surfer's non-superpowered character traits which they,  want on their Fantastic Four movie. With the argument that those characters, not power sets have been workshopped in the comics for decades by us middle aged folks and seniors

[BetterButter]

 

[benteen]

I think it's a mistake if they are using Galactus in the first Fantastic Four film. Galactus is a villain for a second film or maybe even a third film. He's the ultimate threat, once the team has been established. Not using him or the Silver Surfer until the second film was something Fox actually got right, which of course meant nothing once they decided to make the character a freakin cloud. If Marvel is using Galactus and the Surfer for the first film then it is a complete panic move on their part.

I've been a fan of Julia Garner since The Americans. She is consistently good in whatever she's in. But I find it puzzling that Marvel is going with the most obscure version of the Silver Surfer imaginable. This isn't like going woth the John Stewart version of the Green Lantern. I've read comic books for a long time and I never even heard of this version of The Silver Surfer until today

[Raja]

29 minutes ago, benteen said:

I think it's a mistake if they are using Galactus in the first Fantastic Four film. Galactus is a villain for a second film or maybe even a third film. He's the ultimate threat, once the team has been established. Not using him or the Silver Surfer until the second film was something Fox actually got right, which of course meant nothing once they decided to make the character a freakin cloud. If Marvel is using Galactus and the Surfer for the first film then it is a complete panic move on their part.

Of course like the MCU did earlier with characters in post credit scenes the herald can point to a later appearance. Sort of like Terrance Howard ending Iron Man with "next time baby" for War Machine to appear in Iron Man 2. 

[Morrigan2575]

I agree that using Galactus now is a huge waste, it's something to build up to. Unless we don't get Galactus only the Herald. Similar to how we only got hints of Thanos in Avengers 2012 and  Guardians had Ronin working for Thanos.

Or maybe The Herald and Galactus are the impetus for what brings Fantastic Four from their Universe, into the MCU?

Edited April 4 by Morrigan2575

[Cobalt Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Raja said:

So once again, as with The Mighty Thor, Ironheart, and Kate Bishop the question is it the power set that gets a character over or the characterization?

Yes?

Since I'm not a comics person, I don't know enough about Silver Surfer to speak to his power set, but IMO casting is just as important, and for the most part the MCU has done very well in that area. As @benteen says, Garner has been consistently good in everything she's done, even if she's not hugely famous. If anything, casting a lesser-known actress might help with characterization, give her some leeway when it comes to bringing the character to life onscreen. The power set is the easy part, even if it's important; it's what behind the powers that makes the characters relatable.

[Tenshinhan]

Galactus in the first movie could mean anything.  This isn't the old days when comic book movie plots were self-contained, or when they would raise the stakes gradually throughout trilogies and so forth.  They don't actually have to defeat Galactus in the film; it could just be a precursor to something more in subsequent films.  Especially with the Surfer in the mix.

 

5 hours ago, benteen said:

But I find it puzzling that Marvel is going with the most obscure version of the Silver Surfer imaginable.

I don't really think that's what they are doing.  I think they are essentially substituting the original Norrin Radd Surfer with the Shalla-Bal character.  My guess is that the fact that she was briefly the Surfer at one point has little or nothing to do with it.

I like the idea of a female Surfer and think it might offer a unique perspective for the films to explore, and is more interesting than if they went with a male Surfer in my view.

 

[arc]

Bleeding Cool liveblog from Disney's presentation at CinemaCon. The Marvel bits:

• Fantastic Four and Thunderbolts* will both be shot entirely in IMAX
• Thunderbolts* will include the asterisk as part of the official title. Marvel will not explain the asterisk until the movie has been released.
• Deadpool will get a special popcorn bucket

[Morrigan2575]

I am now curious about that *

[rmontro]

It's a different universe's Silver Surfer, so I suppose it doesn't matter much, although clearly some comic fans don't feel served by this.  Problem is, this is a different universe's Fantastic Four also, so why should we care about them?

Rumor is this Fantastic Four will be made a permanent part of the MCU reality, along with the X-Men, by some cosmic event.  Okay.  Now what about the female Silver Surfer?  Does she get moved to the MCU also, or do we get Norrin Radd?  I'm guessing, and I prefer, the latter.  Because I don't like changes to iconic characters simply to please DEI standards, as opposed to storyline and serving the fans of the source material.

[Raja]

8 minutes ago, rmontro said:

It's a different universe's Silver Surfer, so I suppose it doesn't matter much, although clearly some comic fans don't feel served by this.  Problem is, this is a different universe's Fantastic Four also, so why should we care about them?

Back in the day with Michael Keaton I remember someone saying you cast Bruce Wayne not Batman. I this case Marvel is promoting a silver clad surfer while the gatekeepers have loudly said we want the guy whose name I would copy and paste from Google since I remember nothing special about him besides the skill set from my childhood.

The question is how much a factor the nerds excitement in finally having their stories "told right" was a driver in the billions the Avengers made? Without their collective seal of approval are MCU productions just another movie. Another in a long line that did it wrong before Jon Favreau and Joss Whedon brought the MCU's most important films in correct enough for them.

[rmontro]

5 hours ago, Raja said:

The question is how much a factor the nerds excitement in finally having their stories "told right" was a driver in the billions the Avengers made? Without their collective seal of approval are MCU productions just another movie. Another in a long line that did it wrong before Jon Favreau and Joss Whedon brought the MCU's most important films in correct enough for them.

I've been saying this all along, but a lot of people disagree.  IMO, you have to please the core comic book fans, you have to please the fans of the source material, because then you create a positive foundation from which to sell the product to a larger audience.  Displease the core fans, and you create negativity and bad word of mouth around your movie, that simply isn't necessary.

And maybe, just maybe, it's a good thing to respect the source material, because maybe, just maybe, there was something good there that attracted people to it in the first place. 

This is main difference between the earlier MCU movies (up through say, Endgame), and the ones we've received since.  And it's clear a lot of this is because Disney is more interested in pushing their agenda than in pleasing the fans.  

[shrewd.buddha]

On 4/11/2024 at 9:07 PM, arc said:

• Thunderbolts* will include the asterisk as part of the official title. Marvel will not explain the asterisk until the movie has been released.

Not sure if this is considered a spoiler, but ..

Spoiler

I saw speculation somewhere (thought it was here) .. but the theory was that the "*" was placeholder for a name change (or subtitle) - and that the Thunderbolts might end up being the Dark Avengers. Not sure if that means in actual name or concept. 

Edited April 22 by shrewd.buddha

[Cobalt Stargazer]

15 hours ago, rmontro said:

I've been saying this all along, but a lot of people disagree.  IMO, you have to please the core comic book fans, you have to please the fans of the source material, because then you create a positive foundation from which to sell the product to a larger audience.  Displease the core fans, and you create negativity and bad word of mouth around your movie, that simply isn't necessary.

And maybe, just maybe, it's a good thing to respect the source material, because maybe, just maybe, there was something good there that attracted people to it in the first place. 

This is main difference between the earlier MCU movies (up through say, Endgame), and the ones we've received since.  And it's clear a lot of this is because Disney is more interested in pushing their agenda than in pleasing the fans.  

All of this is interesting, but I would point out that no one can decide (or tell me, if they can decide) what a 'core comic book fan' is. I've said this before, but the source material is loaded with "agenda", and that was way before Disney acquired the rights to make these movies. Is the idea that we should respect the comics, but also remove anything that might smack of politics? Because that's not respecting the material, it's turning it into something it isn't and never was. I'm treading lightly so the mods don't get annoyed, but even you have said you're okay with them changing some things, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming back to the idea that changes are inherently bad and disrespectful.

[Tenshinhan]

22 hours ago, rmontro said:

Because I don't like changes to iconic characters simply to please DEI standards, as opposed to storyline and serving the fans of the source material.

There's no way of knowing whether or not a female Silver Surfer was devised to simply satisfy DEI standards.

It's not difficult to imagine a female Surfer being chosen for storyline purposes, while also serving fans of the source material at the same time.

16 hours ago, rmontro said:

And it's clear a lot of this is because Disney is more interested in pushing their agenda than in pleasing the fans.  

What exactly is Disney's "agenda" as you see it?

[rmontro]

27 minutes ago, Tenshinhan said:

What exactly is Disney's "agenda" as you see it?

What you've said and they've said, DEI.  Feige has said they want 51% of the heroes to be female, and reportedly when he saw the first three cast members of the Fantastic Four, his response was "Too white".  Followed by their hiring Pedro Pascal.  Now I think Pascal will likely do a passable job, but you have to admit, he doesn't exactly scream "Reed Richards".

It may very well be as you say, that they chose the female Surfer for story reasons, but given their stated intentions, and past actions, I think it's much more likely she is there to satisfy the DEI factor.  What Disney should realize is comic book fans have always been mostly male, and buy into that.  I think I saw a stat that even with The Marvels (a movie aimed more at females), the audience was 2/3 male.  As I said before, "Shalla Bel Surfer" doesn't ruin the movie for me, but I would expect to get Norrin Radd in the 616 Universe.

There are also rumors that Sue will be considered the lead and focus of the FF movie.  I can see how they might effectively tell the movie from her viewpoint, but if you know Marvel comics history, the Reed Richards character should really be the next Tony Stark, but better.  Some have speculated that they will turn this Reed Richards into The Maker, but if they do that, what is the point of getting us attached to this Fantastic Four team?  Unless they don't plan on having any sequels.  Which, I guess they won't, if it bombs.  But you would still expect the FF to be popping up in MCU movies fairly routinely for the near future at leats.

[Tenshinhan]

47 minutes ago, rmontro said:

What you've said and they've said, DEI.  Feige has said they want 51% of the heroes to be female, and reportedly when he saw the first three cast members of the Fantastic Four, his response was "Too white".  Followed by their hiring Pedro Pascal.  Now I think Pascal will likely do a passable job, but you have to admit, he doesn't exactly scream "Reed Richards".

It may very well be as you say, that they chose the female Surfer for story reasons, but given their stated intentions, and past actions, I think it's much more likely she is there to satisfy the DEI factor.  What Disney should realize is comic book fans have always been mostly male, and buy into that.  I think I saw a stat that even with The Marvels (a movie aimed more at females), the audience was 2/3 male.  As I said before, "Shalla Bel Surfer" doesn't ruin the movie for me, but I would expect to get Norrin Radd in the 616 Universe.

There are also rumors that Sue will be considered the lead and focus of the FF movie.  I can see how they might effectively tell the movie from her viewpoint, but if you know Marvel comics history, the Reed Richards character should really be the next Tony Stark, but better.  Some have speculated that they will turn this Reed Richards into The Maker, but if they do that, what is the point of getting us attached to this Fantastic Four team?  Unless they don't plan on having any sequels.  Which, I guess they won't, if it bombs.  But you would still expect the FF to be popping up in MCU movies fairly routinely for the near future at leats.

I don't think that socially responsible filmmaking is a bad thing.  Those DEI standards are in place for a purpose.  Also, you can be socially responsible while also serving the story and pleasing the fans, all at the same time.  Take out Norrin Radd and replace him with Shalla-Bal and you can do just that.  There's a whole lot to gain by making Silver Surfer a female instead of keeping him male in my view.  Of course there will still be some fans who prefer Norrin Radd, but you can't please everyone.

Centering the film around Susan is another good idea that can be both socially responsible and serve the story.  It's also something that is rooted in the comic books.

I don't know about "the next Tony Stark", but Reed Richards could still be an important character and become a fan favorite with Sue as the lead of the film.  It all depends on the writing.

[Kel Varnsen]

2 hours ago, Tenshinhan said:

It's not difficult to imagine a female Surfer being chosen for storyline purposes, while also serving fans of the source material at the same time.

I feel like if you try to cater to comic fans who want to stick to using the source material it can easily become a "your damned if you do and damned if you don't" kind of scenario. Because say if they decided to use the original Surfer in the FF movie. Any changes to his back story, characterization or powers could open Marvel up to the same type of complaints they would get for using a different Surfer character. But if you go with someone different and lesser known, you now have a lot more options to make a movie character that works better in the context of the story you are trying to tell. And the complaints you get probably would have happened either way.

[rmontro]

2 hours ago, Tenshinhan said:

I don't think that socially responsible filmmaking is a bad thing.  Those DEI standards are in place for a purpose.  Also, you can be socially responsible while also serving the story and pleasing the fans, all at the same time.  Take out Norrin Radd and replace him with Shalla-Bal and you can do just that. 

Bearing in mind that I don't particularly care that they're using Shalla-Bel in this case since it's a different universe, and we may see Norrin Radd in the regular MCU:

Being "socially responsible" is fine, but there are plenty of ways to do that without having to change iconic characters.  People don't want their very favorite characters gender swapped or race swapped, they want to see their favorites up on the screen, as if they had walked off the comic book pages.  That's why RDJ worked so well as Tony Stark, he looked and acted like the comic book character.  Why can't they show some creativity and create new characters that are "socially responsible" instead of hijacking old ones?

Sue has acted as field leader for the Fantastic Four at times during the comic's run, but Reed is the leader of the Fantastic Four, and always will be.  He is the entire reason they exist, and they go on their adventures because Reed is such a gifted genius that they have a unique opportunity to aid humanity by helping him bring his vision to life.

[Tenshinhan]

3 hours ago, rmontro said:

Sue has acted as field leader for the Fantastic Four at times during the comic's run, but Reed is the leader of the Fantastic Four, and always will be.  He is the entire reason they exist, and they go on their adventures because Reed is such a gifted genius that they have a unique opportunity to aid humanity by helping him bring his vision to life.

Reed can still be the leader of the team even if they make Sue the lead character and focus of the film.  Having the story revolve around Sue doesn't necessarily diminish Reed's role and vision.  It all depends on the writing and how they choose to tell the story.  

[JustHereForFood]

Disney's agenda is the same as that of every company that isn't a non-profit in a capitalistic (read: fair) economy. To make profit. As it should be.

If they think that by now, not having most of the main characters be exclusively straight-cis, male and white is the way to make more profit, they should stick to it for more than few movies, because the current numbers can't IMO reasonably confirm if the smaller viewership is due to that or to the changes in the industry (pandemic, strikes, putting movies quickly on Disney+, ...). The last few years have been rough in general.

What we now know is that until a few years ago, there was an intentional bias against having women and people of color as main characters. Having them now is putting things to normal, not having an opposite bias. (I'm not saying that that is impossible, but that is IMO not what is happening ... come on, the majority of main characters is still straight-cis male white characters. Even if they only produced movies with only non-white gay women for a few years, it would take a lot of time to get to a balance. And that is not happening either. Last time I checked, the next movie is Deadpool and Wolverine, two white cis dudes - one is not straight so that is something at least.)

Regarding catering to only comic book fans, that was never the case. They want to make movies for general audiences. There are always some nods and easter eggs for comic book fans, but that's it. And if they wanted to cater exclusively to comic book fans ... well, good luck with that, we can't agree on anything, lol, so the chances that people would be pissed no matter what would IMO be even higher 😄. Plus, you know, much smaller audience, which would mean much smaller budget (not necessarily a bad thing if they concentrated more on practical effects and less on CGI, but then we wouldn't have all those pretty visuals we got used to, so a double-edged sword.)

[rmontro]

16 hours ago, Tenshinhan said:

Reed can still be the leader of the team even if they make Sue the lead character and focus of the film.  Having the story revolve around Sue doesn't necessarily diminish Reed's role and vision.  It all depends on the writing and how they choose to tell the story.  

Agreed.  One of the problems with the MCU's attempts to push more female heroines is they haven't done a good job of writing real female, feminine characters.  If they can do that with Sue, while keeping Reed as the true, but distracted and sometimes misguided genius, they'll do well.

 

10 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

What we now know is that until a few years ago, there was an intentional bias against having women and people of color as main characters. Having them now is putting things to normal, not having an opposite bias.

Having more diversity is fine.  Intentionally changing beloved characters in order to fill out those quotas is not.  And I want to tell you, there are few things in pop culture as beloved to me as the Fantastic Four.  I've been a fan since I was in the single digits. 

And I completely disagree that you cannot serve comic book fans.  It isn't that complicated.  They have done it, for the most part, up through Endgame.  We don't ask for anything that unreasonable, for the most part.  Most of us are aware there are differences in the film and comic format, and don't expect page by page recreations.  We just want a little respect, and for them to capture the essence of the books that make them entertaining.

[Kel Varnsen]

31 minutes ago, rmontro said:

We don't ask for anything that unreasonable, for the most part.

Do you really think that comic book fans are a united "we" who all want the same thing?

[rmontro]

21 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Do you really think that comic book fans are a united "we" who all want the same thing?

No, but I think there is a sweet spot in there.  And more particularly, there are fans of each team or character.  If you're a fan of Superman, for example, you probably want him to be from the planet Krypton, and not Viltrum.  You might want him to be adopted by a couple named the Kents.  You might want to see him seek a career in journalism.  You might want to see him with a good upbringing, and not killing people left and right like he's the Punisher.

[Chyromaniac]

Okay, so what if the Silver Surfer in the MCU is from Zenn-La, makes a deal with Galactus to spare the planet, and goes on to be his herald until reaching earth and confronting the F4?  Everything about the character's motives, emotions, personality and ethics are the same, and the plotline and visuals are presented with all the gravitas of the original comics.  The only difference is that instead of a shiny naked guy on a surfboard, it's a shiny naked lady.  Why is that a big deal?  If it's the same story with the same messages, it should have the same meaning right?

[Raja]

10 minutes ago, Chyromaniac said:

Okay, so what if the Silver Surfer in the MCU is from Zenn-La, makes a deal with Galactus to spare the planet, and goes on to be his herald until reaching earth and confronting the F4?  Everything about the character's motives, emotions, personality and ethics are the same, and the plotline and visuals are presented with all the gravitas of the original comics.  The only difference is that instead of a shiny naked guy on a surfboard, it's a shiny naked lady.  Why is that a big deal?  If it's the same story with the same messages, it should have the same meaning right?

Do you cast Bruce Wayne or any ole  man, or woman, in a mask and a cape is the question.

[rmontro]

24 minutes ago, Chyromaniac said:

Okay, so what if the Silver Surfer in the MCU is from Zenn-La, makes a deal with Galactus to spare the planet, and goes on to be his herald until reaching earth and confronting the F4?  Everything about the character's motives, emotions, personality and ethics are the same, and the plotline and visuals are presented with all the gravitas of the original comics.  The only difference is that instead of a shiny naked guy on a surfboard, it's a shiny naked lady.  Why is that a big deal?  If it's the same story with the same messages, it should have the same meaning right?

It's not a big deal to me.  But if someone was a huge Silver Surfer/Norrin Radd fan, I would understand it if they were a little disappointed, because they wanted to see their favorite debut in the MCU, and now is either going to have to wait, or never get it.  And there are people upset about it.  But although I like the Surfer, I'm not upset about this, mainly because I think we'll eventually be getting Norrin Radd Surfer in the 616 universe.  Rumors are the FF universe is going to be destroyed, possibly by an incursion.  Does that kill off Lady Surfer?

Wasn't there going to be a Silver Surfer TV series on Disney Plus?  Was that one of the projects that got cancelled when Disney went into the dumpster?

[Tenshinhan]

I honestly think that the days of comic book fans getting to see their favorite characters depicted as they were in the source material are over.  Or at least on their way out.  The movies have evolved past that in the last twenty years, and are now more interested in reimagining and recreating the source stories and characters instead.  Yeah, it sucks for those fans who may not have gotten the chance to see their favorite characters adapted onscreen before now, but it looks like this is just the direction things are going.

[Chyromaniac]

41 minutes ago, Raja said:

Do you cast Bruce Wayne or any ole  man, or woman, in a mask and a cape is the question.

I'm not talking about any old man or woman - I'm talking about presenting a character that is essentially the same in every way to the original, the only difference being that it's a woman instead of a man.  Same personality, same storyline - would that character have the same resonance?  If not then I think we know what the issue is.  However, for the sake of argument: Wealthy orphan grows up to fight a lone crusade against crime, while dressed like a bat.  Is there anything which necessitates being played by a man?

23 minutes ago, rmontro said:

if someone was a huge Silver Surfer/Norrin Radd fan, I would understand it if they were a little disappointed, because they wanted to see their favorite debut in the MCU, and now is either going to have to wait, or never get it.

Growing up one of my favorite books was Wonder Man, and back then I thought Bruce Campbell would've been a great Simon.  I thought his humor and attitude would've been a good fit for the character.

However, I am perfectly happy now that Yaya Abdul Mateen II got the part - because I think he's a quality actor, and I'm interested in seeing what he brings to the character.  Same if they had cast (for example) Sonequa Martin-Green or Jodie Comer as "Simone Williams."  If the show is good and it feels like they've captured the spirit of the character, I'll be happy.  But I'm not going to be disappointed just because they cast someone different from how he appeared back in the comics.

Overall though, Disney doesn't need to worry about chasing the diminishing audience of people who read comics decades ago. TBH, if the MCU is going to continue, then their biggest need is to replace the Millennials and Gen Z that have now aged out of the original film fandom.  They need to find a way to appeal to Gen Alpha - kids who seem to connect with heroes like Miles and Gwen who speak to their experiences.  In retrospect, they probably should've leaned harder into Young Avengers - build a new group of characters that they could invest in.  But, maybe this version of the F4 and Surfer Shanna can be that group for today's kids the way that the comics version were in the 60's.

[rmontro]

2 hours ago, Chyromaniac said:

I'm not talking about any old man or woman - I'm talking about presenting a character that is essentially the same in every way to the original, the only difference being that it's a woman instead of a man.  Same personality, same storyline - would that character have the same resonance?  If not then I think we know what the issue is. 

That sounds a little judgemental.  When I was growing up, we were told we weren't supposed to "see color", because that was racist.  Now we are told we are supposed to see color or people won't be seen.  In other words, we are told that race is part of the experience of the person.  So if that is the case, how could it be the same person if you change their race?  If you think about it, that doesn't make sense.

I haven't seen the new Wonder Man yet, but the race change there doesn't bother me.  But if it is one of my very favorite characters, no I don't want the race changed, or anything else changed about them.  Besides which, it's lazy.  Make new compelling characters that are more diverse.  That makes more sense anyway.  Most of these characters from the Lee/Kirby days were from a time when the US was not at all as diverse as it is now, not even close.  Let's have some creativity today, Hollywood seems to rely only on sequels, reboots, remakes, and adaptations these days.  Where are today's creators?

[Tenshinhan]

6 hours ago, Chyromaniac said:

The only difference is that instead of a shiny naked guy on a surfboard, it's a shiny naked lady.  Why is that a big deal?  If it's the same story with the same messages, it should have the same meaning right?

 

4 hours ago, Chyromaniac said:

Same personality, same storyline - would that character have the same resonance?  If not then I think we know what the issue is. 

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification.  I disagree that the meaning or resonance should remain the same if you switched the sex or race of a specific character.  There are certain essential traits that human beings and individuals identify with that are associated with notions like race and gender.  I agree with rmontro in the sense that many audience members might connect differently to a female version of a character than to a male, or to a non-white character than a white character etc.

Further, one of the reasons I like the idea of replacing the male Silver Surfer with a woman/female is because of the unique opportunity to do different things with the character than you could otherwise.  How might a woman react to being separated from her homeworld and lover?  How might a woman experience and endure living and serving at the will of Galactus?  How does a woman perceive and understand the power and nature of the universe?  This particular kind of perspective is worth exploring in my view, and is an example of the value that can be gained by reimagining stories and characters in a different lens.

[Kel Varnsen]

7 hours ago, rmontro said:

No, but I think there is a sweet spot in there.  And more particularly, there are fans of each team or character.  If you're a fan of Superman, for example, you probably want him to be from the planet Krypton, and not Viltrum.  You might want him to be adopted by a couple named the Kents.  You might want to see him seek a career in journalism.  You might want to see him with a good upbringing, and not killing people left and right like he's the Punisher.

But times change and you have to make changes to make the stories work? Tony Stark wasn't fighting communists in Asia in 2008 since that wouldn't have really made sense. And Hank Pym isn't a spouse abuser since no one wants to see Michael Douglas hit Michelle Pfeiffer.

7 hours ago, Raja said:

Do you cast Bruce Wayne or any ole  man, or woman, in a mask and a cape is the question.

You mean like Terry McGinnis or any of the times Robin has become Batman? Or Batgirl/Bat-Woman? Even in comics it's not like things stay the same forever. My favourite is that there is no story from the 40's where Captain America falls in the ice and is frozen for decades. That's just something that they made up in 1963. 

[JustHereForFood]

Since we're at a point of sharing personal anecdotes, I wanted to see Gambit as part of the X-Men movies, because he's my favorite X-character. I was a bit disappointed when he never appeared in any of the main movies, but I understood, as there are many of them and you can't have them all. I was one of the few people who liked the first Wolverine movie and loved the way Gambit was portrayed there. I was a bit vary when Channing Tatum wanted to do a solo Gambit movie, because 1. I don't think that any of the X-Men besides maybe Wolverine need solo movies seeing that it's a team, and 2. I did not see Channing Tatum as Gambit at all. But ... I was still happy that someone likes the character enough to want to make a movie about him. It didn't even occur to me to throw tantrums that it's not done the way I want it to be, because having a movie at all usually means that there is more attention on the character in comics, several of classics get a reprint as the company is trying to maximize on the momentum, there are more potential new fans of the character and those might eventually get to read the stories that made me fall in love with the character and have a similar experience and what can be better than that as a fan?

 

12 hours ago, rmontro said:

Agreed.  One of the problems with the MCU's attempts to push more female heroines is they haven't done a good job of writing real female, feminine characters.  If they can do that with Sue, while keeping Reed as the true, but distracted and sometimes misguided genius, they'll do well.

MCU didn't do so well with their female characters (an understatement) in part IMO because the best Marvel female characters are in the X-Men comics and then in Fantastic Four. There is no Marvel equivalent to Wonder Woman. Marvel works IMO better with teams. I think they can make a new success now that they have all of them in the same playground.

[Enigma X]

Gambit has always been my favorite X-Men character, too, but I was happy Channing never got to play the role. While I appreciate his admiration for the character, he was just never the right person in my mind (and we know that is all that matters 😀) for the role.

[Morrigan2575]

16 hours ago, Chyromaniac said:

Okay, so what if the Silver Surfer in the MCU is from Zenn-La, makes a deal with Galactus to spare the planet, and goes on to be his herald until reaching earth and confronting the F4?  Everything about the character's motives, emotions, personality and ethics are the same, and the plotline and visuals are presented with all the gravitas of the original comics.  The only difference is that instead of a shiny naked guy on a surfboard, it's a shiny naked lady.  Why is that a big deal?  If it's the same story with the same messages, it should have the same meaning right?

Instead of casting a woman to play Norrin Radd and call it diversity they should use Juno and, introduce her and HER origin story to the mass audience. If they are doing Shalla-Bal, they could maybe get away with it if they skip the Origin Story and, have her be reunited with Norrin Radd centuries later only for him to die (off screen/backstory) leaving her the Herald of Galactus.  That could be an interesting storyline,  especially if Fantastic Four's universe is destroyed and, they have to jump to the MCU where Norrin Radd is alive as the Herald of Galactus. 

IMO the biggest push back from comic fans is unnecessary changes to known characters. What Marvel should be doing is utilizing the already exisitng gay, minority, female characters and bringing them to the attention of the mass audience. 

Now, granted some of that may have been because X-Men/Alpha Flight/New Warriors(?) were sold to FOX.

Edited April 24 by Morrigan2575

[Morrigan2575]

3 hours ago, Enigma X said:

Gambit has always been my favorite X-Men character, too, but I was happy Channing never got to play the role. While I appreciate his admiration for the character, he was just never the right person in my mind (and we know that is all that matters 😀) for the role.

I remember when the Gambit movie was announced,  I couldn't see it and was quite unhappy,  especially after Wolverine Origins.  I could bitch about Wolverine Origins for days...only good thing was casting Reynolds as Deadpool (but they still managed to screw it up).

Making Emma Frost, Silver Fox's sister? 😏 Having her already in her Diamond form (which I think is her secondary mutation) was bad, the only good thing IMO was they hinted at Emma/Scott which I loved but, I hate Jean Grey and Jean/Scott. Sadly, I must accept those 2 are OTP, pretty sure Scott/Jean are back together, perhaps still in the Thruple with Wolverine. 🤢

[rmontro]

5 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

MCU didn't do so well with their female characters (an understatement) in part IMO because the best Marvel female characters are in the X-Men comics and then in Fantastic Four. There is no Marvel equivalent to Wonder Woman. Marvel works IMO better with teams. I think they can make a new success now that they have all of them in the same playground.

They did pretty well with Natasha/Black Widow, she always came across as real (or as real as can be in a superhero movie).  She was highly skilled, but you never got the impression she didn't earn it, or just magically have it like a Mary Sue, she was trained intensively.  Of course that was before Marvel started failing.

[ICantDoThatDave]

I think in regards to being comic-accurate & pleasing the fans, it's important to get the character right, but not so much the stories.  Like how Robert Downey Jr. was basically "Iron Man jumped off the page into movies".  Or how Chris Evans embodied Captain America.

It's much less important that the whole Infinity Gauntlet movie arc, or the Civil War storyline, didn't follow the comics.  But the characters involved were portrayed accurately, both in resemblance & personality.

I know this is the Marvel thread, but as a personal example, I had no interest in The Flash once I saw their portrayal of Supergirl in the trailers (I know there are many problems with that movie, but just to focus on my point).  I have several action figures of Supergirl.  I have many Supergirl comics.  I am a huge fan of Supergirl.  My brother got me a Cameo from Laura Vandervoort, the Supergirl actress from Smallville, for my birthday one year!

But they didn't get the look, much less the personality, of Supergirl right in that movie, so I had no interest - active disinterest even.  Because they didn't accurately portray Supergirl correctly.

Basically, if the character is done right, looks comics-accurate, carries the persona... that's all comics fans are looking for.  And comics fans are the ones who recommend movies/shows to their non-comics friends & family, which can really help spread interest.

[Tenshinhan]

3 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

But they didn't get the look, much less the personality, of Supergirl right in that movie, so I had no interest - active disinterest even.  Because they didn't accurately portray Supergirl correctly.

Supergirl does not have to be a blonde white girl to be "done right" or portrayed accurately on film.

Also, aside from the fact that she was supposed to be from an alternate reality in that film anyway, her personality was not really that different than how she has been depicted in some Modern Age versions.

And not all comic book fans need or desire to see the characters look the same, or sometimes, even behave the same on film.  Of course many of them do, but there are many fans who do not.

[Raja]

6 hours ago, rmontro said:

They did pretty well with Natasha/Black Widow, she always came across as real (or as real as can be in a superhero movie).  She was highly skilled, but you never got the impression she didn't earn it, or just magically have it like a Mary Sue, she was trained intensively.  Of course that was before Marvel started failing.

I think we see the difference when we got to the movie, as opposed to the Agent Carter Red Room. Being a woman and the effect she had on  men was a large part of a Black Widow's skill set. With Yelena Belova and her Red Room of sisters doing a kata with guns, except the director using women the assassins could have been men.

Edited April 25 by Raja

[ICantDoThatDave]

1 hour ago, Tenshinhan said:

Supergirl does not have to be a blonde white girl to be "done right" or portrayed accurately on film.

That's so disingenuous that you had to know it wasn't true when you typed it.  She's been a white girl with blonde hair since 1959.  That's not even the point & you knowingly, disingenuously, gaslighted the point.

1 hour ago, Tenshinhan said:

Also, aside from the fact that she was supposed to be from an alternate reality in that film anyway, her personality was not really that different than how she has been depicted in some Modern Age versions.

Hi, tell me you know nothing about Supergirl without telling me you know nothing about Supergirl.  Kara Zor-El is always portrayed as optimistic, fun-loving, loves using her powers.  She came to Earth at age 17, fully powered, totally different from Clark.

Her exuberance, her optimism, is central to her personality.  If you think The Flash portrayed Supergirl correctly, you are just... wrong.