The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, rmontro said:

Stan Lee created his own diverse characters, why do his other characters need to be race swapped?  I notice since his death, Disney has been taking the MCU movies further and further away from the comics source material.  And in response, fans have had less and less interest in the MCU.

As someone with my own well-documented issues with Feige, I would point out that some of these "fans" are the ones squealing* about how great and awesome and amazing the new Deadpool movie is going to be, which is fine.....but quick, tell me the difference between Deadpool breaking the fourth wall and She Hulk doing it, and why the former is considered hilarious and the latter is seen as cringe?

I would love to believe that there's this great, overarching reverence for Stan's work, that all the years he put into creating these characters even before the movies existed is the Why behind the tidal wave of bitching, but the collective We switch up way too fast for the idea to take. Stan was gifted, and he gifted us with stories that have stood the test of time, but at some point it stops being about him and starts being (at best) about the collective We never being satisfied and (at worst) a gross little subset of the larger fandom who are mad that it's no longer just a bunch of white guys and maybe one or two women.

*Okay, squealing is exaggerating, but the whole "Marvel Jesus" thing is already grating my nerves, so I know it's going to be overdone by the time the movie hits theaters.
 

[Trini]

51 minutes ago, rmontro said:

The characters created in the '60s were predominately white because the US at the time was 90% white.  It wasn't out of meanness.  People created characters that looked like the country. 

Yes, the country with a history and culture of racism, discrimination, and segregation that would filter down through literature and the arts.

 

Quote

...  But if they're white, so what?  Why is it so wrong that they're white?  ...

Nothing inherently wrong*, but whiteness has generally been the default standard, and with a film adaptation there's an opportunity to do something different that reflects the world today.

*(although I think some of these 'icons' might not be as 'white' as some people think.)

[rmontro]

22 minutes ago, Tenshinhan said:

A white-dominated superhero team is concerning, especially if it's all-white.

Again, the Avengers were all white.  I haven't heard anyone say it was concerning, and besides, that movie was a resounding success.

 

23 minutes ago, Tenshinhan said:

The US at the time was also predominantly racist.  People created characters that looked like a racist country.  It doesn't matter whether it was out of "meanness" or not.  Black and minority culture was alive and well in the 60s, and those writers and artists made a choice to exclude it.

There is nothing about the Fantastic Four that "looks like a racist country".  And Stan Lee created minority characters.  But the country happened to be 90% white, and the entertainment industry reflected that, which shouldn't be surprising. 

 

24 minutes ago, Tenshinhan said:

It is much more important to preserve and protect non-white culture than it is to preserve white culture.

???  Why would one race's culture be more important than another?

[Anduin]

4 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

Doctor Doom is Romani in comics (unless that was retconned), so maybe they could get a Romani actor to portray him, that almost never happens so it would be a nice change. 

I completely forgot that. It's a very good point.

 

Edited February 16 by Anduin

[Tenshinhan]

1 hour ago, rmontro said:

Again, the Avengers were all white.  I haven't heard anyone say it was concerning, and besides, that movie was a resounding success.

They didn't have much choice, because the characters had already been introduced individually as white in solo movies.  Unlike the FF, where it's immediately noticeable that everyone is white.  More importantly, you had Sam Jackson in Avengers, so that was a critical factor.  Without him, I don't know if they would have proceeded without any minority cast members.

And it's about much more than how successful a movie may or may not turn out.

 

1 hour ago, rmontro said:

There is nothing about the Fantastic Four that "looks like a racist country".  And Stan Lee created minority characters.  But the country happened to be 90% white, and the entertainment industry reflected that, which shouldn't be surprising. 

I was referring to comics characters overall.  The predominance of white characters reflected a racist country.  It's not just about a numerical majority.  A country's culture is a reflection of not just numbers, but systems of power and oppression.  If one group of people has power and privilege while the other groups are marginalized and discriminated, then the numbers eventually become irrelevant.  Racism played a huge part in why minorities were and are excluded in the entertainment industry.

Stan Lee creating minority characters does not negate the racism inherent to the comic book industry, including in his own work.

 

1 hour ago, rmontro said:

Why would one race's culture be more important than another?

I didn't say that non-white culture is more important than white culture.  I said that preserving and protecting non-white culture is more important than for white culture.  White culture will be just fine if a minority actor steps into a white role.  But minority cultures will suffer if whites are cast in minority roles.  Even beyond the issue of comic book movies, the protection of whiteness is inherently assured by society, while non-white identity and culture is inherently vulnerable and takes care and effort to maintain.

[baldryanr]

9 hours ago, Dani said:

My question would be why were all those characters originally white and was their whiteness an important part of their characterization? I am all for respecting the origins of characters but I don’t see how that means characters have to look the way they did when they were created.

There's a difference between the superhero identity/costume and the civilian ID.  Iron Man can have anyone in the suit, but Tony Stark (rich asshole) makes sense as a white guy, just like Bruce Wayne.  Steve Rogers?  Yeah, he should be white because the US government wouldn't have made a black supersoldier their mascot in WW2.  Clark Kent, Midwestern farmboy?  He should be white.

Nick Fury?  Eh, he'll always serve an important role as the person some fans point to when they get all riled up about how changing a white character into a non-white one is fine, while doing the reverse (hello, Ancient One) provokes outrage.  Hey, maybe Pedro Pascal's Reed Richards can take the torch.

[Kel Varnsen]

As far as changes to the original silver age source material, I am not even sure that Marvel writers ever considered those stories sacred or untouchable. If they did there wouldn't be all sorts of alternate universes, retcons and the whole "What if..." comic series that gave writers the ability to explore making fundamental changes to those stories. Not to mention the whole Ultimate comic line.

Also white dudes have had 3 different shots at playing Reed Richards in FF movies and the general consensus seems to be they have all sucked (I only ever saw the Ioan Gruffudd ones). So maybe that's a good reason to give someone else a chance.

Edited February 16 by Kel Varnsen

[Guest]

7 hours ago, baldryanr said:

There's a difference between the superhero identity/costume and the civilian ID. 

I was talking about the civilian ID. 

7 hours ago, baldryanr said:

Iron Man can have anyone in the suit, but Tony Stark (rich asshole) makes sense as a white guy, just like Bruce Wayne.

I agree. Those are two characters that work best as white men because it is a part of their characterization now (even if it wasn’t originally intended that way). 

Although I do think they could do it but it would have to be thoughtfully and very well done. 

7 hours ago, baldryanr said:

Steve Rogers?  Yeah, he should be white because the US government wouldn't have made a black supersoldier their mascot in WW2. 

I agree as far as the Steve Rogers we know. But if they ever decide to reboot him and change his origin to something more modern than I don’t think him being a white man matters as much. 

7 hours ago, baldryanr said:

Clark Kent, Midwestern farmboy?  He should be white.

This one I completely disagree with. Clark is an alien and changing his race can create interesting character dynamics while staying true to his characterization. Particularly since we are now looking at a Clark raised in the 90’s or later. 

7 hours ago, baldryanr said:

Nick Fury?  Eh, he'll always serve an important role as the person some fans point to when they get all riled up about how changing a white character into a non-white one is fine, while doing the reverse (hello, Ancient One) provokes outrage.

Changing a white American to a Black American is very different than changing an Asian character steeped in Asian culture to a Celtic white woman. 

Those changes largely provoke outrage because the two groups involved are not starting from a place of equality making it a false equivalency. You take away one white character and the amount of white representation changes a minuscule amount. But when reversed one character change leads to a dramatic decrease in representation. 

Edited February 16 by Guest

[Raja]

Unless Steve Rogers was a Vietnam era soldier, when American hero would be iffy by the late 60s,  he had to be white unless we ignore the sacrifices of those who fought for civil rights 

[JustHereForFood]

14 hours ago, rmontro said:

When Marvel sold off the film rights of their biggest properties, they sold off the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, and the X-Men.

The Avengers weren't race swapped, and their movies were spectacularly successful.  Spider-Man wasn't race swapped.  The X-Men weren't race swapped.  Batman wasn't race swapped.  Superman wasn't race swapped.  Because those are all iconic characters.  But Fiege looks at the Fantastic Four and all of a sudden he has a problem, "they're too white"?  You wouldn't race swap Superman or Peter Parker or Wolverine because they're iconic, and people expect them to look a certain way.  And the Fantastic Four belongs in that group of very special iconic characters.  They were the first Marvel comic, and the foundation of the Marvel universe.  Out of respect, they shouldn't be race swapped.

Now having said that, you could race swap Superman now, because there have been so many versions of him already done.  You could now do a different take on him.  But the Fantastic Four has never had a good movie done of them, so get them right first, then you can start experimenting with them.  At least when they created Miles Morales, they had the good sense to make him a  different character.

I can usually see points from both sides on this debate and I agree that with some characters, it makes more sense to keep their appearance closer to the source material than with others. As Trini said, Bruce Wayne would not make much sense not white. But I don't see such need with Fantastic Four. They are scientists and while it made sense that in the early 60's they would be all white because people from other backgrounds would have it a lot harder to get to such prominent positions in the field, it is different now.

Nick Fury was changed and it worked. And if we look at other factors not just skin tone, many iconic characters look different in the movies than in comics. Wolverine is much taller but people praise Hugh Jackman for the role (and for good reasons). I like him, but I still see him as a different character than the one from comics, but that's ok because it's a different story. We already had animated adaptations with the characters looking very similar to comics. People usually complain less when it something like height or hair color that is changed.

Sometimes it's possible to find a great actor who looks very faithful to the original look (Patrick Stewart for example), but it's rare and I would rather have a good actor who can fit the personality than an exact look with mediocre portrayal. The writing will be more important anyway, IMO. We already had FF movies where the main 4 looked more or less like in comics.

 

14 hours ago, Raja said:

The problem being that while Nazis may have targeted those European minority ethnic groups it doesn't matter. For Americans looking to prove diverse casting the only "Whites" that count as adding diversity are those with Latin American roots.

Well, I can't speak for American audiences, since I'm European. I just wanted to point out since I'm from more-or-less the area where these fictional countries like Latveria or Sokovia are supposed to be, that here it's definitely a difference between being from the white majority and being Romani, there is still a lot of prejudice and racial tensions, even though some people can pass as white. And since most of the Romani characters I've seen in western movies and TV are played by white actors, it would be cool to break that pattern. I don't see why it shouldn't count as diversity like any other ethnicity if that is the character's origin. With Doom, I think it would be one of those cases when the ethnicity is important for the character's backstory, especially if they decide to show more of his past. Now that FF are in the MCU, there is a possibility to expand the story like with other characters, so they might for example make a TV show about Doom or Latveria and show more of the story that has already been developed in comics.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, shrewd.buddha said:

• Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm did not help make Fant4stic a better movie in 2015.
• Madame Web is not going to be remembered for its diversified, female led cast - - and the same thing goes for The Marvels.
• The casting for The Eternals was a PR orgy (though not very triggering since the source material wasn't well known).  The results were middling and nobody seems to be demanding a sequel.. 

If you are going to bring up those movies why not also bring up the Tom Holland Spider man movies? Those movies changed the race of Ned, and Flash, and Liz and even MJ. Those movies also made some other fundamental changes like making Betty Brandt a student and making Aunt May hot. And they were extremely well received and made billions of dollar. But if you made it so in a modern day Manhattan high school Peter Parker only had white friends, it would seem weird.

[shrewd.buddha]

40 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

If you are going to bring up those movies why not also bring up the Tom Holland Spider man movies?

I suppose I was mainly considering the 'super-heroes' of the movies and not the supporting cast. There have been quite a few jabs at Marvel movies for always giving their main character heroes BFF's who are minorities. 

It seems like a no-win situation. ...but it is said “A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied”

Edited February 16 by shrewd.buddha

[rmontro]

6 hours ago, baldryanr said:

Nick Fury?  Eh, he'll always serve an important role as the person some fans point to when they get all riled up about how changing a white character into a non-white one is fine, while doing the reverse (hello, Ancient One) provokes outrage. 

Nick Fury isn't a good example for race swapping in movies.  The black Nick Fury originated in the comics, in an alternate universe (the Ultimate universe), and so was a different character than the original.  But he became very popular, and he was almost a parody of Samuel L. Jackson, so the movies used that Nick Fury.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, shrewd.buddha said:

I suppose I was mainly considering the 'super-heroes' of the movies and not the supporting cast. There have been quite a few jabs at Marvel movies for always giving their main character heroes BFF's who are minorities. 

It seems like a no-win situation. ...but it is said “A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied”

I think most of the examples are unsatisfying to everyone (although plenty of people did enjoy The Marvels) for reasons beyond race and gender. Madam Web is being universally panned because it is a bad movie not because it’s a female led movie. I’ve seen comments that it’s actually pretty regressive in its portrayal of women. The same was true for WW84. Having diversity in a movie doesn’t actually make something good representation or progressive. 

As opposed to something like Captain Marvel which pissed off one group but was satisfying to much of the target audience. If Fantastic Four is poorly received by audiences, it’s not going to be because Pedro Pascal is Chilean.

Edited February 16 by Guest

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, rmontro said:

Nick Fury isn't a good example for race swapping in movies.  The black Nick Fury originated in the comics, in an alternate universe (the Ultimate universe), and so was a different character than the original.  But he became very popular, and he was almost a parody of Samuel L. Jackson, so the movies used that Nick Fury.  

Did you think that the Ultimates line was disrespectful to the original stories? Because it made a lot of fundamental changes to classic characters that were way bigger than making Fury black.  And possibly way bigger than any changes the MCU has made.

Edited February 16 by Kel Varnsen

[rmontro]

15 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Did you think that the Ultimates line was disrespectful to the original stories? Because it made a lot of fundamental changes to classic characters that were way bigger than making Fury black. 

No, because it was designed as an alternative to the 616 universe.  Gave them a chance to start telling stories over from the beginning.  Comics have always played around with alternative universes, reboots, other earths, what ifs, etc.  

The main difference there with the Fantastic Four was that they had already had an historic run.  Unlike in the movies where the FF has yet to have even one good movie.  Do one good rendition of them before you start messing around with them (although if rumors are correct, it sounds like they are going to stray from the source material a LOT). 

I will say that although I liked the Ultimates (Avengers), I thought the Ultimate version of  the FF was lousy.  They're supposed to be a family, and they made them a bunch of teenage geniuses in a think tank.  Ruined all the charm of the original team.

I will also say that I have no objection to the current cast.  I don't really see Pedro Pascal as Reed, but I'm willing to give him a shot at it.  As seen by the intro picture, at least they look like the Fantastic Four from the comics, basically.

[Trini]

4 hours ago, Dani said:

8 hours ago, baldryanr said:

Clark Kent, Midwestern farmboy?  He should be white.

This one I completely disagree with. Clark is an alien and changing his race can create interesting character dynamics while staying true to his characterization. Particularly since we are now looking at a Clark raised in the 90’s or later. 

Yeah, this is what I meant that some of these characters aren't actually 'white'. Kal-El is an orphaned refugee from another galaxy, why does that mean he has to be 'white'.

 

3 hours ago, shrewd.buddha said:

• Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm did not help make Fant4stic a better movie in 2015.
• Madame Web is not going to be remembered for its diversified, female led cast - - and the same thing goes for The Marvels.
• The casting for The Eternals was a PR orgy (though not very triggering since the source material wasn't well known).  The results were middling and nobody seems to be demanding a sequel.. 

And? Movies with white male stars also flop, and movies with non-white casts are successful as well.

(As if MBJ was the problem in that movie -- LOL!)

[JustHereForFood]

2 hours ago, shrewd.buddha said:

It seems like a no-win situation. ...but it is said “A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied”

There is a portion of fans that is permanently dissatisfied with MCU no matter what they do, so that is not hard to achieve. But in this case, I don't think it's the way to go.

FF already had a shot at movies at Fox, so it seems only fair that Marvel can try their own thing.

 

28 minutes ago, Trini said:

(As if MBJ was the problem in that movie -- LOL!)

I haven't seen that version, but I have heard many people saying that he was the only good thing about that movie.

 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

There is a portion of fans that is permanently dissatisfied with MCU no matter what they do, so that is not hard to achieve. But in this case, I don't think it's the way to go.

And there we have it:

[Morrigan2575]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Did you think that the Ultimates line was disrespectful to the original stories? Because it made a lot of fundamental changes to classic characters that were way bigger than making Fury black.  And possibly way bigger than any changes the MCU has made.

Personally, I never read the Ultimate line only 616 but, some of the stuff I've heard about the Ultimate line makes me side eye the stories. I think there was one where Natasha had Clint's family killed because she never defected and was revealed to be a traitor.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

29 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Personally, I never read the Ultimate line only 616 but, some of the stuff I've heard about the Ultimate line makes me side eye the stories. I think there was one where Natasha had Clint's family killed because she never defected and was revealed to be a traitor.

 

The only read the first storyline I think and all I remember (other than black Fury) was Hank Pym's super abusive relationship with Janet and Pietro and Wanda having a potentially incestuous thing going on. Wasn't Cap also basically a white nationalist? Any of those things if done in movies would make people lose their minds.

 

5 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

As Trini said, Bruce Wayne would not make much sense not white. 

I feel like someone could probably tell an interesting story about a Bruce Wayne whose family were self made immigrants. Or a Batman story set in Tokyo with a Japanese batman. Like I said they are all just made up stories and in the end the main goal should just be to tell an interesting story not to match up with something that was told previously in another medium.

[rmontro]

49 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

I haven't seen that version, but I have heard many people saying that he was the only good thing about that movie.

There was nothing good about that movie.

[Trini]

5 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

... Like I said they are all just made up stories and in the end the main goal should just be to tell an interesting story not to match up with something that was told previously in another medium.

This is the thing. I get that people want to see what is in the comics, but film is a different medium. It's never going to be exactly the same. For many reasons.

[rmontro]

57 minutes ago, Trini said:

This is the thing. I get that people want to see what is in the comics, but film is a different medium. It's never going to be exactly the same. For many reasons.

Of course it won't be exactly the same.  But there is a line where you can see they are respecting the source material, and where they are not.  Look at Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.  There were changes made to accomodate the film process, and some of them I didn't like.  But overall, he did a good job and was respectful to the source material.  

Now compare that to the debacle that is the Rings of Power series on Amazon, where they wipe their behinds with Tolkien's work.  That's the difference.

[shrewd.buddha]

2 hours ago, Trini said:

 I get that people want to see what is in the comics, but film is a different medium

I have read some of the 'classic' Marvel comics from the 60's and early 70's - - and there is definitely room for improvement.  There is potential for some inspired changes in the adaptations.  But the Disney marketing machine makes every casting choice feel like a stunt. Maybe it's because they seem to start promotion before the script is even finished. 

I don't know if Disney/Marvel can afford to keep attempting to fix their messes with mult-millions dollar reshoots. 

Edited February 17 by shrewd.buddha

[Guest]

1 hour ago, rmontro said:

But there is a line where you can see they are respecting the source material, and where they are not.

But that line is going to be different for every fan. Marvel Comics span nearly a century and different generations of fans are going to hold different things sacred. We all want the movies to respect what we value but that’s an impossible task. No one Fanny is going to be representative of the entire fan base or even the majority of the fan base. 

[Tenshinhan]

5 minutes ago, shrewd.buddha said:

But the Disney marketing machine makes every casting choice feel like a stunt.

What casting choices in particular are you saying have felt like a stunt?  And how has the marketing played a role?

[rmontro]

34 minutes ago, Dani said:

But that line is going to be different for every fan. Marvel Comics span nearly a century and different generations of fans are going to hold different things sacred. 

Oh sure.  Like myself, I'm extremely passionate when it comes to the Fantastic Four.  All I know is that even though there were good movies and bad, as a Marvel comic fan I felt respected by the MCU movies up to a certain point, and now I no longer do.  Or at the very least I am no longer confident about what they are doing.  I think it's pretty clear they no longer care about the comic book fan, and are pursuing what they see as bigger things - China box office, enlarging their base of movie goers.

But I think they're making a mistake.  I think if they respected the comic book fans, they would have a strong foundation to build from, and the positive vibes would spread from there.  As it is, they're getting bad word of mouth, and their box office is dropping.

[shrewd.buddha]

Maybe 'stunt casting' is too strong a concept. 
But it feels as if they are constantly promoting their movies and shows as "The first [blank] to to ever [blank]."  This was in overdrive during the Eternals promotion.
Being a comics fan, maybe the algorithm targets me with more of the Disney PR and hype. For me, this contributes to the "fatigue" of it all.

Angelina Jolie and Harrison Ford seem like excess celebrity cost for the roles they had (or will have).  Even Zendaya seemed more popular than Tom Holland for her small-ish part in the first Spider-Man movie. 

So, yeah, the movie business is in the business of making as much money as possible... but  Disney seems to prioritize marketing over creativity (artistic vision?) - - which may explain why some directors leave Marvel projects during the early phases of production. 
For example, did Wakanda Forever benefit from being a pre-promotion vehicle for a Disney+ show Ironheart? (which may not happen for a very long time)

Would things be any better if the MCU had never been bought by Disney? Who knows..  However, Warner Bros.(The Flash) and Columbia Pictures (Morbius) don't help in making a counterpoint.

Edited February 17 by shrewd.buddha

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, shrewd.buddha said:

So, yeah, the movie business is in the business of making as much money as possible... but  Disney seems to prioritize marketing over creativity (artistic vision?) - - which may explain why some directors leave Marvel projects during the early phases of production. 

For example, did Wakanda Forever benefit from being a pre-promotion vehicle for a Disney+ show Ironheart? (which may not happen for a very long time)

Would things be any better if the MCU had never been bought by Disney? Who knows..  However, Warner Bros.(The Flash) and Columbia Pictures (Morbius) don't help in making a counterpoint.

Alternately, I maintain that The Marvels was hindered by the obvious lack of marketing/promotion. Yes, there were trailers, but the strike disallowed anything in the way of the main cast talking the film up. Now that it's on Disney Plus and the people who didn't see it in theaters are able to watch it, it's getting some very good word of mouth on social media, almost like it was a decent movie to begin with but the jerks who don't like Brie Larson wanted it to fail.

There's also a piece in there where the writing is not always solid, even in the "good old days". I am convinced that whoever decided to cast Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes believed that was all it would take, since it's been 13 years since The First Avenger and he continues to have the personality of a doorstop. If he's going to take up space, they should at least make him interesting, but they haven't done it yet. Granted, that's an extreme case, and yet given how popular Barnes is,you'd think the writers could add some substance.

[baldryanr]

45 minutes ago, shrewd.buddha said:

So, yeah, the movie business is in the business of making as much money as possible... but  Disney seems to prioritize marketing over creativity (artistic vision?) - - which may explain why some directors leave Marvel projects during the early phases of production. 

Marvel movies (and a lot of franchise movies in general) are expected to fit a certain mold - a director who wants free reign creatively has to be hot stuff with a record of success.  There are multiple examples across Marvel and DC that show giving a director carte blanche can backfire - contrary to popular belief, not every studio note is bad.

[Raja]

11 hours ago, baldryanr said:

Marvel movies (and a lot of franchise movies in general) are expected to fit a certain mold - a director who wants free reign creatively has to be hot stuff with a record of success.  There are multiple examples across Marvel and DC that show giving a director carte blanche can backfire - contrary to popular belief, not every studio note is bad.

Because as Taika Watita just got shown laughing at the source material that most acknowledge that some might be fans but are sure that the nerd audience is to be tolerated at best 

Edited February 18 by Raja

[shrewd.buddha]

41 minutes ago, baldryanr said:

Marvel movies (and a lot of franchise movies in general) are expected to fit a certain mold - a director who wants free reign creatively has to be hot stuff with a record of success. 

I feel that almost any 'hot' director with a good rep would balk at all the restrictions and cross-promotional mandates that Disney MCU would put on them. Maybe that's why some of the indie directors they hire are considered "director in name only". 

Do you think that the MCU would even consider making a low-budget movie that isn't heavily cross-connected? 
The current trend seems to be comic-book hero movies as wacky comedies - which makes it easier for me to disengage from it all - - or just wait for the streaming option.

[arc]

On 2/16/2024 at 1:02 PM, Morrigan2575 said:

Personally, I never read the Ultimate line only 616 but, some of the stuff I've heard about the Ultimate line makes me side eye the stories.

The Ultimate Marvel line was hit and miss. I guess 616 is too, but with a smaller lineup it was easier to notice with UM. My hot take would be that Ultimate Spider-Man is pretty good, the Ultimates (Avengers with a different team name) usually had great art and often some questionable writing that hasn't aged well, and some of the other projects (Ultimate Iron Man miniseries) were disavowed from Ultimate Comics continuity almost immediately.

The early MCU took a few things directly from UM, like Nick Fury being Samuel L Jackson, the early versions of the Iron Man armor being a hell of a production to put on or take off, many superhumans being some ways related to the WW2 super-soldier project. And like UM, the MCU has gradually drifted more towards resembling the 616 continuity as time has gone on*, because so many of the creators are fans of the original stuff. Like, if Marvel Studios does their own take on Galactus, it'll probably be the 616 Galactus in all his Kirby glory and not the UM Gah Lak Tus (more sci-fi, less space god with a crazy helmet)

* with exception of Nick Fury, where 616 made the new Nick Fury Black to better match the movies and thus to also match UM.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 2/17/2024 at 8:44 AM, shrewd.buddha said:

Do you think that the MCU would even consider making a low-budget movie that isn't heavily cross-connected? 
The current trend seems to be comic-book hero movies as wacky comedies - which makes it easier for me to disengage from it all - - or just wait for the streaming option.

But isn't it all supposed to be connected? For instance, much has been made of Tiamut from The Eternals sticking out of the ocean without mention of it in other movies, like where exactly should that fit in? Wakanda Forever, somewhere between a country grieving the loss of their king and Shuri beating the hell out of Namor? Love & Thunder, while Thor is dealing with Gorr? The Marvels[/b] might be the closest match, and yet that was focused on Carol's past actions regarding Hala  and reconciling with Monica, not to mention Kamala coming to terms with what it means to be a hero. When are the hands coming out of the ice supposed to be casually mentioned?

Re comedy: I wonder how many of the "No jokes!" crowd are thrilled about Deadpool, because.....Deadpool. I guess the MCU could always hire Zack Snyder to direct something boring and humorless, but that doesn't seem like a solution either, since in the end it could all be undone by something more ridiculous than even Waititi could come up with. "Gosh, my mom's name is Martha too! That's so weird!" I mean, The Wedding Singer is a comedy, but so is Airplane! We don't disqualify one from the category just because it's not to everyone's liking.

Because it really keeps coming back to that. "No jokes!" *The MCU brings Deadpool into the mix, and everyone cheers* "Do smaller team up movies!" *Thunderbolts is announced and goes into pre-production* "But, but, but, these characters are way underpowered because most of them are 'just' supersoldiers!" I'm sure there's more examples, but I would posit that our expectations are at least half of the wrench in the gears, because then it becomes, "No, not like that" when Feige or Iger or whoever doesn't do things exactly the way we want.

Edited February 18 by Cobalt Stargazer

[rmontro]

12 hours ago, arc said:

Like, if Marvel Studios does their own take on Galactus, it'll probably be the 616 Galactus in all his Kirby glory and not the UM Gah Lak Tus (more sci-fi, less space god with a crazy helmet)

Arrgh, that reminds me of the "Galactus is a cloud' debacle from Rise of the Silver Surfer (yeah, yeah, Galactus was in the cloud, whatever).  People said "Movie goers will never accept a giant purple robot".  But we've had the Celestials and the Watchers in MCU movies, and no one batted an eye.  You need Galactus as a personal threat.  These are the kind of mistakes that get made when they stray from the source material, and forget about their core fans.  

[Trini]

On 2/17/2024 at 9:55 AM, shrewd.buddha said:

Even Zendaya seemed more popular than Tom Holland for her small-ish part in the first Spider-Man movie. 

Well yeah; she was the bigger star.

[baldryanr]

On 2/15/2024 at 10:05 PM, rmontro said:

Stan Lee created his own diverse characters, why do his other characters need to be race swapped?  I notice since his death, Disney has been taking the MCU movies further and further away from the comics source material.  And in response, fans have had less and less interest in the MCU.

Stan Lee didn't seem too bothered about some of his other characters being swapped.  He also had an interesting line about "unyielding fealty to the source material".

[shrewd.buddha]

It seems crazy that Deadpool will the the only MCU movie for 2024. And the behind-the-scenes news about the next Captain America movie does not sound good: major reshoots, poor screenings, etc.  They are definitely going through a new phase - but probably not one they planned for.

It is disappointing, because I was excited when Kevin Feige had said something along the lines of "we have thousands of characters and plan to explore them" - in response to the option of rebooting the top tier characters. 
I wondered if that was the reason recent releases have included lesser known comics characters (Kamala Khan, Cassie Lang, Riri Williams, America Chavez).  It seems more than a coincidence. 

Edited February 19 by shrewd.buddha

[Raja]

19 minutes ago, shrewd.buddha said:

It seems crazy that Deadpool will the the only MCU movie for 2024. And the behind-the-scenes news about the next Captain America movie does not sound good: major reshoots, poor screenings, etc.  They are definitely going through a new phase - but probably not one they planned for.

It is disappointing, because I was excited when Kevin Feige had said something along the lines of "we have thousands of characters and plan to explore them" - in response to the option of rebooting the top tier characters. 
I wondered if that was the reason recent releases have included lesser known comics characters (Kamala Khan, Cassie Lang, Riri Williams).  It seems more than a coincidence. 

I think that he did want to continue on with the MCU. Unfortunately unlike comic books human actors really age. So it was a matter of transferring the power sets to  the next generation or reboot. Although the gatekeepers keep saying that in the comics those next generation characters keep failing but that might be lost in the greater loss of market share overall.

While having the next generation Avengers playing a secondary role to the reacquired star characters might have worked, that plan may have been blipped by COVID and the strikes. And now like a gambler who stayed at the tables too long Marvel is losing all the wins it made for Disney when the Avengers actually worked to bring in the billions for everything related to the grand saga.

So now in an interim period, the Defenders are now canon after being all but dismissed as not made by me so I don't care. So now the hope being  those looking for Netflix style action will keep Disney+ for the longer run of Daredevil. And what is being redone is because  another big business failure might see a call for a new producer

Edited February 19 by Raja

[MadyGirl1987]

On 2/18/2024 at 8:02 AM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Re comedy: I wonder how many of the "No jokes!" crowd are thrilled about Deadpool, because.....Deadpool.

Right? Also, how many of them hated She-Hulk when she was doing the same thing the Deadpool movies did, just without the toilet humor and gratuitous violence? I’m not going to say it’s all because of the “she” in She-Hulk, but I do think the “anti-woke” segment of MCU fans had it out for the series. As for me, She-Hulk had issues, but I liked it much better than the Deadpool movies.

I am kinda sad the next Deadpool film is the only one we are getting next year, because I am not really looking forward to it. I will see it because of Hugh Jackman, because I love him as Wolverine, but I have a feeling he is going to be the best part of the movie. I find Deadpool, and Ryan Reynolds for that matter, juvenile and smarmy, so I’m basically in it for Jackman/Wolverine and to see where the MCU is going from here. I haven’t hated the newer Marvel movies/shows, but I do think the quality has dipped. I’m hopeful for the future though. I feel Marvel is in a rebuilding era, which hasn’t been helped by the pandemic, the industry strike and changes in the film/entertainment  industry in general. They’ve been down and out before. Even went bankrupt in the 90s. I’m hopeful they will be able to weather this storm.

[Raja]

I think a strawman argument is being made against the She-Hulk haters. Just jokes, or the 4th wall wasn't it. 

[baldryanr]

2 hours ago, Raja said:

I think that he did want to continue on with the MCU. Unfortunately unlike comic books human actors really age. So it was a matter of transferring the power sets to  the next generation or reboot. Although the gatekeepers keep saying that in the comics those next generation characters keep failing but that might be lost in the greater loss of market share overall.

Well, that and they get bored with the role and/or keep demanding bigger paychecks.  The latter isn't as big of an issue if you're sure about the difference their presence will make, but there's really no way around the former once the actor has decided they're tired of passing on other roles and having to maintain that superhero physique. 

1 hour ago, Raja said:

I think a strawman argument is being made against the She-Hulk haters. Just jokes, or the 4th wall wasn't it. 

The pitch meeting put it best - you can't have an opinion about the show without someone placing you on one extreme of a very complicated issue.

[rmontro]

11 hours ago, baldryanr said:

Stan Lee didn't seem too bothered about some of his other characters being swapped.  He also had an interesting line about "unyielding fealty to the source material".

Well good for Stan.  I don't care about who gets race swapped either, until they start messing with my favorite characters.  And the movie he's talking about, Fan4stic, was a massive failure both critically and financially.  Michael B. Jordan was the least of the problems.  Although I have to say, when I think about Michael B. Jordan, I certainly don't see Johnny Storm.  Didn't like that they made Sue and him adopted either.  Or that it was based mainly on the Ultimate FF comics.  Trash.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I read somewhere that Marvel no longer does long term contracts, and whether that's across the board or just for the top billed characters I'm not certain. I know that Anthony Mackie is very busy now, even outside of franchise work, since he's still doing Twisted Metal for the Peacock platform in addition to some other things. Someone on FB pointed out Pedro Pascal's age (48) as a possible negative, but if it isn't going to be a decade of playing Reed Richards, it might not be an imperative to cast someone younger.

 

7 hours ago, baldryanr said:

The pitch meeting put it best - you can't have an opinion about the show without someone placing you on one extreme of a very complicated issue.

Is it that complicated, though? I know that there were issues with She-Hulk as a whole, but I would argue that if you didn't like it when Jennifer Walters broke the fourth wall to talk to the 'audience', then why should Wade Wilson doing it be any better? We can avoid the stuff about Jennifer having practice at controlling her anger because of having to deal with things like catcalling, because that could be complicated, but the other thing seems pretty straightforward.

[Morrigan2575]

I'm a bit iffy on this, I love that they kept the theme song but, I'm unsure on some of the voice acting.  That being said, Gambit charging Wolverine's Claws is quite interesting.  Shame, Jubes will probably get side-lined again 😒

1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

know that there were issues with She-Hulk as a whole, but I would argue that if you didn't like it when Jennifer Walters broke the fourth wall to talk to the 'audience', then why should Wade Wilson doing it be any better?

Or Deadpool actually used the gimmick well and She-Hulk didn't? 

 

[rmontro]

Another problem with the race swapping isn't the race swapping itself.  But it often signals a cavalier approach and attitude toward adapting the material.  It telegraphs that their priorities are on something other than storytelling and creating a faithful adaptation.  

Of course, sometimes a movie is better than the book (though rarely).  But when the source material is highly beloved in itself, maybe the film maker should focus more on figuring out why that is than on putting his own particular stamp on it.

[shrewd.buddha]

11 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Or Deadpool actually used the gimmick well and She-Hulk didn't? 

Just my opinion, but I feel that Deadpool was an exceptionally made movie: the direction, story structure, etc. The slow-mo opening sequence with sight-gags and sarcastic voice over was really well done. Ryan Reynolds was just a small part of that.

Deadpool 2 was just a pale imitation of the first movie and did not perform as well - - not a good sign for a franchise. Some jokes get old fast and there were a lot of things that just felt like a rehash of the first movie.

20 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

I am kinda sad the next Deadpool film is the only one we are getting next year, because I am not really looking forward to it.

Based on recent MCU productions, there is no guessing how good the MCU Deadpool will be - or how succe$$ful.  I might actually enjoy the trailers more than the full movie ... some things are more tolerable in smaller doses.

Edited February 20 by shrewd.buddha

[JustHereForFood]

13 hours ago, rmontro said:

Of course, sometimes a movie is better than the book (though rarely).  But when the source material is highly beloved in itself, maybe the film maker should focus more on figuring out why that is than on putting his own particular stamp on it.

I see no indication so far that this should not be the case with Fantastic 4. I am not that knowledgeable about them, but I thought that the reason they were so popular is mainly the focus on the family and their dynamics being somewhat different than other, bigger teams. (And the lack of secret identities, but that is already what we are used to in the MCU, so it won't stand out.)

 

[MadyGirl1987]

41 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

I see no indication so far that this should not be the case with Fantastic 4. I am not that knowledgeable about them, but I thought that the reason they were so popular is mainly the focus on the family and their dynamics being somewhat different than other, bigger teams. (And the lack of secret identities, but that is already what we are used to in the MCU, so it won't stand out.)

I would also add that the history of comics is full of different writers and artists putting their own spin on the characters. Look at how many different runs and how many different stories have been told with the FF. Their history is composed of those writers and artists putting their own spin on them.