The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[Tenshinhan]

1 hour ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

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. 

Like I said, Supergirl does not have to be a blonde white woman to be portrayed accurately on film.  She can be a dark-haired Latina or anything else and still be Supergirl.  There's much more to an accurate portrayal than a character's appearance and/or ethnicity.

 

1 hour ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

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.

Pre-crisis Kara maybe.  But post-crisis, Supergirl has often been portrayed as troubled, both emotionally and psychologically.  Her background and life circumstances shaped her in ways that set her apart from Superman.  The optimism is not always there.

Even if it were true, that still wouldn't automatically rule out The Flash being an accurate portrayal of Supergirl.  There are many different components to the nature of any one character.

[arc]

9 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

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". 

But he wasn’t! Tony Stark in the comics before 2008 was a billionaire genius playboy drunk, sure, but the wisecracking — the personality — was invented for the movie. Someone had a good take that there really hadn’t been a funny live-action Spider-Man by 2008, the guy who cracks jokes at his enemies’ expense while fighting them, so Marvel Studios basically took that aspect of comics Peter Parker and gave it to MCU Tony Stark. And obviously RDJ was aces at playing that. It was a great character but it wasn’t really comic-accurate*. 
 

Really, Tony at that point was a B-list hero in the Marvel Comics stable partly because he didn’t have that much of a personality. And considering Marvel Studios and RDJ never wanted to fully adapt “Demon in a Bottle”, the alcoholism story that’s one of the biggest classics of the Iron Man lore**, they had to figure out some other thing for Tony to be, so… they made him be this guy.
 

* ok, I suppose there was an aspect of flippant rule-breaker in the Ultimate Universe version of Tony. But 616 Tony wasn’t like that.
 

** I mean, it’s basically his origin, Demon in a Bottle, and Armor Wars.

[Morrigan2575]

9 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

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.

For the most part I agree, Deadpool is a perfect example of getting the tone/characters right while developing a new storyline. 

However, there are instances where movies are trying to adapt a specific/well known (at least to comics fans) storyline, where i think they need to prioritize the story over the character...looking at you Dark Phoenix/Age of Apocalypse 

[Kel Varnsen]

9 hours ago, arc said:

But he wasn’t! Tony Stark in the comics before 2008 was a billionaire genius playboy drunk, sure, but the wisecracking — the personality — was invented for the movie

That's a pretty big change. My memories from reading avengers comics was that Tony was the serious business man and Hawkeye was the smartass with one liners. And even the Tony being a drunk thing I think only came around in the 70's. So it's hard to get mad about movies not being faithful to the comic book characters when later comic book writers don't even stay faithful.

[Perfect Xero]

MCU Tony was, much like Sam Jackson as Nick Fury, heavily influence by the Ultimates version of Iron Man.

[tv echo]

Avengers: Endgame was released five years ago today. Time flies.

Edited April 26 by tv echo

[JustHereForFood]

On 4/25/2024 at 10:08 AM, Morrigan2575 said:

However, there are instances where movies are trying to adapt a specific/well known (at least to comics fans) storyline, where i think they need to prioritize the story over the character...looking at you Dark Phoenix/Age of Apocalypse 

Dark Phoenix Saga was attempted in both movie versions and failed both times and will IMO fail again if they attempt to do it in live-action movies, because it requires a lot of set-up that live-action movies don't have the patience for. Just leave it to TV or animated movie-verse like DC had.

[Morrigan2575]

32 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

Dark Phoenix Saga was attempted in both movie versions and failed both times and will IMO fail again if they attempt to do it in live-action movies, because it requires a lot of set-up that live-action movies don't have the patience for. Just leave it to TV or animated movie-verse like DC had.

Oh absolutely,  I never want to see them attempt Dark Phoenix again. I was going to mention X-Men cartoon being the best place for Dark Phoenix, it wasn't perfect but, they did much, much better than the movies.

I just used it as a reference since it's a well known story done, really, really badly in the movies.  😃

 

[ICantDoThatDave]

Just trying to reset the conversation - I didn't mean to get into a big Supergirl rant (particularly in this thread), I just meant to illustrate how when someone's favorite character is portrayed radically differently, whether in personality or appearance, it's easy to see how that fan will "check out", as I did with The Flash.

Adam Warlock in Guardians 3 is another example.  That was *not* Adam Warlock.  I didn't go see GotG3 in theaters, whereas I might have if they got Adam Warlock right, but it was clear from the trailers they had no idea about that character, so they lost a theater viewer (saw it on streaming, at no extra cost to me, so no extra revenue for them).

My main point is, if the studio fundamentally alters a popular comics character: that is likely someone's favorite character. Might not be yours, you may not care.  But that is likely several someone's favorite character.  Those people will check out, & not see the movie. And they will tell other, non-comics people.

Just to take this back to the discussion that started all this: I think the number of people who will go see Fantastic Four simply because "Silver Surfer is a woman in this one" is literally zero.  But the number of people who will *not* go see it because of that change is greater than zero.  You can disagree with them, but they exist:

As in: "Do you have any interest in seeing the MCU Fantastic Four movie in the theater?" Yes = X, No = Y

"What if I told you Silver Surfer will be a woman?"  X goes down, Y does not change (except in that in gets the former X's of course).

There is literally no downside to adapting the version of a character that has existed for decades. That character likely has many fans, who would love to see their favorite character adapted faithfully in a movie.  Fundamentally changing that character's look or personality has no upside. Even if there's an Elseworlds version that happened for a few issues which might have been interesting as a "What If...?" scenario.

There is no upside to changing the long-standing, decades often, version of a character, only a downside, particularly when we're talking about movies which only come out every 2-3 years & need to make hundreds of millions of dollars to even break even.

Edited April 27 by ICantDoThatDave

[Tenshinhan]

4 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

There is literally no downside to adapting the version of a character that has existed for decades.

While I can agree with this to a point, it seems like a bit of an overstatement.  I'm sure there might be some downsides to be found when adapting certain decades-long characters.  Just the fact that they have been around for decades seems liable to open those characters to criticism.

 

4 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

There is no upside to changing the long-standing, decades often, version of a character,

This is definitely not true.  I mentioned earlier how changing the Silver Surfer to a woman could open up new story and character possibilities, while also resonating with the audience in a different way.  It's the same for giving Supergirl a darker personality or making her Latina.  You have the opportunity to enrich and broaden the story as well as broadening the reach of the characters to gain new fans.  I'm sure there are many more upsides.

 

4 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

only a downside, particularly when we're talking about movies which only come out every 2-3 years & need to make hundreds of millions of dollars to even break even.

I get why fans of the original versions of characters might be turned off by the changes, but I think you may be overestimating the overall impact and significance of that particular group of fans.  It's not the comic book fans who have made these films as successful as they are, it's the general moviegoing audience.  Yes, positive word of mouth is helpful, and of course you don't want any section of your fanbase to lose interest and check out, but ultimately it's the movie audience and not comics readers that drive the success of these films.  And that has only gotten more true over time.

I think that comic book fans should let go of this expectation that the characters they know from the source material will be adapted with such a specific degree of faithfulness.  Audiences have evolved over the last 25 years, and so have filmmakers, both commercially and creatively.  They aren't bound by the same restraints that they were in the past.  It's an opportunity to move forwards.

[JustHereForFood]

9 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

There is literally no downside to adapting the version of a character that has existed for decades. That character likely has many fans, who would love to see their favorite character adapted faithfully in a movie.  Fundamentally changing that character's look or personality has no upside. Even if there's an Elseworlds version that happened for a few issues which might have been interesting as a "What If...?" scenario.

There is no upside to changing the long-standing, decades often, version of a character, only a downside, particularly when we're talking about movies which only come out every 2-3 years & need to make hundreds of millions of dollars to even break even.

There could be fans of that specific actor who come to watch the movie just for them. Pedro Pascal is popular now, I'm sure that there will be people who will come to the movie just for him.

One of the reasons I was interested in the first FF movie was because Julian McMahon played Doom. Hey, don't judge me, I was a teenager and I liked his character on Charmed, ok? Yes, the writing for his character turned out to be horrible and the overall impression left me unimpressed. I have faith for now that Marvel will do better than that.

[Kel Varnsen]

10 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

What if I told you Silver Surfer will be a woman?"  X goes down, Y does not change (except in that in gets the former X's of course)

I am not that there will be a significant number of people to make a difference. There were of course a bunch of complaints from a bunch of people, but it still made over a billion dollars. And I am not sure I ever saw one complain about how they made Mar-vell a woman.

It's also interesting that this conversation is about female versions of super heroes and how some think the won't work and also brings up Supergirl. But I don't think I have ever heard the complain about how they made a female version of Superman.

Edited April 27 by Kel Varnsen

[Tenshinhan]

6 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

It's also interesting that this conversation is about female versions of super heroes and how some think the won't work and also brings up Supergirl. But I don't think I have ever heard the complain about how they made a female version of Superman.

The difference there is that Supergirl was a separate character from Superman, not a new version of Superman that replaced the original.  Also, they named her "Super-girl", and made sure to position her as "Superman's younger cousin", in order to subordinate the character's role in the mythos.

It also helps that Supergirl has been around for so long and is a familiar character.  If Supergirl were newly created in today's era, you can bet you would get all the usual complaints and criticisms.

[rmontro]

18 hours ago, Tenshinhan said:

I get why fans of the original versions of characters might be turned off by the changes, but I think you may be overestimating the overall impact and significance of that particular group of fans.  It's not the comic book fans who have made these films as successful as they are, it's the general moviegoing audience. 

Well hey, all the more reason to tell the fans to go take a flying leap, right?  That is the message that Disney seems to be sending out.  But since Disney has moved toward caring about the fans less, the success of their movies has decreased also, and in a big way.  So it may be the comic book fans are more valuable than you or they think. 

Now it looks like they are looking to the Fox franchises (Deadpool and Wolverine) to set the MCU on the right path.  Something that was once unthinkable.  Ryan Reynolds is definitely looking to please the fan.  Isn't that a refreshing attitude?

If you don't want to do these franchises justice, why buy them?  It just becomes a big money grab.

[Raja]

16 minutes ago, rmontro said:

Well hey, all the more reason to tell the fans to go take a flying leap, right?  That is the message that Disney seems to be sending out.  But since Disney has moved toward caring about the fans less, the success of their movies has decreased also, and in a big way.  So it may be the comic book fans are more valuable than you or they think. 

Now it looks like they are looking to the Fox franchises (Deadpool and Wolverine) to set the MCU on the right path.  Something that was once unthinkable.  Ryan Reynolds is definitely looking to please the fan.  Isn't that a refreshing attitude?

 

And dumped their homegrown Daredevil to suggest they will produce another season of Netflix's

[arc]

23 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

But the number of people who will *not* go see it because of that change is greater than zero.

They are effectively zero. A rounding error. The gap between nonzero and "worth influencing a critical casting decision" can be extremely large.

Quote

You can disagree with them, but they exist:

As in: "Do you have any interest in seeing the MCU Fantastic Four movie in the theater?" Yes = X, No = Y

"What if I told you Silver Surfer will be a woman?"  X goes down, Y does not change (except in that in gets the former X's of course).

Did you... just make up something and not even put fake numbers to it? What if I said instead X goes up? Who's gonna be right? I want to see a statistically sound survey, not you or I making up something that fits with our pre-existing biases.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

4 hours ago, rmontro said:

Well hey, all the more reason to tell the fans to go take a flying leap, right?  That is the message that Disney seems to be sending out.  But since Disney has moved toward caring about the fans less, the success of their movies has decreased also, and in a big way.  So it may be the comic book fans are more valuable than you or they think. 

Now it looks like they are looking to the Fox franchises (Deadpool and Wolverine) to set the MCU on the right path.  Something that was once unthinkable.  Ryan Reynolds is definitely looking to please the fan.  Isn't that a refreshing attitude?

If you don't want to do these franchises justice, why buy them?  It just becomes a big money grab.

 

No one said the fans should be told to take a flying leap. There is some argument in there that Deadpool & Wolverine is a cash grab all on its own, since Logan Howlett took his final bow in 2017, but either no one cares about that, or.....no one cares about that. I care, because I would rather they not screw with the tragic poetry of the ending of Logan, backtrack to something that might be inferior, but maybe I'm not one of the fans Ryan Reynolds is trying to please, so.....

[Kel Varnsen]

On 4/26/2024 at 3:09 AM, Perfect Xero said:

MCU Tony was, much like Sam Jackson as Nick Fury, heavily influence by the Ultimates version of Iron Man.

Cap too I think, at least his power level. Because I remember reading the regular comics and how powers were always presented as "peak human", which I always interpreted as being as fast as Usain Bolt, as strong as one of those worlds strongest man guys, with the endurance of an Olympic decathlete and the agility of of a world class gymnast. But I am pretty sure even one of those worlds strongest man dudes isn't going to be able to pull down a helicopter with just his hands. 

Then again it's probably for the best that this was all they really used from the Ultimates since the only other things I remember were that Hank Pym was super abusive to Janet and that Wanda ans Pietro had a creepy incestuous relationship. If Marvel really was looking to piss off old school comics fans all they would have to do was bring in either of those plotlines.

[arc]

2 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Hank Pym was super abusive to Jane

In 616, Hank was a bit abusive too. Apparently it was a miscommunication in the process -- Jim Shooter wrote a different thing than what Bob Hall drew:

Quote

In that story (issue 213, I think), there is a scene in which Hank is supposed to have accidentally struck Jan while throwing his hands up in despair and frustration—making a sort of “get away from me” gesture while not looking at her.  Bob Hall, who had been taught by John Buscema to always go for the most extreme action, turned that into a right cross!  There was no time to have it redrawn, which, to this day has caused the tragic story of Hank Pym to be known as the “wife-beater” story.

But anyways, that's where the seed of the idea was planted that got much worse in the Ultimate universe. (A deeper dive into the whole thing here. CW that pages of the very upsetting Ultimate Comics version is also included.)

 

2 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

But I am pretty sure even one of those worlds strongest man dudes isn't going to be able to pull down a helicopter with just his hands. 

Also in Cap 3, Cap, Bucky, and Black Panther all run down the highway at highway speeds, which is easily at least twice what Usain Bolt hits at his max speed in the 100m. Actually, I think you could make a case MCU Cap was "peak human" up to and including Cap 2 and then the writers quietly gave him and all the super soldiers a huge power boost in Cap 3. Still low tier compared to the heavy hitters of the MCU, but well into superhuman range.

[rmontro]

2 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Then again it's probably for the best that this was all they really used from the Ultimates

They pulled a lot from the Ultimate Universe when making the Fan4stic movie, and all of that was a bad idea.  I hated that they made the FF a teenage genius thinktank, the FF should be a family, and that works better with a bit of an age spread.

I kind of liked what they did with the Ultimates though, which was their version of the Avengers.  And of course we got Miles Morales from the Ultimate Universe also.

[Perfect Xero]

4 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Cap too I think, at least his power level. Because I remember reading the regular comics and how powers were always presented as "peak human", which I always interpreted as being as fast as Usain Bolt, as strong as one of those worlds strongest man guys, with the endurance of an Olympic decathlete and the agility of of a world class gymnast. But I am pretty sure even one of those worlds strongest man dudes isn't going to be able to pull down a helicopter with just his hands. 

Then again it's probably for the best that this was all they really used from the Ultimates since the only other things I remember were that Hank Pym was super abusive to Janet and that Wanda ans Pietro had a creepy incestuous relationship. If Marvel really was looking to piss off old school comics fans all they would have to do was bring in either of those plotlines.

 

IIRC CA: First Avenger and Avengers 1 had Cap at more like "peak human" level, it wasn't really until Winter Soldier that they had Steve regularly doing things that were just blatantly super human.

[ICantDoThatDave]

On 4/27/2024 at 9:31 PM, arc said:

Did you... just make up something and not even put fake numbers to it?

Aye, I did. That was literally my premise:

"I think the number of people who will go see Fantastic Four simply because "Silver Surfer is a woman in this one" is literally zero.  But the number of people who will *not* go see it because of that change is greater than zero.  You can disagree with them, but they exist:"

On 4/27/2024 at 9:31 PM, arc said:

What if I said instead X goes up?

Then that's your premise.  But we both have the internet.

[Kel Varnsen]

So my daughter is back into marvel movies and we have been watching different ones over the last week or so. Tonight we watched Civil War and it got me thinking, was the fact that Bucky killed the Starks supposed to be a surprise. Because it is shot like it, since every time they show the flashback they reveal a bit more and you don't see who was in the car until the end. But at the same time it seems like it was super obvious since they say the flashback took place in 1991 and it was clearly in the US so who else would it be? Was anyone actually surprised when they revealed who was in the car? And if it was obvious to everyone why did they show the flashbacks like that.

[ICantDoThatDave]

I think it was... implied? but up in the air?  I think the audience is in the same seat as Steve there - when you, as an audience member, saw that detail in Winter Soldier, did you immediately think "Bucky killed the Starks"?  I doubt anyone did, even Cap, although it may have entered his mind.

Steve knows what we know from Winter Soldier: Tony's parents were assassinated by an "agent of Hydra" (as opposed to a random car wreck, which is what Tony thinks)

It's not until Civil War that even Cap starts to sorta suspect it was Bucky that killed the Starks, & that was due to Zemo's Zola's (EDIT: duh) plan.  When confronted by Tony, he even says "I didn't know it was him" (& it's Cap, you know he wouldn't lie).

He knew Hydra killed the Starks, but didn't know it was Bucky.  Also clearly didn't know *why*? So I guess my take is: it was not supposed to be obvious.  We, the audience, were "supposed" to be as... unsure, as Steve was.

Edited May 2 by ICantDoThatDave

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

It's not until Civil War that even Cap starts to sorta suspect it was Bucky that killed the Starks, & that was due to Zemo's Zola's (EDIT: duh) plan.  When confronted by Tony, he even says "I didn't know it was him" (& it's Cap, you know he wouldn't lie).

He knew Hydra killed the Starks, but didn't know it was Bucky.  Also clearly didn't know *why*? So I guess my take is: it was not supposed to be obvious.  We, the audience, were "supposed" to be as... unsure, as Steve was.

Except when Tony presses him - "Don't bullshit me, Rogers, did you know?!" - Steve finally admits that he did, and that 'yes' is the catalyst for the fight that breaks out right afterwards.

Even if we were supposed to be unsure, Natasha informed Steve in an earlier movie that the Winter Soldier shot her, and that he was credited for something like two dozen other assassinations over the span of half a century. He also finds out that the Starks were murdered just before the recording of Zola tries to have him and Nat blown up, something about accidents being "arranged" in order to allow Hydra to flourish like the parasite that it was. Maybe he never consciously connected the dots, but he's not dumb,  so he must have at least suspect before Civil War takes place. How or where he finally has it confirmed isn't clear (something lost in editing? I don't know), but it wouldn't have turned into a brawl if he hadn't admitted he knew and just never said.

[ICantDoThatDave]

1 minute ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

...so he must have at least suspect before Civil War takes place.

That's all I said: He suspected, maybe? Steve replies to Tony: "I didn't know it was him."

Unless you think Steve was lying?  Otherwise, I think we have assessed the situation the same.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

He knew Hydra killed the Starks, but didn't know it was Bucky.  Also clearly didn't know *why*? So I guess my take is: it was not supposed to be obvious.  We, the audience, were "supposed" to be as... unsure, as Steve was.

I can buy that Steve would be in denial and not try to find out. I just thought it was weird how the flashback was sort of revealed in pieces throughout the movie until the last one when the audience sees who he killed. Because even if you never saw any other Marvel movies there aren't that many people who it could be that would fit in the story. 

11 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Even if we were supposed to be unsure, Natasha informed Steve in an earlier movie that the Winter Soldier shot her, and that he was credited for something like two dozen other assassinations over the span of half a century. 

We watched Winter Soldier this weekend too and that scene leads to my favourite dumb line in the entire MCU. Where Natasha talks about how most people in the intelligence community think he doesn't exist but those that do call him The Winter Soldier, which is his actual Hydra code name. Which means either there is some spy who is very good at guessing nicknames, or they found out his actual name through intel but most people don't believe it.

Also after watching the Winter Soldier movie it made me realize that a Nick Fury show shouldn't have been that piece of crap Secret Invasion. It should have been set after WS and been Fury travelling around helping actual legit Shield spys after Shield fell. Since if Natasha dumped all of Shield and Hydra's secrets, there would have been a ton of undercover spies who thought they were on the good side who would have been burned.

[ICantDoThatDave]

12 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I can buy that Steve would be in denial and not try to find out. I just thought it was weird how the flashback was sort of revealed in pieces throughout the movie until the last one when the audience sees who he killed. Because even if you never saw any other Marvel movies there aren't that many people who it could be that would fit in the story.

Oh, that is totally fair.  I'm more referencing Steve "in universe" not making the connection, rather than an audience member who might jump ahead & figure it out.  Like, totally off-topic, but way back when Sixth Sense came out (first analogy that came into my head), there were likely people who figured it out during the movie, but it doesn't undermine how in the movie Bruce Willis didn't figure it out.

12 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

...most people in the intelligence community think he doesn't exist but those that do call him The Winter Soldier, which is his actual Hydra code name. Which means either there is some spy who is very good at guessing nicknames, or they found out his actual name through intel but most people don't believe it.

I fully believe Nat has intel sources that have heard of that name! 😁 just kidding on that, but good point

12 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Also after watching the Winter Soldier movie it made me realize that a Nick Fury show shouldn't have been that piece of crap Secret Invasion

So much agreement on this - they eviscerated Fury in Secret Invasion (AND Rhodey! EDIT: AND Maria Hill!)  I choose to believe that whole thing never happened.

Edited May 2 by ICantDoThatDave

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

That's all I said: He suspected, maybe? Steve replies to Tony: "I didn't know it was him."

Unless you think Steve was lying?  Otherwise, I think we have assessed the situation the same.

I don't know if I would say 'lie', although Steve himself says on a number of occasions that a lie of omission is still a lie. But that is perhaps a different conversation.

[Kel Varnsen]

22 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

Oh, that is totally fair.  I'm more referencing Steve "in universe" not making the connection, rather than an audience member who might jump ahead & figure it out.  Like, totally off-topic, but way back when Sixth Sense came out (first analogy that came into my head), there were likely people who figured it out during the movie, but it doesn't undermine how in the movie Bruce Willis didn't figure it out.

The Sixth Sense is a good analogy. I worked in a video store when it came out and I am pretty sure someone spoiled the ending for me before I saw it. But I think that movie did a better job slowly revealing the twist. I am just not sure who killed the Starks really was a twist l, or alternatively who was in that car that Bucky ran off the road was a twist so it's weird that it is presented like that. But I guess maybe there were people who were surprised at the end that it was the Starks he was after.

22 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

So much agreement on this - they eviscerated Fury in Secret Invasion (AND Rhodey! EDIT: AND Maria Hill!)  I choose to believe that whole thing never happened.

Secret invasion was so bad and so pointless. A show about Fury in Europe or something helping actual Shield agents who had their covers blown by Natasha, and running into Olivia Coleman and other intelligence people would have been cool. Plus I imagine a bit of de-aging CGI for Sam Jackson would be way easier than the Skrull shape shifting CGI.

Edited May 3 by Kel Varnsen

[BetterButter]

Paul Walter Hauser Joins Marvel’s ‘Fantastic Four’

[ICantDoThatDave]

On 4/27/2024 at 7:49 AM, Kel Varnsen said:

It's also interesting that this conversation is about female versions of super heroes and how some think the won't work and also brings up Supergirl. But I don't think I have ever heard the complain about how they made a female version of Superman.

I honestly missed this my first go-round regarding gender-swapping, but for some reason (masochism?) I went back & re-read a few pages, & this illustrates a very important distinction, so wanted to address it (we're gonna disagree I think? but IMO we're still good - we've had some cool discussions, hear me out):

I believe(?) I've illustrated above how Kara Zor-El is a very different character from Kal-El.  She is exuberant, sometimes naive (regarding "our" world), revels in her powers.  At least early on in her stories she has a whole "fish out of water" thing going on.  Quite a different character from Kal-El.

Basically, she has her own personality, with a different approach to her new world.  She was in no way just a "gender-swapped" version of Superman (which was kinda my whole problem with The Flashpoint Paradox The Flash).  And all that is why she's one of (maybe even...) my favorite characters.

That's the difference IMO.  They made her a new character.  Not simply "a female version of Superman".

I think that's what gets the pushback: "an [insert changed race/gender]-version of [existing character]". It's boring, pandering, & lazy, plus it justifiably alienates "that's my favorite character!" people.  Whereas a whole new character (Supergirl, Gwen, Miles Morales for example) doesn't get that pushback, because they are new characters in their own right.

Edited May 4 by ICantDoThatDave

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

I think that's what gets the pushback: "an [insert changed race/gender]-version of [existing character]". It's boring, pandering, & lazy, plus it justifiably alienates "that's my favorite character!" people.  Whereas a whole new character (Supergirl, Gwen, Miles Morales for example) doesn't get that pushback, because they are new characters in their own right.

Would you not say there's a different flavor to the pushback female characters get, though? Take Supergirl and Sasha Calle out of the equation, even though she was the best thing about the mess that is The Flash. We can look to what happened when Brie Larson and to some extent Julia Garner were cast for evidence; the only reason Captain Marvel was review bombed almost before it hit theaters was because Larson hurt the delicate feelings of the fanboys, who couldn't stand hearing that they don't always have to be the target audience. I remain convinced that the positive reaction to The Marvels now that it's on the streaming service means it was a decent movie to begin with, but the pre-existing dislike of Larson gave that portion of the fandom reason (read: excuse) to badmouth it.

Now we have Julia Garner, whose movie won't even begin filming for some time. So she'll be playing an obscure version of the character. So what? You would think that the comics crowd would be happy to see this iteration of a familiar character, since allegedly they're all about digging into the lore of the source material, so why are there complaints? If this is going to turn into another "I only watched She Hulk and/or Echo so I could see Dardevil", then that just underlines my point, since there seems to be a lot of interest in Norrin Radd, the dude Shalla Bal was in love with. I would like not to interpret this as "maybe if she smiled more often", and yet.

[ICantDoThatDave]

19 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Would you not say there's a different flavor to the pushback female characters get, though?

Well, yes, but that's because that door only swings one way - we never get "male versions" of existing female characters. But if we did, they'd get the same pushback I believe. At least from me they would.

19 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Take Supergirl and Sasha Calle out of the equation, even though she was the best thing about the mess that is The Flash.

Ooh, that's tough for me - I don't think my Supergirl-fanboy-ism can let me make that leap, even hypothetically. :) It influences my thought process on this topic too much, because: what the studios do is "take Superman, keep everything the same, but insert female actress = Supergirl!" And that's fundamentally not who Supergirl is.

It really allows me to empathize with others who see their favorite characters get this treatment . But I'll go with it as best I can...

19 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

We can look to what happened when Brie Larson and to some extent Julia Garner were cast for evidence; the only reason Captain Marvel was review bombed almost before it hit theaters was because Larson hurt the delicate feelings of the fanboys, who couldn't stand hearing that they don't always have to be the target audience.

I think portraying people using phrases like "delicate feelings of the fanboys" isn't helpful to the discussion.  I feel like we're all having a good conversation here, albeit with different POVs of course.

Still, let's just take Marvel movies-up-through-Endgame.  Where would you rank Captain Marvel?  Just take it in quadrants if that helps - would you put it in the top quartile, or even the second?  I'd personally put it in the third quadrant - well above Iron Man 3 or Thor: The Dark World, but below even Iron Man 2 for me.  It's certainly no Winter Soldier or Infinity War I think.

Basically, I'm just saying: it got the reviews it deserved - a lot of people saw it in theaters, but it wasn't a real great movie in & of itself.  IMO of course.

19 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I remain convinced that the positive reaction to The Marvels now that it's on the streaming service means it was a decent movie to begin with, but the pre-existing dislike of Larson gave that portion of the fandom reason (read: excuse) to badmouth it.

The audience that saw it in theaters was ~2/3rds male.  According to Deadline: 65% male. Women didn't show up for it either. Did they also have a pre-existing dislike of Brie Larson?

19 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Now we have Julia Garner, whose movie won't even begin filming for some time. So she'll be playing an obscure version of the character. So what? You would think that the comics crowd would be happy to see this iteration of a familiar character, since allegedly they're all about digging into the lore of the source material, so why are there complaints?

Because that version of the character only showed up for something like 3 issues in an alternate universe "What If?"-style story, while the Norrin Radd version has existed for ~60 years over hundreds & hundreds of comics.  As I've been emphasizing: that is someone's favorite character.  And they won't get to see that character on screen.

Anyway, thanks for the civil discussion, even if we disagree!

[Raja]

"Obscure version" of a character or an "obscure character" with a similar suit and power set of a popular character?

[arc]

5 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

As I've been emphasizing: that is someone's favorite character.  And they won't get to see that character on screen.

Then that someone just needs to buy a few million tickets then.

Norrin Radd hasn’t even sustained an ongoing Silver Surfer comic in two decades, not even with the recognition bump from the second FF movie. In 2014, say, the bottom of the top 100 per month did about 30k issues sold to stores. And not all issues even get sold.

Marvel Studios makes blockbusters that have to appeal to everyone. Trading away 10-30k fans to win millions more is absolutely the right choice every time. Black Panther 2 did $181m in its domestic opening weekend. That’s conservatively over 10m tickets sold. Again, that’s just domestic opening weekend, not total worldwide gross. Marvel cannot spend nine figures making these movies to prioritize a fan base that’s literally less than a tenth of one percent of the audience size they’re aiming for.

[ICantDoThatDave]

21 minutes ago, arc said:

Then that someone just needs to buy a few million tickets then.

Why did you quote me on this?

Edited May 5 by ICantDoThatDave

[arc]

17 minutes ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

Why did you quote me on this?

Because I was directly replying to you.

[ICantDoThatDave]

[decided it was better to just ignore it - my bad]

Edited May 5 by ICantDoThatDave

[ICantDoThatDave]

[decided it was better to just ignore it - my bad]

Edited May 5 by ICantDoThatDave

[Raja]

I remember when Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D could only get permission to use obscure or new versions of Deathlok, which the first season did an origin story on. M.O.D.O.K Superior and Ghost Rider. Even though all three did things like the popular character only Robbie Reyes in his Hell Charger was accepted like Miles Morales was as an alternate Spider-Man.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

On 5/4/2024 at 4:11 AM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Would you not say there's a different flavor to the pushback female characters get, though?

Yes, I think female characters in general are more likely to get an exaggerated 'I wish they would be burned out of existence' sort of reaction by people who dislike them (including other women as well as men) than male characters, from what I've seen.

Edited May 5 by Noneofyourbusiness

[tv echo]

During Disney's fiscal second-quarter earnings call... 

Marvel Will Release No More Than Three Movies and Two Shows Per Year, Bob Iger Says
By Jennifer Maas   May 7, 2024
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/marvel-tv-shows-movies-reduced-bob-iger-disney-1235994149/ 

Quote

Disney CEO Bob Iger says the company is shrinking the MCU with a new mission to drop the number of Marvel TV series to two a year and the film output to no more than three movies per year.

Iger said this is part of Disney’s overall strategy to reduce output and focus on quality, a strategy “that’s particularly true with Marvel.”

“We’re slowly going to decrease volume and go to probably about two TV series a year instead of what had become four and reduce our film output from maybe four a year to two, or a maximum of three,” the Disney CEO said during the company’s quarterly earnings call Tuesday. “And we’re working hard on what that path is.”

Iger says Marvel has “a couple of good films in ’25 and then we’re heading to more ‘Avengers,’ which we’re extremely excited about,” adding: “Overall, I feel great about the slate. It’s something that I’ve committed to spending more and more time on. The team is one that I have tremendous confidence in and the IP that we’re mining, including all the sequels that we’re doing, is second to none.”
*  *  *
For Marvel, Iger pointed to new movie “Thunderbolts” coming in 2025 alongside sequels “Deadpool & Wolverine” this summer and “Captain America: Brave New World” next year. “It’ll just be a balance, which we think is is right,” Iger said.

Edited May 8 by tv echo

[Kel Varnsen]

12 hours ago, tv echo said:

During Disney's fiscal second-quarter earnings call... 

Marvel Will Release No More Than Three Movies and Two Shows Per Year, Bob Iger Says
By Jennifer Maas   May 7, 2024
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/marvel-tv-shows-movies-reduced-bob-iger-disney-1235994149/ 

Probably for the best. Although looking at the movies that marvel has already lined up with official release dates and such it makes me wonder what sequels won't make the cut. Since if you are only releasing 2-3 movies a year there isn't much room for new movies and their sequels and sequels to shows and movies we have already seen. So I am thinking that means no Captain Marvel 3 and probably no Eternals 2. Maybe no Black Panther 2 and no Thor 4. So it will be interesting to see which plots get picked up in other movies and which ones get completely dropped like they were The Inhumans.

Edited May 9 by Kel Varnsen

[BetterButter]

John Malkovich Joins ‘Fantastic Four’ in Mystery Role

[scarynikki12]

 

I like him already.

[Morrigan2575]

On 5/8/2024 at 8:42 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

Probably for the best. Although looking at the movies that marvel has already lined up with official release dates and such it makes me wonder what sequels won't make the cut.

That should hopefully help. If they cut down on quantity hopefully they'll dedicate the time to quality 

[benteen]

Absolutely reeks of desperation to use Galactus now. They need to build up to that character. 

[Kel Varnsen]

4 hours ago, benteen said:

Absolutely reeks of desperation to use Galactus now. They need to build up to that character. 

It's still possible they are. I mean Thanos showed up in The Avengers in the mid credits scene, but the Avengers didn't actually fight him until 6 years later. It looks weird because it isn't Josh Brolin so maybe they are trying to avoid that from the start.

Edited May 10 by Kel Varnsen

[Tenshinhan]

4 hours ago, benteen said:

Absolutely reeks of desperation to use Galactus now. They need to build up to that character. 

I don't think it's desperation at all.  I never once thought of Galactus as a character that is deserving of any build up.  Him being a godlike being that devours planets means very little.  He comes and goes just like any of the other Fantastic Four villains.  That's the point of the Fantastic Four.  If anything, it's indicative of the scale and scope of the film and potentially the series.