The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[nobodyyoucare]

Exhibit C a manifestation of Dr. Strange's magic to draw the hammer to Strange. In other words a magic spell which is a loophole. 

Exhibit B is magic at work hence magic loophole

Exhibit A is  animated by the soul of Nova Corps captain Gabriel Lan. So it's the soul that is being judged and note he could only hold it after being thrown at him and he wasn't able to stop Thor from calling the hammer or move it otherwise. 

[Danny Franks]

I remember people saying the same thing about Guardians of the Galaxy and the same should hold true of Ant-Man. Plus Captain America. Even it was said of Iron Man.

 

I don't. Not about Iron Man, at least. He might not have been a premier hero, but he's something people could easily understand: a guy in an armoured suit fighting bad guys.

 

And Ant-Man is still unproven, with mixed messages coming out about it. Guardians of the Galaxy is the best indicator of what they could do with Beta Ray Bill in the movies: CGI character as part of an ensemble.

 

Regarding those Thor panels, I love the cheesiness of Silver Age dialogue. "My enchanted mallet" is a fantastic euphemism. One that Captain Hammer himself would be proud of. 

[Athena]

Please remember to be courteous to each other when posting. Tone matters a lot on these forums. If you disagree with another poster's stance but they aren't being a dick, put them on your Ignore list and move on. Posters should not be dismissive or engage further in the discussion debate. Change the subject if necessary. Thank you.

[benteen]

Slow day at work for me, so I'm going to spend time listing Marvel Properties that I believe have no adaptations in the pipeline, but that I'd like to see in some form or another.

 

1. Strikeforce Moritori.

This odd standalone title (no affiliation with the mainstream universe at all) is about a near future world in which an alien race called The Horde parks itself in orbit and raids the planet for resources at will. Humanity has just begun to strike back by creating a process that gives people super powers.  Which is great except that they have a limited lifespan. I.E. they'll explode violently in a year or so.  Incredible world building and character work in this series for the first couple of years.  Would be great for a live action TV series in the Battlestar Galactica mode.

 

2. Runaways or Young Avengers

These two recent-ish titles have picked up the mantle for kid's superhero titles. In Runaways a group of Los Angeles teens learn that their parents are actually the group of supervillians which control the city and have dark plans afoot.  In Young Avengers, during a point in which the Avengers have disbanded a backup system recruits young superheroes to form a new group.  They're both pretty fresh takes on superheroing. Both titles have potential to occupy the TV space that CW shows like The Flash and Arrow are in, or to be animated TV titles. For young heroes, I think that fits better than the "Avengers Arena" title of a few years ago which is basically an acknowledged knockoff of The Hunger Games.  Supervillian Arcade kidnaps a group of teen superheroes and makes them fight and kill each other.  The other possibility of New Mutants is too tied up with the X-Men franchise for Marvel Studios to do.

 

Speaking of too tied to the X-Men franchise to do:

3. Exiles

The "Sliders" of the Marvel Universe.  We will never see it most likely because of rights issues, but the premise is that a group of heroes recruited from different alternate universes work together to fix universes that have gone wrong. Formerly minor characters like Blink, Morph and Mimic join created newbies like the daughter of Scarlet Witch and Nightcrawler. Will never happen, and would probably only be feasible as an animated series as you have to build a new slightly twisted world every single episode for the group to interact with.

 

4. Thunderbolts

The only good thing that came out of the Heroes Reborn mess.  While the Avengers and Fantastic Four were presumed dead for awhile, a new team of superheroes step in to take up the mantle. They become an immediate sensation.  However, when the adoring public aren't there, we see them behind the scenes and realize that they are a repackaged Masters of Evil, the Avengers' greatest rivals.  DUN DUN DUN! This one could be a movie if there's ever a movie in which the Avengers are wiped out/disbanded.

 

5. X Factor

Remember that Multiple Man guy who was in the X-Men movies?  Well, in the comics, he's kind of one of the lower level X-Men affiliated good guys.  He broke off from superheroing to open a Mutant detective agency, working with a motley supporting cast including a 12 year old girl who knows the future and drives everybody crazy.  It's pretty much the only Marvel title I've bought for the past five years or so until it recently came to its conclusion. Witty and sharply written by Peter David, and it keeps to itself for the most part rather than crossing over every other month. Could be a good weekly detective show with occasional superheroics and eventually a weird but awesome romance.

 

Other adaptation recommendations:

The current Ms. Marvel is apparently awesome. 16 year old Pakistani girl named Kamala Khan. I haven't read it yet, but the reviews have been pretty great.

There were two New Universe titles that could possibly be salvaged: Psi Force and DP7.  Both group titles which could be detached from their New Universe baggage to be standalone movies.

Dazzler. If the Marvel movie universe ever gets to the point where it can outright parody itself, go full camp and do a 70's romp where this sequined superhero disco singer on rollerskates takes on the world. Someone can do something awesome with that.

 

Runaways is one I'm surprised there isn't any real activity on.  I'd love to see it either as a movie series or a Netflix series.

[millennium]

I watched Captain America: The Winter Soldier for the first time last night.

 

I thought it was bad in the same way the last Avengers movie was bad.   A lot of flash and bang, but ultimately bloodless and forgettable.    Except maybe for the fact that Black Widow wore her hair differently.

 

Is this how all the Marvel movies are going to be?  Big on spectacle, with only a rudimentary and cliche story?   I came away feeling that Steve Rogers seems like a nice guy, but that's about it.   Thank goodness it was free on Encore.

[nobodyyoucare]

I watched Captain America: The Winter Soldier for the first time last night.

 

I thought it was bad in the same way the last Avengers movie was bad.   A lot of flash and bang, but ultimately bloodless and forgettable.    Except maybe for the fact that Black Widow wore her hair differently.

 

Is this how all the Marvel movies are going to be?  Big on spectacle, with only a rudimentary and cliche story?   I came away feeling that Steve Rogers seems like a nice guy, but that's about it.   Thank goodness it was free on Encore.

Did you watch the after credits?

[millennium]

Did you watch the after credits?

 

No.  I was so bored with the story by that time I forgot that Marvel has enslaved a whole generation of people to sit through credits. To hell with them, their shitty movies and their gimmicks.

[Fukui San]

Runaways is one I'm surprised there isn't any real activity on.  I'd love to see it either as a movie series or a Netflix series.

I know. I'd think it'd have to be an animated series, though. Live actors would age out of the roles after one or two seasons or movies.

 

X Factor I think could easily be it's own self contained noir series.

 

 

No.  I was so bored with the story by that time I forgot that Marvel has enslaved a whole generation of people to sit through credits. To hell with them, their shitty movies and their gimmicks.

I don't blame anyone for not liking these movies. Marvel comics are near and dear to my heart, but the movies' formula is starting to wear on me. They need to build better, more memorable villains and ban battles against the endless hordes of faceless enemies. There has to be something after upping the level of carnage.

[benteen]

I know. I'd think it'd have to be an animated series, though. Live actors would age out of the roles after one or two seasons or movies.

 

X Factor I think could easily be it's own self contained noir series.

 

I don't blame anyone for not liking these movies. Marvel comics are near and dear to my heart, but the movies' formula is starting to wear on me. They need to build better, more memorable villains and ban battles against the endless hordes of faceless enemies. There has to be something after upping the level of carnage.

 

I wouldn't mind a Runaways cartoon or an X-Factor series.  I was glad to hear that one of my all-time favorites, The New Mutants, was being developed for a movie.

 

Marvel is going to reach the point of diminishing returns with their movies.  I don't know when it will be but I can't imagine the films still going strong more than five years from now.

[Joe]

 

Marvel is going to reach the point of diminishing returns with their movies.  I don't know when it will be but I can't imagine the films still going strong more than five years from now.

If they just give us the same thing over and again, yes. But hopefully they'll start mixing things up, giving us something a bit different. I'm not sure Kevin Fiege agrees, though.

[nobodyyoucare]

Guardians of the Galaxy was a bit different. The problem is indeed too many characters and having to cram so much in one movie. At least infinity war is being broke into two movies.

[ribboninthesky1]

I think the Marvel formula, more or less, is standard live action superhero fare. Not only is there the principle of diminishing returns, they're cranking these films out to be released (almost) every year, and it's the same characters, same schtick.  There's little room to breathe. The phrase "too much of a good thing" comes to mind. 

[millennium]

Guardians of the Galaxy was a bit different. The problem is indeed too many characters and having to cram so much in one movie. At least infinity war is being broke into two movies.

 

That was the beauty of the Daredevil series on Netflix.   One superhero, one villain, one crusade.    No spectacle, no extinction-level threat, no subsidizing an impoverished storyline with CGI.

[Joe]

I think the Marvel formula, more or less, is standard live action superhero fare. Not only is there the principle of diminishing returns, they're cranking these films out to be released (almost) every year, and it's the same characters, same schtick.  There's little room to breathe. The phrase "too much of a good thing" comes to mind. 

Yeah. As much as I like the MCU, I don't want to eat the same meal every time. That way lies a lack of enjoyment. Give me something a bit different. Everything has to adapt or evolve to survive, movie franchises are no different.

 

You know what happens to a movie franchise that stays static? The same thing that happens to everything else. :)

[Kel Varnsen]

Marvel is going to reach the point of diminishing returns with their movies.  I don't know when it will be but I can't imagine the films still going strong more than five years from now.

I am starting to wonder about this too. I also worry about kind of an overload situation happening. What I mean is that there will be three MCU movies coming out in 2017 and 2018.  On top of that there is Agents of Shield, Agent Carter,  four shows on Netflix (Daredevil at least is getting a second season, I imagine might get more than one season too) and a netflix Defenders movie. For one thing how much more content can the put out and still keep it good, and two even if they keep it good at what point to people start getting fatigued with all of it and start ignoring stuff (since I am sure a significant portion of the audience watches everything right now).

[benteen]

I thought I read something about two years or so back where Marvel said they had at least one superhero movie planned until 2028.  That's another 13 years from now.  I can't imagine them being able to sustain interest that long.

[DollEyes]

 

I'm still not that interested in Black Panther, because I think it's criminal that Chiwetel Ejiofor isn't playing him. They missed out on the most perfect opportunity ever, there.

 

  Not necessarily. I agree that Chiwetel Ejiofor is a great actor and would have made a great Black Panther, but I believe that Chadwick Boseman is great in his own right, as he showed in 42, Get On Up and Draft Day. Boseman's not an Oscar nominee like Ejiofor, but he's no slouch, either.

Edited June 23, 2015 by DollEyes

[Raja]

While not the lead Ejiofor has a big role in Dr Strange. The complaints about the MCU Villains may have born some fruit. Time will tell.

[Trini]

Another Brit is Spiderman. But at least he's closer to high school age than previous actors.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Trini

[Amethyst]

Tom Holland was good in The Impossible, so congrats to him.  I'm just so bored with Spiderman's origin story by this point.  Casting a college-age Spiderman who's been through the wringer for a while would save time and open up new possibilities for the character.

 

You know what happens to a movie franchise that stays static? The same thing that happens to everything else. :)

 

 I understood that reference!

(sorry, couldn't help it.)

[Kromm]

Another Brit is Spiderman. But at least he's closer to high school age than previous actors.

I don't object in any overall fashion to Brits in classically American roles.  But it DOES seem sad that it happens so regularly and the American actors (or even an occasional Canadian) never really seem to be in serious contention.

[vb68]

 

I'm just so bored with Spiderman's origin story by this point.  Casting a college-age Spiderman who's been through the wringer for a while would save time and open up new possibilities for the character.

 

But they've said this isn't an origin story.  And many of the best Spiderman stories were indeed when he was in high school. 

[Kromm]

Yes, they've gone out of their way to state that this is fully working established Spider-Man, who's origin is implicit and not seen. Launching him in an Avengers type setting (which Captain America: Civil War is, however it's labeled) is in line with that, because you just kind of can act like he's been there all along but "underground", and the issue of heroes having to register themselves is what flushes him out.

It's why they dared not miss the Captain America: Civil War window for this, even though it's sounded for months now like they would.

The timing works doubly as well, because presumably the first solo Spidey movie won't be for several years. So the actor NOW is playing High School age Peter, albeit one who even still has been in business for a bit (which is totally accurate to the comic book, where a High School Spidey started around 16 and could have been operating that way for several years). So when you come back with an actual solo film, Peter can be anywhere from his Senior year of High School, to about to enter College, to already in College. They're all options.

[stealinghome]

I don't object in any overall fashion to Brits in classically American roles.  But it DOES seem sad that it happens so regularly and the American actors (or even an occasional Canadian) never really seem to be in serious contention.

Funnily enough, the Atlantic recently ran a piece about this here. The poor Chrises who get name-checked in the article, though!

[Danny Franks]

Honestly, I don't want a Spider-Man story in an Avengers movie (and I've got Spider-Man as my avatar!). No room for it, no need for it. If Marvel and Sony want to cooperate on a Spider-Man movie (yet another rehash of his origins), then whatever. I doubt I'd bother seeing it, but go ahead. Cramming him into the Avengers boat, just because someone saw a bit of room, over there by the lifeboat, is just a terrible idea.
 
Age of Ultron showed that they might be close to reaching critical mass. It was a huge step down from the first Avengers movie, from the Cap movies and even the Iron Man movies. Sure, it made bags of money, but I think it's one that will not be fondly remembered in retrospect. Except for Wanda, because she was awesome.
 
Everything they talk about now makes it all seem so bloated and unwieldy, and the giddiness they have for shoving a thousand heroes into their movies just leaves me colder and colder. I want to learn more about Cap and Bucky, and maybe Falcon, in Cap 3. I do not want to see them translate a mediocre story to the big screen, going for maximum spectacle.
 
So yeah, Daredevil is probably the sort of place I'll be looking to get my Marvel fix. If that and Agent Carter are a good indicator of what their new TV shows are going to be like, then they should be to my tastes. I wish, so much, that they'd do an X-Factor Investigations show, but I suppose the rights to all those characters belong to Fox. Not that Fox would ever use them properly.
 

[Kromm]

Honestly, I don't want a Spider-Man story in an Avengers movie (and I've got Spider-Man as my avatar!). No room for it, no need for it. If Marvel and Sony want to cooperate on a Spider-Man movie (yet another rehash of his origins), then whatever. I doubt I'd bother seeing it, but go ahead. 

If your "whatever" is meant to show contempt for them doing "another rehash of his origin", then I urge you to re-read my last post. Everything that's been rumored/reported claims they're NOT going to make a movie rehashing his origin. Not now. Not after he's in the pseudo-Avengers film. Not at all. He's seemingly just going to be Spider-Man, already at work and a year or two in, in the Cap film, and he'll be even slightly later in his career when they make a solo film (so I'm speculating that could be his last year of High School, or possibly his early college years). I mean they have three years or so to play with, since the classic origin (not shown in ANY movie so far) was him starting at 16 (so a sophomore in High School, usually).  Place the Cap film a year later.  So we've skipped right by the origin.  Place the solo film another year later, and he's a Senior, still in High School.  There's enough time for all of it.  If there are multiple solo films with the same actor, then that's Peter in College.  Again, no wasting time with the origin.  It's been done to death, as you've implied.

 

I could see them perhaps covering some of the origin with a flashback, but more likely it would be him simply explaining it to another character if they find out who he is.  Or maybe not even that.  I mean we all know the Uncle Ben story by now.  It's not too much to expect a film viewer to know it, but even if they don't, Spider-Man can still expound a certain point of view ("with great power comes great responsibility") without anyone having to waste time explaining why he feels that way.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Kromm

[Danny Franks]

But that's what I'm saying, regardless of how they're doing it, I don't want it. I don't want Spider-Man in the Avengers, because I don't think there's room, and I don't think he's a good fit for this Avengers team in this Marvel Universe. I especially don't want him in Captain America 3, taking time away from the characters I'm interested in.

 

I have no interest in any new version of the character being put in his own movies either. I liked the Andrew Garfield version well enough, until they drank idiot juice while writing the ending of the second movie. I don't think they're going to come up with a new version of Spider-Man that's more worthwhile and interesting, however they do it. Even if they don't rehash his origins, they'll rehash the villains again, because being reduced to using Electro in the last one proved how few they had left to use. And no, I'm most decidedly not interested in Miles Morales or Ben Reilly or fucking Doc Ock being Spider-Man. Because I don't care about any of those characters either.

 

You shouldn't just make movies because you can. There should be a reason behind it other than 'I want more money'. I can't see any creative reason to do yet another Spider-Man, so soon after the last one.

[Kromm]

From Sony's point of view, the logic is clear.  They need to protect their right to the character.  Otherwise Marvel would have taken it back entirely rather than simply agreeing to a partnership.  I mean unless you think they should have pumped out more films with Garfield, even after the second movie.

As for alternatives, you do see a bit of tude in media coverage like this: YOUR NEW SPIDER-MAN IS A…FRESH-FACED WHITE DUDE. GREAT

 

Which is just kind of silly, since Miles Morales was created inherently as an adjunct of Peter Parker.  Acting like you could realistically create a movie franchise around the character is just... odd.

[stealinghome]

Bear in mind that I don't read the comics at all and have only the most general sense of who Miles Morales is, but: if part of the problem with Spiderman is the oversaturation of Peter Parker and his origin story, changing the Spiderman to Miles Morales could help get away from "Peter Parker, the character we've already seen 4684596457 times (along with his dead uncle)" fatigue. Also it could help with Marvel's oft-discussed diversity problem.

Edited June 24, 2015 by stealinghome

[Kromm]

Bear in mind that I don't read the comics at all and have only the most general sense of who Miles Morales is, but: if part of the problem with Spiderman is the oversaturation of Peter Parker and his origin story, changing the Spiderman to Miles Morales could help get away from "Peter Parker, the character we've already seen 4684596457 times (along with his dead uncle)" fatigue. Also it could help with Marvel's oft-discussed diversity problem.

The problem is that Miles Morales' origin is "Peter Parker (the Ultimate Universe version) dies and Miles Morales, who was bit by another radioactive spider engineered by one of Peter Parker's enemies decides to take up his mantle".

 

If you remove Peter Parker from the equation then you have to give Miles a more conventional origin and you're probably pretty much just saying he's Peter Parker but a different race. In which case why not just reboot him AS Peter Parker but another race?  The name is neutral enough it shouldn't be a deal-killer.  Sure that name doesn't really cater to Hispanic, like Miles is, but African-American is dead easy with that name.

 

But really the "diversity problem" with Marvel is kind of being handled wrong if you have to take their single most iconic character and pull a switcharoo.  Really the problem hasn't ever been as bad with Marvel as DC anyway, and the answer is simply to more aggressively develop market the Luck Cages, Black Pathers, Falcons, War Machines, Misty Knights and other black heroes that already exist.  Because there's no lack of them at Marvel.  They just aren't given proper due.  Hispanic is a little more problematic. White Tiger is the only hero I really can recall (other than Miles, Spider-Man 2099--Miguel O'Hara--who was Hispanic-Irish, and one of the Spider-Girl type characters, called Araña) although I'm sure there have been plenty of villains.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Kromm

[stealinghome]

Seems like it would be easy enough to make that movie!Miles' origin story, though. "There was a Spiderman. He died. I've taken up his mantle." Bam, three sentence opening monologue and we've covered it. A movie could reference a dead former Spiderman* and his impact on Miles, what it's like for Miles to be a different kind of Spiderman, etc, without ever having to actually show the previous Spiderman, or only showing previous!Spidey in flashbacks.

 

*=Heck, you could even reveal in a future film that original!Spidey is still alive and just captured by some dastardly enemy if the idea of killing off Peter Parker is THAT alarming to the suits! Not that it matters, given that we all know nothing like this will ever hit the big screen.

[millennium]

Yeah. As much as I like the MCU, I don't want to eat the same meal every time. That way lies a lack of enjoyment. Give me something a bit different. Everything has to adapt or evolve to survive, movie franchises are no different.

 

 

This was part of my disdain for Captain America Winter Soldier.   There was nothing uniquely Captain America about it.   It felt like an Avengers movie without Iron Man, the Hulk and Thor.    And waaaay too much Samuel L. Jackson.   Can they kill off Nick Fury already?

Edited June 24, 2015 by millennium

[Kel Varnsen]

Everything they talk about now makes it all seem so bloated and unwieldy, and the giddiness they have for shoving a thousand heroes into their movies just leaves me colder and colder. I want to learn more about Cap and Bucky, and maybe Falcon, in Cap 3. I do not want to see them translate a mediocre story to the big screen, going for maximum spectacle.

 

I am starting to feel the same way. The whole idea of the civil war just sounds boring and predictable to me. Partially because the whole idea of the whole idea of regular people being scared of super powered people and wanting the government to do something has been done to death in comics/movies/cartoons (X2 nailed it so I am not sure how a new spin on that is going to work). Plus you know if Tony and Cap go to war it will be all patched up by Avengers 3. Plus as far as hero registration there seems to me to be a logical compromise. If someone wants to fight crime, they have to register, otherwise they are a vigilante which is already illegal. Just pass a law on top of that about how using dangerous powers in public is also illegal (or adapt existing laws). No need for a blanket registration, and no need for a boring civil war.

 

Now if they had made the civil war about Cap trying to rehabilitate Bucky and Tony wanting him brought to justice that could be interesting (he probably killed Tony's parents remember). Especially since I am not sure how MCU Tony feels about the death penalty.

 

As far as Peter Parker being spiderman, Peter Parker is the closet thing to Bruce Wayne/Clark Kent that Marvel has (as far as general public name recognition). Based on what I have read about the president of Marvel Studios I can't see anyone convincing him (plus the bosses at Sony) to spend 200 million plus on a movie that won't have that household name character in it. I mean imagine someone trying to convince the heads of WB to make a Batman movie, without Bruce Wayne in it.

[benteen]

I'm glad Marvel didn't have the rights to Spider-Man and the X-Men when they made the first Avengers movie because it would have been about Spider-Man and Wolverine, two characters who are NOT true Avengers, no matter what Marvel would like you to believe.  Not having those two forced them to focus on their other characters and make them bigger stars in the eyes of the public.  They've managed to do that.  I don't mind Peter in the MCU now.

 

I think we'll get Miles Morales eventually but for the current MCU, Spider-Man HAS to be Peter Parker.  He is the classic character that's been one of the biggest stars in comic books for over 50 years.  That is the one that most people want to see interact with the Avengers.

[vb68]

 

but for the current MCU, Spider-Man HAS to be Peter Parker.  He is the classic character that's been one of the biggest stars in comic books for over 50 years.

Exactly.  Marvel wouldn't be involved in this if it wasn't Peter Parker.   That's the brand.  It's fun to think of different versions, but the Clark Kent/Bruce Wayne comparisons are very apt.

 

I do hope they give us some more diverse friends at his high school.  He is suppose to have more friends than just Harry. That got boring for me in the other movies. 

Edited June 24, 2015 by vb68

[stealinghome]

Plus you know if Tony and Cap go to war it will be all patched up by Avengers 3.

This is one of the big problems in the Cap 3 outlook for me. Steve and Tony have exchanged like 20 civil words in the MCU so far. I don't CARE if they go to war, because I'm not invested in their underdeveloped relationship (and frankly even now they've spent way more time fighting than getting along). The emotional element from the comics is just not gonna be there. I would care far, far more if Steve went to war with Natasha or Sam. Hell, I would care more if he went to war with Thor!

[Zuleikha]

Seems like it would be easy enough to make that movie!Miles' origin story, though. "There was a Spiderman. He died. I've taken up his mantle." Bam, three sentence opening monologue and we've covered it. A movie could reference a dead former Spiderman* and his impact on Miles, what it's like for Miles to be a different kind of Spiderman, etc, without ever having to actually show the previous Spiderman, or only showing previous!Spidey in flashbacks.

Yeah, that's what I think, too. People all know who the Peter Parker Spidey is. Miles can be in the MCU as a legacy character without Peter Parker needing to be extensively developed in the MCU. I think it would be a nice way to broaden the MCU, not just in terms of literal diversity, but also in terms of showing how the superheroes impacted the emotional lives of non-superheroes (or people who were previously non-superheroes). 

[Kromm]

Tom Holland proves he's more than capable of performing stunts as Spider-Man

[millennium]

I'm glad Marvel didn't have the rights to Spider-Man and the X-Men when they made the first Avengers movie because it would have been about Spider-Man and Wolverine, two characters who are NOT true Avengers, no matter what Marvel would like you to believe.  Not having those two forced them to focus on their other characters and make them bigger stars in the eyes of the public.  They've managed to do that.  I don't mind Peter in the MCU now.

 

I think we'll get Miles Morales eventually but for the current MCU, Spider-Man HAS to be Peter Parker.  He is the classic character that's been one of the biggest stars in comic books for over 50 years.  That is the one that most people want to see interact with the Avengers.

 

I don't read Spiderman, and I may have caught one Spiderman movie over the years (the one with Willem Dafoe), so I have no emotional investment in Peter Parker.   I am, however, dead set against replacing iconic characters with alternatives for the sake of diversity, be it Miles Morales or the Human Torch.

 

I have no beef with diversity and I do not argue the need for heroes whom people of color can relate to -- but for Pete's sake (no pun intended), just invent some new heroes, don't fuck around with long-established, beloved characters.    The moment you do that, you automatically alienate a sizeable portion of the audience (namely a lot of the people who spent their money on those original characters and supported both them and their alter egos over the years).   You also create resentment towards the idea of diversity itself.   What a stupid move.   I know Marvel/DC want characters that are diverse AND marketable, but rather than replace Peter Parker (or whoever's number is up next), create some new heroes and give them meaty roles in movies with Spiderman, etc.   In other words, introduce and integrate them naturally.   Give them real stories of their own that people can relate to and will want to see more of, rather than forcing them upon the public by taking the original hero away.   

 

Maybe you'll think this comparison is off, but I've been a fan of the band U2 since 1980.   I love their music.  Imagine if next week it's announced that Virgin (or whoever they belong to now) has decided the band isn't diverse enough because it's a bunch of Irish white guys, so Bono is being replaced with some unknown Black/Hispanic singer, and that's that.  Deal.   That wouldn't make me happy.   It would cause me serious disappointment, make me enraged with the record company (do they still call them record companies?) and further solidify my opposition to what seems to be forced diversity. 

 

That's how I feel about this whole business of replacing existing superheroes and their secret identities with more diverse alternatives. 

 

Kel Varnsen wrote:

 

 

 

I mean imagine someone trying to convince the heads of WB to make a Batman movie, without Bruce Wayne in it.

 

Give it time.   It's going to happen.   It feels like DC has been gunning for Bruce Wayne for quite a few years now, breaking his back, sending him back in time, etc., any excuse to run with a replacement Batman for awhile.    It wouldn't surprise me in the least to wake up one day in the not so distant future and learn that Bruce Wayne has been killed permanently and the new Batman is black.

 

Batman is my favorite character of all time, ever since I was five years old.   Bruce Wayne, white guy, billionaire, is an integral part of that character.    Just as Peter Parker is Spiderman.    I have nothing against diversity, but I wish the marketing assholes at DC and Marvel would leave the classic characters exactly as they are and not whore them out to political correctness or marketing demographics.

Edited June 24, 2015 by millennium

[Kromm]

With Marvel you don't even have to invent Black heroes.  They exist.  Just give them parts in movies.  Hispanic is a bit worse represented, true, but at least work out the part that's already ready to go.

 

For example, much as I liked Brian Bendis' comic book use of the (white) Jessica Jones over the years (now coming to Netflix as simply "Jessica Jones"), she's indelibly linked with (black) Luke Cage.  So why, we might ask, is Jessica the headliner of the upcoming series rather than Luke?  They're both likely to appear.  

 

That's the kind of questions we need to be asking.  Not get into a lather about Spider-Man, who's a big deal and who SHOULD appear intact regardless.  Even if he IS white.  And now apparently British.

 

And we know a Black Panther film is coming.  But they sure took their time.

 

Storm, unfortunately is "owned" by Fox, otherwise I'm sure Marvel Films would love to use her.

 

Sam Wilson, The Falcon, seems like he's a bit player in the Cap films.  Maybe he could simply be launched into a solo as a Spin-off of that sub-franchise then. I mean whatever works to get more diversity in a more legit way than recreating existing characters that already work fine (in fact, Sam is currently THE Captain America in the comics--which frankly shows the comics are guilty of exactly what I don't think we want the films to duplicate--although I suppose having Sam as Cap in the comics for a few years might allow a path in the movies to have him secede Steve Rogers there when the actor playing Steve can't pull it off anymore).

 

But that last won't work for Insta-replacing Peter Parker with Miles in the films, because Peter hasn't existed in the real MCU yet, and while they might get away with saying Peter operated as Spidey quietly out of sight of the Avengers for a year or two, that's quite different from having Peter's ENTIRE career out of the public eye and then Miles coming along to replace him.  That route would sound like real B.S. given how active we know SHIELD and HYDRA and others have been seeking out metahumans.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Kromm

[millennium]

With Marvel you don't even have to invent Black heroes.  They exist.  Just give them parts in movies.  Hispanic is a bit worse represented, true, but at least work out the part that's already ready to go.

 

For example, much as I liked Brian Bendis' comic book use of the (white) Jessica Jones over the years (now coming to Netflix as simply "Jessica Jones"), she's indelibly linked with (black) Luke Cage.  So why, we might ask, is Jessica the headliner of the upcoming series rather than Luke?  They're both likely to appear.  

 

That's the kind of questions we need to be asking.  Not get into a lather about Spider-Man, who's a big deal and who SHOULD appear intact regardless.  Even if he IS white.  And now apparently British.

 

And we know a Black Panther film is coming.  But they sure took their time.

 

Storm, unfortunately is "owned" by Fox, otherwise I'm sure Marvel Films would love to use her.

 

Sam Wilson, The Falcon, seems like he's a bit player in the Cap films.  Maybe he could simply be launched into a solo as a Spin-off of that sub-franchise then. I mean whatever works to get more diversity in a more legit way than recreating existing characters that already work fine (in fact, Sam is currently THE Captain America in the comics--which frankly shows the comics are guilty of exactly what I don't think we want the films to duplicate--although I suppose having Sam as Cap in the comics for a few years might allow a path in the movies to have him succeed Steve Rogers there when the actor playing Steve can't pull it off anymore).

 

But that last won't work for Insta-replacing Peter Parker with Miles in the films, because Peter hasn't existed in the real MCU yet, and while they might get away with saying Peter operated as Spidey quietly out of sight of the Avengers for a year or two, that's quite different from having Peter's ENTIRE career out of the public eye and then Miles coming along to replace him.  That route would sound like real B.S. given how active we know SHIELD and HYDRA and others have been seeking out metahumans.

 

The companies who own these characters seem to be operating under the erroneous belief that the superhero is a separate and independent entity from the civilian alter ego, and that the alter ego isn't so important that it can't be periodically revamped or rebooted altogether.

 

That's like saying Superman doesn't need Clark Kent, that Superman could continue as someone other than Clark Kent.   Can they really be that dense?   Or do they just not give a shit and will try to justify anything as long as it boosts sales?

 

I wasn't familiar with Sam Wilson/Falcon before seeing the Captain America movie, but the way they brought him into the story and utilized his special abilities was more along the lines of what I was suggesting above.   He was a likeable character with a good backstory.   

Edited June 24, 2015 by millennium

[nobodyyoucare]

 

(in fact, Sam is currently THE Captain America in the comics--which frankly shows the comics are guilty of exactly what I don't think we want the films to duplicate--although I suppose having Sam as Cap in the comics for a few years might allow a path in the movies to have him secede Steve Rogers there when the actor playing Steve can't pull it off anymore).

Except as is the case of Fantastic Four rather then inventing a new character or having an existing character took over the mantel they just alter an existing characters race and eff up everything along beside that. 

 

The Falcon had been around for a long time as a partner of Cap so for people in the Marvel Universe having another existing hero who worked alongisde Cap for years take his mantle is expected and welcome. 

[benteen]

This is one of the big problems in the Cap 3 outlook for me. Steve and Tony have exchanged like 20 civil words in the MCU so far. I don't CARE if they go to war, because I'm not invested in their underdeveloped relationship (and frankly even now they've spent way more time fighting than getting along). The emotional element from the comics is just not gonna be there. I would care far, far more if Steve went to war with Natasha or Sam. Hell, I would care more if he went to war with Thor!

 

I've enjoyed Cap and Tony's interaction but I agree, it's been anything but an epic friendship.

 

As for striving for great diversity in comics, I have no issue with it.  Some of Marvel's efforts have really paid off, like the new Ms. Marvel character.  Her comic has been outstanding and I can see Kamala Khan as a spirtual successor to Peter Parker.  

 

But I greatly dislike political correctness, which Marvel is currently catering, and a company that's number one priority is political correctness is never a good thing.  I also think the "informed" critics of Marvel's lack of diversity don't realize how difficult it is to sell brand-new characters and make them popular.  It's almost impossible for a new superhero to crack the top echelon of established populer superheroes (and villains) that have been around for decades.  I think the most recent ones to do it has been Deadpool for Marvel and Harley Quinn (a supervillain who started off as a one-shot cartoon character) in DC.

Edited June 24, 2015 by benteen

[vb68]

 

That route would sound like real B.S. given how active we know SHIELD and HYDRA and others have been seeking out metahumans.

 

 

The guys that run the cinematic MCU (the "movie" universe) could really give a shit about the TV world, specifically Agents of Shield.  Joss Whedon confirmed this in a couple of his many rants (interviews) after Ultron was released. He even said that Coulson is still dead in the movie world.

Edited June 24, 2015 by vb68

[Kel Varnsen]

The guys that run the cinematic MCU (the "movie" universe) could really give a shit about the TV world, specifically Agents of Shield.  Joss Wedon confirmed this in a couple of his many rants (interviews) after Ultron was released. He even said that Coulson is still dead in the movie world.

Which to me makes Joss Whedon come across as whiny baby (not that I am surprised). I mean I get that he doesn't want Coulson to be alive, but at the same time he still accepts that creator/ Exec Producer credit (and the money that comes with it) for every time an episode of Agents of Shield airs. 

 

Plus bashing the TV shows in general seems extra petty (even for him) considering the show runners of Agents of Shield are his brother and sister in law, the show runners of Daredevil is/was guys who got their start on Buffy and Angel and the show runners of Agent Carter formerly were producers on Dollhouse.

[vb68]

 

Which to me makes Joss Whedon come across as whiny baby (not that I am surprised). I mean I get that he doesn't want Coulson to be alive, but at the same time he still accepts that creator/ Exec Producer credit (and the money that comes with it) for every time an episode of Agents of Shield airs.

 

I couldn't agree more.  Plus I think he directed the pilot and was heavily involved in how that particular storyline evolved to get Coulson on the show.  I just thought it was really bad form.  But I thought most of his interviews after Ultron were also that way in general , getting in all his digs at Marvel.  At some point it's just unprofessional.

[Dandesun]

 

For example, much as I liked Brian Bendis' comic book use of the (white) Jessica Jones over the years (now coming to Netflix as simply "Jessica Jones"), she's indelibly linked with (black) Luke Cage.  So why, we might ask, is Jessica the headliner of the upcoming series rather than Luke?  They're both likely to appear.

 

Luke is not getting short shrift. Each of the Defenders will be getting their own series. Luke will be getting his own series after Jessica's and Iron Fist will be getting his after Luke's before all four team up.

 

I'll also point out that women headlining anything in Marvel is also pretty damn rare.

 

You know who I'd love to see in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Miss America Chavez.

[ChelseaNH]

Marvel's problem, for me, is that every movie has to end with a gigantic action set piece.  Actions scenes are shiny and have lots of movie parts, but dramatically, they're kind of dull.  Will our heroes win?  Yeah.  It's not a question of what will happen, but how it will happen.

 

John Rogers has a blog entry that was reposted on io9 recently about how action scenes need to have more at stake than just the hero's victory.  The end of CA:TWS is a good example.  Will Cap manage to replace the targeting blade in the third helicarrier in time to save thousands of people?  Of course.  But will he have to kill his best friend in order to do it?  Now there's room for some uncertainty.  It also lets the fight scene illuminate Cap's character, not just his martial prowess.

[Fukui San]

 

Marvel's problem, for me, is that every movie has to end with a gigantic action set piece.  Actions scenes are shiny and have lots of movie parts, but dramatically, they're kind of dull.

I would say that it doesn't have to be that way. Marvel so far has chosen to only tell their biggest stories.  It'd be like only reading the comic book "events" that happen every other year and skipping the 24 months of smaller storylines. It's a trick that has worked so far, but I don't think I'd be up for the 20th iteration of total Marvel Armageddon. (Actually Ragnarok might be a more apt term)

 

If Marvel can't get us to care about Captain America winning a fistfight against a single guy in a cornfield somewhere without Helicarriers falling out of the sky over a major city, I don't think the model is built for the long term.

[KatWay]

The Marvel formula worked so far, but it's always exactly the same. They hit gold with it and are basically making the same movie over and over now, with the same sequence of plot development (with final action scene climax) in each one. They're upping the stakes, but the world has been in peril so often now it also feels kinda "been there, done that". Especially since nobody really buys that the world/universe will actually be destoyed.

 

They'll have to shake things up if they want to stay relevant - I think they'd be better off focusing more on the uniqueness of each setting the individual characters provide. CA:TWS was best when they treated it as a political thriller, and became dull when they refocused on the action. The Thor movies should be actual scifi movies. Ant Man should be (should have been?) comedic in nature. Dr. Strange could be something else entirely, yet again. Instead, based on the last few movies I fear they might start out with a slightly different tone, but will eventually all succumb to the old and tried Marvel action blockbuster formula.

 

I just can't see movie audiences shilling out money forever for essentially seeing the same movie again and again.