Characters who (I feel) were improved upon by the movies

[Dark Raven]

I'd add Whiplash to the list myself. Even if he didn't get enough screentime, I still think Favreau did a good of taking a boring one-dimensional character from the comics and making him into something better.

I disagree. What Favreau did is tantamount to taking someone like Dr Octopus and giving him most of the characteristics of the Green Goblin as well as the name Osborne but slightly changing his first name.

Most of Whiplash's character and motivations were Crimson Dynamo. Favreau should've just gone with him instead of combining him with Whiplash. That was unnecessary. Whiplash, along with the likes of the Melter and Blizzard are more just hired hands of someone like Justin Hammer. They're not major villains and shouldn't be made into ones either.

Crimson Dynamo is more of a genuine threat and more of a character in his own right. He would've been interesting enough to use and would've been more faithful to the comics too. We still would've had almost the same character that we had with Mickey Rourke as well, only that he might not have used those electric whips. However, Rourke barely used them anyway since he spent most of the time tinkering away in the background, and then wore a suit of armour in the end during the final battle.

 

[The Overlord]

I disagree. What Favreau did is tantamount to taking someone like Dr Octopus and giving him most of the characteristics of the Green Goblin as well as the name Osborne but slightly changing his first name.

Most of Whiplash's character and motivations were Crimson Dynamo. Favreau should've just gone with him instead of combining him with Whiplash. That was unnecessary. Whiplash, along with the likes of the Melter and Blizzard are more just hired hands of someone like Justin Hammer. They're not major villains and shouldn't be made into ones either.

Crimson Dynamo is more of a genuine threat and more of a character in his own right. He would've been interesting enough to use and would've been more faithful to the comics too. We still would've had almost the same character that we had with Mickey Rourke as well, only that he might not have used those electric whips. However, Rourke barely used them anyway since he spent most of the time tinkering away in the background, and then wore a suit of armour in the end during the final battle.

The problem with Crimson Dynamo is there have 14 different versions of that character, which would you even pick? Its not like one ever really stood that much from others, unlike say Norman Osborn as Green Goblin who is Spidey's nemesis and is more important then Bart Hamilton. Is Boris Turgenov more compelling then The problem is the writers seem to kill off or just forgot the current guy wearing the Crimson Dynamo armor and replace him with someone else, its hard to get invested into a character when they constantly replace him with someone else.

I don't have a problem with combining certain characters in a movie, it cuts down the tons of characters from the comics and streamlines things. I thought combing William Stryker with the professor who gave wolverine his adamantium bones was a good move.

Being 100% faithful to the comics doesn't necessarily make a movie good.

I also found movie Whiplash more compelling then comic book Crimson Dynamo, he was more fleshed out. Comic book crimson Dynamo just comes off as an outdated political propaganda stereotype. I liked the fact that movie Whiplash had a personal grudge against, which is a cooler motive then just being a one dimensional straw man communist villain.

 

[Anubis]

They shouldn't have used another Armor guy anyway.

 

[Dark Raven]

The problem with Crimson Dynamo is there have 14 different versions of that character, which would you even pick? Its not like one ever really stood that much from others, unlike say Norman Osborn as Green Goblin who is Spidey's nemesis and is more important then Bart Hamilton. Is Boris Turgenov more compelling then The problem is the writers seem to kill off or just forgot the current guy wearing the Crimson Dynamo armor and replace him with someone else, its hard to get invested into a character when they constantly replace him with someone else.

I don't have a problem with combining certain characters in a movie, it cuts down the tons of characters from the comics and streamlines things. I thought combing William Stryker with the professor who gave wolverine his adamantium bones was a good move.

Being 100% faithful to the comics doesn't necessarily make a movie good.

I also found movie Whiplash more compelling then comic book Crimson Dynamo, he was more fleshed out. Comic book crimson Dynamo just comes off as an outdated political propaganda stereotype. I liked the fact that movie Whiplash had a personal grudge against, which is a cooler motive then just being a one dimensional straw man communist villain.

Well, since they used the name Ivan Vanko, they should've just used the Anton Vanko version of Dynamo. He could've had a personal grudge against Stark and even been more or less as Mickey Rourke was. He just wouldn't have been Whiplash and could've had a suit of armour more similar to Crimson Dynamo. As to which suit? Well, they could've had him evolve with different armours over the course of the movie.

 

[Anubis]

Or they could have used somebody that didn't use armor at all..........I mean I hate to be that guy but, come on. That's two in a row.....plus the hero has armor......and his buddy. Living Laser? The Ghost? Mandarin? Somebody that isn't doing the same damn thing.

 

[The Overlord]

Well, since they used the name Ivan Vanko, they should've just used the Anton Vanko version of Dynamo. He could've had a personal grudge against Stark and even been more or less as Mickey Rourke was. He just wouldn't have been Whiplash and could've had a suit of armour more similar to Crimson Dynamo. As to which suit? Well, they could've had him evolve with different armours over the course of the movie.

Well if we are being true to the comics, Anton Vanko didn't have a problem with Tony Stark, he became Stark's friend and sacrificed himself to save Stark, so having him have a personal grudge against Tony would be different from the comics.

I think Favreau just liked the energy whips gimmick and since Whiplash was a rather uninteresting character, he merged the energy whips gimmick with the of the basics of the crimson Dynamo character, then added a bunch of new stuff in. I find both Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo to be uninteresting characters in the comics, so don't think this move "ruined" these characters and if it did, I found those characters so uninteresting in the first place that I didn't care.

 

[Duke]

But the Russian Zod was better than both of em.

Russian Zod does indeed look very impressive. What issues or storyline does he appear in?

 

[Anubis]

Action Comics 780 to 783 and 796 and 797.

 

[Duke]

Action Comics 780 to 783 and 796 and 797.

Cool. I'll be sure to check them out for sure because it peaked my interest. In the meantime, i'll dig up what I can on the guy on the internet.

 

[Anubis]

Even though this has nothing to do with Russian Zod, It did take place during the same awesome run by Joe Kelly. So if you haven't read it already, I'd like to refer you to Action Comics #775. It's the comic that you show to all the *****e bags when they talk about Superman being a boring boy scout. It's called "What's so funny about Truth, Justice, and the American Way?"

 

[Duke]

Even though this has nothing to do with Russian Zod, It did take place during the same awesome run by Joe Kelly. So if you haven't read it already, I'd like to refer you to Action Comics #775. It's the comic that you show to all the *****e bags when they talk about Superman being a boring boy scout. It's called "What's so funny about Truth, Justice, and the American Way?"

I'll also note that one on my "must read" list.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Ultimately I would have to say Brian Cox's William Stryker was a great success as he gave the character a much more complex motivation and a more believable setting. Making him a rogue military agent and also tying him to Wolverine was a smart move. His comic name is The Professor which is deliberately confusing in an X-Men movie. That's basically who he is despite replicating the Reverend's plot in GLMK. I did not like him being "Mastermind's" father as it seemed to basically waste a potentially good character and power set.

I thought giving Victor Zsasz a believable occupation was a smart idea. Instead of just some serial killer, he's a butcher for the mob.

Don Blake: I liked how Ultimates streamlined Thor by just making him Thor all the time (although I wish they continued with the notion he was crazy - that was ballsy). I always thought Don Blake was the weakest secret identity of a major character, and there never seemed to be any reason for him. Making Don Blake the ex was a fun idea.

Blade just obvious to me.

I feel like as a supporting cast member Samuel L. Jackson is a better Fury. I find him to be mostly a one note character but since he's not driving the action, high on character and light on substance is a good thing. He's also clearly the most successful race change I've ever seen. When Millar retooled his character in Ult. X-Men and then Ultimates he made him significantly different from the origin and gave him some pop. I'd love to see Ted Danson be an uptight Henry Peter Gyrich opposite Jackson's Fury.

 

[Iron_Stark]

They shouldn't have used another Armor guy anyway.

Not to get off the subject but, I always laugh at quotes like this.

So future Captain America movies shouldn't use evil masked villains Baron Zemo or Crossbones who are also expert hand to hand fighters, future Thor movies shouldn't use evil Asgardians, and future Hulk movies shouldn't use evil gamma irradiated villains.

The only thing they shouldn't have done with Iron Man 2 is screw around with the villains. Rourke should've been either Crimson Dynamo, red suit, electric blasts and all or should've been Whiplash like he is in the current comics. Not a combo of the two in a generic suit that nobody remembers.

If there were too many guys in armor suits, then cut out War Machine, which I'm thankful they didn't add in the Avengers and I hope they don't add him in Iron Man 3.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Agree on Blade, Doc Ock, The Penguin, and all the Kick Ass characters. I didn't hate the Kick Ass comic (really liking KA2 as well), but the movie did improve them.

Give me the Batman from the comics though. (his book...not the JLA version who is the most powerful being in the universe ) Batman just looks better in a comic book to me. That armor stuff in the movies takes away from him. He can't even move around or turn his head. The Batman in the comics looks awesome and is graceful. Hard to get a cape to look that cool onscreen too....Batman is all about the cape.

I said that in my original post. I give more credit to Burton than to Miller, for bringing the Batman we know and love to the forefront. In the 3 years that elapsed between TDKR and the movie, the GA still by & large thought of the goofball Adam West depiction whenever you mentioned Batman.

I'm confused on the topic now. Are we talking about which versions are better or who made things popular?

The Joker in The Dark Knight wasn't some criminal mastermind. He just had the benefits of Deus Ex Machinas in the script.

Mostly it just looked like everyone else in the movie was an idiot to me. The Joker was winning the Special Olympics.

Or they could have used somebody that didn't use armor at all..........I mean I hate to be that guy but, come on. That's two in a row.....plus the hero has armor......and his buddy. Living Laser? The Ghost? Mandarin? Somebody that isn't doing the same damn thing.

I gotta agree. Don't to turn it into the "robot of the week".

 

[JeetKuneDo]

So future Captain America movies shouldn't use evil masked villains Baron Zemo or Crossbones who are also expert hand to hand fighters, future Thor movies shouldn't use evil Asgardians, and future Hulk movies shouldn't use evil gamma irradiated villains.

I would say don't use those every single time. It would start to feel like Superman movies that keep using Lex over and over and over and over...

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I think Favreau just liked the energy whips gimmick and since Whiplash was a rather uninteresting character, he merged the energy whips gimmick with the of the basics of the crimson Dynamo character, then added a bunch of new stuff in. I find both Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo to be uninteresting characters in the comics, so don't think this move "ruined" these characters and if it did, I found those characters so uninteresting in the first place that I didn't care.

There was actually a very good Marvel Team up issue that was basically all about Whiplash, going into his background with his family and friends, as he returned to his hometown in an attempt to reform, I mean, it was *really* frickin good. I think it was a JM DeMattiss one, not sure, probably, cause he wrote a few MTU's that concentrated on the villan's characterisations, probably since we already got to know the heroes from their regular monthlies.

But, I have to say that the Dynamo/Whiplash characterisation in that film was poor, started off well, then just had him sitting in a tool shed for the rest of the movie.
There was a story on the front page a couple of days ago where Mickey Rourke said he played with some more sutble character stuff, but Marvel just wanted a pretty standard movie super-villan, and all that work got left on the cutting room floor.

 

[cherokeesam]

Not to get off the subject but, I always laugh at quotes like this.

So future Captain America movies shouldn't use evil masked villains Baron Zemo or Crossbones who are also expert hand to hand fighters, future Thor movies shouldn't use evil Asgardians, and future Hulk movies shouldn't use evil gamma irradiated villains.

The only thing they shouldn't have done with Iron Man 2 is screw around with the villains. Rourke should've been either Crimson Dynamo, red suit, electric blasts and all or should've been Whiplash like he is in the current comics. Not a combo of the two in a generic suit that nobody remembers.

If there were too many guys in armor suits, then cut out War Machine, which I'm thankful they didn't add in the Avengers and I hope they don't add him in Iron Man 3.

I strongly agree with you on every point except the last paragraph, which I strongly DISagree with.

Yeah, the whole "no more armored villains for IM" argument has always been totally baffling for me. Point 1: Iron Man's rogues gallery has *always* been mostly armored villains; and Point 2: where is this supposed "glut" of armored villains in the movies, anyway? He fought against Iron Monger. ONE guy in a battlesuit. ONE. And now all of a sudden, fans/directors/movie critics alike are howling "OMG PLZ...NO MOAR BAD GUYS IN ARMOR."

We still haven't even *seen* a decent classic Iron Man clash of armors. The movies could use a healthy dose of Tony getting the crap beat out of him by a Crimson Dynamo-Titanium Man team-up for 20-30 minutes. Or Guardsman, or anybody else.

As for War Machine....I think he deserves his own spinoff, just like in the comics, and I'd rather not see him return for IM3 (even though it's already confirmed that Cheadle is back) to take away face-time from RDJ. BUT....leaving WM out of Avengers is just frickin' cluelessness on Marvel's part. You've got a GLOBAL threat, one that threatens to literally destroy the planet or at least enslave it; you're gathering "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" and you need all the firepower you can muster; and War Machine is out doing....what? Fighting hajjis in Iraq or Afghanistan? Playing war games in the South Pacific? Sitting in the barracks picking his nose while the world goes to hell? Come on.

 

[Fudgie]

I'm sure someone has probably already beaten me to this one but I'll say that General Zod (from Superman I and II) was an improvement on the comic book original.

If anything I think Stamps portrayal of Zod has become the definitive version of the character in many peoples eyes.

Agree with that.

 

[Iron_Stark]

I strongly agree with you on every point except the last paragraph, which I strongly DISagree with.

Yeah, the whole "no more armored villains for IM" argument has always been totally baffling for me. Point 1: Iron Man's rogues gallery has *always* been mostly armored villains; and Point 2: where is this supposed "glut" of armored villains in the movies, anyway? He fought against Iron Monger. ONE guy in a battlesuit. ONE. And now all of a sudden, fans/directors/movie critics alike are howling "OMG PLZ...NO MOAR BAD GUYS IN ARMOR."

We still haven't even *seen* a decent classic Iron Man clash of armors. The movies could use a healthy dose of Tony getting the crap beat out of him by a Crimson Dynamo-Titanium Man team-up for 20-30 minutes. Or Guardsman, or anybody else.

As for War Machine....I think he deserves his own spinoff, just like in the comics, and I'd rather not see him return for IM3 (even though it's already confirmed that Cheadle is back) to take away face-time from RDJ. BUT....leaving WM out of Avengers is just frickin' cluelessness on Marvel's part. You've got a GLOBAL threat, one that threatens to literally destroy the planet or at least enslave it; you're gathering "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" and you need all the firepower you can muster; and War Machine is out doing....what? Fighting hajjis in Iraq or Afghanistan? Playing war games in the South Pacific? Sitting in the barracks picking his nose while the world goes to hell? Come on.

I'm not too concerned where War Machine is in the Avengers movie. If people start to question why isn't he coming to the aid when the world is being attacked by Loki and his army, then people should also ask why isn't Odin also coming to the rescue.

One guy in a suit of armor is enough, especially when it's the original, not the knockoff.