Mark Millar now snubbing Marvel Disney...?

[Number 6]

Originally Posted by Visceral

I've always felt that Morrison has always wanted to be the next Moore, and Millar wants to be the next Miller.

All four of them seem to think outside the box and try outright to upset the the natural order of things. Its what comics should be, and its sort of funny.

He didn't say he didn't like avengers

Not to derail the thread or anything, but Morrison wanting to be the next Moore? Do you mean in the way he's viewed as so influencial? Because, as far as their styles and such, those two have very little similarities between their respective works.

I would say Millar is much closer to "wanting" to be Moore in that case. Millar has a big thing about heroes in the real world, though he's far more...playful, I guess is the right word, about it than Moore ever was.

[the gael]

Mark Millar, the biggest car salesman in the comic book industry...

[violetspike123]

The only thing I liked about xm FC was Micheal Fassbender as Magneto.

[Sawyer]

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Excelsior.]

I would say Millar is much closer to "wanting" to be Moore in that case. Millar has a big thing about heroes in the real world, though he's far more...playful, I guess is the right word, about it than Moore ever was.

Moore only wanted heroes in the "real world" for a small amount of time in his career. Now he parades around the belief that 80's gritty movement and 90's EXTREME has pretty much killed comics. His own League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a refreshingly light adventure.

[Evil Twin]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

Moore only wanted heroes in the "real world" for a small amount of time in his career. Now he parades around the belief that 80's gritty movement and 90's EXTREME has pretty much killed comics. His own League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a refreshingly light adventure.

With nudity, sex, and rape on a regular basis.

[Excelsior.]

Still light hearted. Sex and nudity means nothing to a Brit like Moore.

[Visceral]

Originally Posted by Number 6

Not to derail the thread or anything, but Morrison wanting to be the next Moore? Do you mean in the way he's viewed as so influencial? Because, as far as their styles and such, those two have very little similarities between their respective works.

I would say Millar is much closer to "wanting" to be Moore in that case. Millar has a big thing about heroes in the real world, though he's far more...playful, I guess is the right word, about it than Moore ever was.

just the way they talk.

[YoungPrime]

Originally Posted by the gael

Mark Millar, the biggest car salesman in the comic book industry...

Thing is, any car you'd buy from him wouldn't make it to the nearest theater.

[Number 6]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

Moore only wanted heroes in the "real world" for a small amount of time in his career. Now he parades around the belief that 80's gritty movement and 90's EXTREME has pretty much killed comics. His own League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a refreshingly light adventure.

Oh yes, I'm definitely aware, but that's still what Moore is popular and known for. I love stuff like his ABC comics and Supreme.

LOEG did start out that way, too, but Century got a little heavier.

Originally Posted by Visceral

just the way they talk.

Ah, yeah, I totally see what you mean then.

[Hawkingbird]

I thought XMFC wasn't far behind Avengers in quality. It equals the quality of X2 and Thor.

[def28]

X Men needs A listers and a writer who actually is influenced by the comics to reach Avengers level. Its a great film just not a great representation of what the X Men are capable of besides Mags and Prof X. Avengers on the other hand hits pretty much every note people wanted to see with its characters. Its one of the most crowd pleasing movies ever made. Havnt heard an audience cheer, laugh and applaud that much in a theatre for awhile.

[soundofyousick]

Originally Posted by def28

X Men needs A listers and a writer who actually is influenced by the comics to reach Avengers level. Its a great film just not a great representation of what the X Men are capable of besides Mags and Prof X. Avengers on the other hand hits pretty much every note people wanted to see with its characters. Its one of the most crowd pleasing movies ever made. Havnt heard an audience cheer, laugh and applaud that much in a theatre for awhile.

The Avengers had the advantage over XMFC of having the solo films beforehand, so they did not have to spend much time on character development and could juat have lots of crowd pleasing action.
Don't forget that Jonathan Ross' wife Jane Goldman, who co-wrote the XMFC script, is a comics fan herself, not to mention her husband, who may have pointed out some books, is a cb fanatic/expert.

[def28]

But it was based off Singers previous script. They rewrote the whole thing, but characters and plots were already chosen. Mystique is as far as you can get from her comic counterpart as are the chosen mutants as the first X Team.

Avengers succeeds without seeing the previous films imo. XFC had 4 previous films before it as well, with the X1 and 2 creator behind it.

[soundofyousick]

Originally Posted by def28

But it was based off Singers previous script. They rewrote the whole thing, but characters and plots were already chosen. Mystique is as far as you can get from her comic counterpart as are the chosen mutants as the first X Team.

Mystique's character arc is needed in that film, to explore that form of prejudice to the full, her power is perfect for it. If it is different from the comics, good, because we are talking about an adaptation here, what is good for the *film*. I have never seen an X-Men fan on the net complain about Mystique's character being different from the comics, maybe it's because she is very effective in the films, moreso than if they had her exactly like the books.
I onyl know her from the odd book here and there, but she just plays like a generic shape-shifting super-villan in her first appearances in Claremont/Byrne's X-Men, thinking DOFP.

They based it off Singer's treatment, not script.

Avengers succeeds without seeing the previous films imo. XFC had 4 previous films before it as well, with the X1 and 2 creator behind it.

eh, most of the characters in XMFC were introduced in that film, and you say that having seen the solo films before Avengers, true?
*You* could have enjoyed avengers to the full because you know the characters from the comics anyway, right?
Think of someone who has no clue about the characters, they would have no idea what Cap/Iron-Man/Thor was all about, absolutely no ref to how they got started, which is important(edit) if you want the full on thrill of sharing their adventures.
Without the previous films, the film is character-less, just a big punch up movie.
edit: and we got Magneto, Xavier and Mystique's full on origins, where before they had only been hinted at, there was no meat like that in Avengers, it needed the solo movies to be more than a special effects laden eye candy punch up movie.

[def28]

Disagree 100% on Mystique. She doesnt connect to X1 or 2 well at all in the end and its a forced set up. She is one of the worst parts of the flick imo. Violence, being stealthy and mystery is a huge part of Mystique. All that was thrown out the window.

Again I think Avengers works better because it uses those characters to their full advantage, not just character wise but scale wise. While many X Men films (not just FC) hasnt. Cyclops, Gambit, Storm, Deadpool and just about every other X character have been thrown to the side or ruined for Logan, Prof X and Magneto screen time. These films have not came close to the potential of the comics or why people have read them for decades.

I think DOFP will be the first X film to compete with Avengers in terms of quality and scale.

Originally Posted by soundofyousick

They based it off Singer's treatment, not script.

There was another script before Vaughn and Goldman rewrote it. How much of it is similar, I have no idea. All I know is that the plot and characters were chosen before they rewrote.

[soundofyousick]

Originally Posted by def28

Disagree 100% on Mystique. She doesnt connect to X1 or 2 well at all in the end and its a forced set up. She is one of the worst parts of the flick imo. Violence, being stealthy and mystery is a huge part of Mystique. All that was thrown out the window.

The themes in the X-Men films would not work as well without a character like her in there, she was needed for that story, much more important than simple run of the mill espionage stuff, that is something we have seen umpteen times in sci-fi/fantasy shows, and we got that all over X1 and X2, why do we need more of that over deep character exploration?

Again I think Avengers works better because it uses those characters to their full advantage, not just character wise but scale wise. While many X Men films (not just FC) hasnt. Cyclops, Gambit, Storm, Deadpool and just about every other X character have been thrown to the side or ruined for Logan, Prof X and Magneto screen time. These films have not came close to the potential of the comics or why people read them.

Avengers did not use the characters to their full advantage, the solo films *and*Avengers used the characters to their full advantage.
As I said, if the solo films did not exist, and you had no prior knowledge of the characters origins, the thrill would be far less felt.
I love the Cap/Loki fight, not for the choreographed action(although that is good), but because I know this was a wee skinny guy with asthma who is now standing up to a super-powered villan.
The dicotomy of Iron-Man's seeming irreverence and heroics would be puzzling, if not for the explanation as to how he got started as a hero.
Thor's speeches to Loki on not being ready to lead would carry far less weight if we had not seen his journey in his movie.

This is why BlackWidow, Hawkeye and Nick Fury are far less effective characters in the film.

edit: Whedon actually does a very good job of explaining the Hulk's predicament, we don't really need to see his solo movie beforehand, although, it helps.

[def28]

Originally Posted by soundofyousick

The themes in the X-Men films would not work as well without a character like her in there, she was needed for that story, much more important than simple run of the mill espionage stuff, that is something we have seen umpteen times in sci-fi/fantasy shows, and we got that all over X1 and X", why do we need more of that over deep character exploration?

Doesnt matter shes a bad representaiton on what Mystique should be. They ****ed her up. She works within the films story and thats it. She is a bad adaptation in FC even going from what she was like X1 and 2 films. Shes great there.

Avengers did not use the characters to their full advantage, the solo films *and*Avengers used the characters to their full advantage.
As I said, if the solo films did not exist, and you had no prior knowledge of the characters origins, the thrill would be far less felt.
I love the Cap/Loki fight, not for the choreographed action(although that is good), but because I know this was a wee skinny guy with asthma who is now standing up to a super-pwered villan.
The dicotomy of Iron-Man's seeming irreverence and heroics would be puzzling, if not for the explanation as to how he got started as a hero.
Thor's speeches to Loki on not being ready to lead would carry far less weight if we had not seen his journey in his movie.

This is why BW, HE and NF are far less effective characters in the film.

Disagree. All those characters were great representations of the comics. Can they do more? Hell yeah!

Hawkeye while not in the film as much was at least hinted at to have a strong past with Black Widow and had more screen time and dialogue then Storm and Cyc put together. It was very rewarding as a comic fan to see them fighting side by side. And at the least they tried to fit some sort of history in.

[soundofyousick]

Originally Posted by def28

Doesnt matter shes a bad representaiton on what Mystique should be. They ****ed her up. She works within the films story and thats it. She is a bad adaptation even going from the X1 and 2 films.

But you haven't said why she is adapted badly in that movie, apart from that you want to see more of her shape-shifting and grabbing bins out of people's offices and stuff like that. Why do you need to see more of that over deep character exploration of what it might be like to be a shape shifting mutant in a land of prejudice? Isn't that something they *should* have explored in the comics, if indeed they haven't?

Disagree. All those characters were great representations of the comics. Can they do more? Hell yeah!

Hawkeye while not in the film as much was at least hinted at to have a strong past with Black Widow and had more screen time and dialogue then Storm and Cyc put together. It was very rewarding as a comic fan to see them fighting side by side. And at the least they tried to fit some sort of history in.

I didn't say they were badly done, I said they were less effective than the heroes who already had solo movies, because we know who those guys are.
It was a blast for me to see Gambit fighting Wolverine, and having buddy banter with him, and we got hints to his past and how he lives, but I would've preffered a full on movie length team up between the two characters, so we got the full character.

But then, I guess you would lump Gambit in with the characters who were wasted on film, but are enthusiastic about Avengers characters who were just as underdeveloped, because they had better action scenes.
Remember, we are talking about characterisation here, not fight scenes.

[def28]

Originally Posted by soundofyousick

But you haven't said why she is adapted badly in that movie, apart from that you want to see more of her shape-shifting and grabbing bins out of people's offices and stuff like that. Why do you need to see more of that over deep character exploration of what it might be like to be a shape shifting mutant in a land of prejudice? Isn't that something they *should* have explored in the comics, if indeed they haven't?

She was an extremely timid character who seems dead frightened with violence. She is harmless in this film. You have her figured out right when she is in the bathroom at the intro of the film. Which should never be the case. You should always be guessing with her. I also did not buy her transition at the end at all. Her decision to go with Magneto makes absolutley no sense considering he wanted to nuke a fleet and joined up with people who murdered her friends. That **** should terrify the girl we knew in the film. But they needed to connect it somehow. They should have lead into her having some of the same violent tendencies earlier. I get what they were going for, it was just a very different/rushed version to go about the character.

The themes of acceptance and prejudice should always be built into these films. But that is no excuse of going out of character. The characters need proper adapting as well as the themes.

How the hell does this girl become an expert at espionage, deceit and martial arts? Or who would teach her these things to master late in life?

But then, I guess you would lump Gambit in with the characters who were wasted on film, but be enthusiastic about Avengers characters who were just as underdeveloped, because they had better action scenes.
Remember, we are talking about characterisation here, not fight scenes.

They were flat out written better then Gambit. Gambits fight logically makes no sense (even in this genre) and hes used as nothing more then a friggen pilot. He didnt belong in that film. Casting was good though.

There is nothing wrong with Hawkeye and Black Widow being supporting characters in a film. They did alot more in that film then A list X characters have.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by def28

She was an extremely timid character who seems dead frightened with violence. She is harmless in this film. You have her figured out right when she is in the bathroom. Which should never be the case. You should always be guessing with her. I also did not buy her transition at the end at all. Her decision to go with Magneto makes absolutley no sense considering he wanted to nuke a fleet and joined up with people who murdered her friends. That **** should terrify the girl we knew in the film. But they needed to connect it somehow. They should have lead into her having some of the same violent tendencies earlier. I get what they were going for, it was just a very different/rushed version to go about the character.

How the hell does this girl become an expert at espionage, deceit and martial arts? Or who would teach her these things to master late in life?


No they were flat out written better then Gambit. Gambits fight logically makes no sense (even in this genre) and hes used as nothing more then a friggen pilot. He didnt belong in that film. Casting was good though.

There is nothing wrong with Hawkeye and Black Widow being supporting characters in a film. They did alot more in that film then A list X characters have.

You nailed the problems with Mystique/Raven in FC. She was a sociable chatterbox in that movie, yet the Mystique we know from the other X films and the comics is a misanthropic loner who barely says a dozen words in most of her appearances. How she went from being a young woman who was outgoing enough to go pub crawling with her brother to someone who scarcely spoke and willingly participated in Magneto's genocidal schemes is never explained. Nor is the fact that Mystique's relationship with Charles was totally different from that in the earlier films or the comics.


The writers are expected to make some changes from the comics source, but in Mystique's case they created an entirely new character and merely gave her a familiar name and appearance.

[def28]

Originally Posted by xeno000

The writers are expected to make some changes from the comics source, but in Mystique's case they created an entirely new character and merely gave her a familiar name and appearance.

Exactly. Shes only Mystique in name and Shape shifting powers.

[soundofyousick]

Originally Posted by def28

She was an extremely timid character who seems dead frightened with violence. She is harmless in this film. You have her figured out right when she is in the bathroom at the intro of the film. Which should never be the case. You should always be guessing with her. I also did not buy her transition at the end at all. Her decision to go with Magneto makes absolutley no sense considering he wanted to nuke a fleet and joined up with people who murdered her friends. That **** should terrify the girl we knew in the film. But they needed to connect it somehow. They should have lead into her having some of the same violent tendencies earlier. I get what they were going for, it was just a very different/rushed version to go about the character.

The themes of acceptance and prejudice should always be built into these films. But that is no excuse of going out of character. The characters need proper adapting as well as the themes.

How the hell does this girl become an expert at espionage, deceit and martial arts? Or who would teach her these things to master late in life?

Good, I'm glad they started her off at another extreme, it's the more interesting character arc.
and we have seen only the first movie, we will see her develop into that more savvy character in further films I imagine.

As for her joining Magneto at the end, yes, it was a bit of a rushed changeover, but these things happen with films sometimes, they were not sure if the film would make enough money for a sequel to be made, so they crammed in Xavier's accident and Mystique's change of alliance into the one movie.

At a push you can see it, as Magneto's extreme p.o.v was backed up by the fact that the 'humans' did indeed fire upon the mutants indiscrminantly, as if they did want to pursue an agenda of wiping them all out, regardless of their actions and whether they were 'good' or 'bad'. Along with the fact that Magneto was the one person whose beliefs were making her more comfortable in her own skin for the first time in her life, you can see why she jumped.


edit:

They were flat out written better then Gambit. Gambits fight logically makes no sense (even in this genre) and hes used as nothing more then a friggen pilot. He didnt belong in that film. Casting was good though.

There is nothing wrong with Hawkeye and Black Widow being supporting characters in a film. They did alot more in that film then A list X characters have.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with them being there, that was not my ultimate point at all, which you have avoided. My point was to say that the Avengers needed the solo movies, as those characters were far more effective in the film, which you disputed. I guess you agree with me on that now.

[def28]

I know too many people who have only seen IM1 or none of the Marvel films and loved the heck out of The Avengers. The film works fine on its own for anyone who hasnt seen the other films. They may ask a few questions but the film answers everything you need to know for the ride. Does it work better because of the other films for the viewer? Definitely. Its not needed to enjoy it though.

Originally Posted by soundofyousick

At a push you can see it, as Magneto's extreme p.o.v was backed up by the fact that the 'humans' did indeed fire upon the mutants indiscrminantly, as if they did want to pursue an agenda of wiping them all out, regardless of their actions of whether they were 'good' or 'bad'. Along with the fact that Magneto was the one person whose beliefs were making her more comfortable in her own skin for the first time in her life, you can see why she jumped.

I get that was the intention. I just thought it was an extremely unbelievable one based on her characters other interactions with important characters in her life and her fear of violence.

Ive gotten into this debate a few times. As a fan of the comics and Raven in X1 and 2. I was annoyed by this Mystique and thought she was pretty weak. She is worthy of being more interesting. If you dug the take its all good.

[soundofyousick]

Originally Posted by def28

I know too many people who have only seen IM1 or none of the Marvel films and loved the heck out of The Avengers. The film works fine on its own for anyone who hasnt seen the other films. They may ask a few questions but the film answers everything you need to know for the ride. Does it work better because of the other films for the viewer? Definitely. Its not needed to enjoy it though.

Of course you can enjoy it on it's own, but it would be a pretty character-less eye candy punch up movie with quips otherwise, yes, people do enjoy those types of movie a great deal, and as a punch up movie, it is one of the best. But if Avengers had been released without the solo movies, a lot of people on here would be complaininbg over lack of character development for Cap/IM/Thor...but because of the solo moives, it gets almost universal praise on these boards.

I get that was the intention. I just thought it was an extremely unbelievable one based on her characters other interactions with important characters in her life and her fear of violence.

Ive gotten into this debate a few times. As a fan of the comics and Raven in X1 and 2. I was annoyed by this Mystique and thought she was pretty weak. She is worthy of being more interesting. If you dug the take its all good.

Well, you could say that her fear of violence might be counter-acted by her fear of dying, as of course it was Magneto who was warning them all along the 'humans' would do something like that, and it was his powers that saved them. She may feel that violence is inevitable for her kind in this world, and wants to protect herself by allying with the army who is better prepared, and has her best interests at heart, ie makes her feel comfortable in her own skin.