Dear Kevin Feige... please don't slowly turn Marvel Studios into Fox or Sony

[def28]

It just baffles me that one plot that was crammed down audience's mouths was lauded and the other is seen as a total slap in the face. Especially when the TDKR one involved a character who is as iconic as his partner, but was downgraded to forced sequel bait.

The Mandarin on the other hand is one of the lamest villains of one of the worst rogues galleries in superhero comics. And yet people are up in arms when MS has been saying since day one that basically, yeah, this villain is getting a complete facelift. If you're a fan or didn't like the way in which it was done, that's fine. But let's not act like this sort of thing wasn't eaten up when Chris Nolan's name was written on it, or that the Iron Man movies really missed out on exploring deep antagonists.

I'll take Rourke's goofy Whiplash over the comics version any day. As you guys can tell I'm not too torn up about Mandarin either. Iron Man's third acts are reflective of how underdeveloped his supporting cast always has been. Does it leave more to be desired? Sure. But it's making the most of the source material. I'm actually grateful they've deviated a bit in terms of the villains. There wasn't much there to begin with.

I am not saying I want Marvel to make an X3 that kills off characters needlessly and makes a mediocre product. But as long as Marvel makes quality films that respect character integrity, please bring on more twists and originality.

Agreed.

 

[jmc]

In what sense? Robin the teenage sidekick who wears reds and greens, no. But a sort of combination of the three males (Dick and Tim in particular) but posing as a cop instead of a kid and fighting along side Batman, Bruce confiding in him the ideals behind Batman, finding out on his own Bruce's identity, and the implication of him succeeding Bruce are all pretty Robin-esque. Was the name reveal not intended to showcase that?

Of course he was a tribute to the many side kicks Batman has had throughout the years, but a) he's not Robin and him being called that doesn't change a thing about the story, and b) it's hardly comparable to the Mandarin situation. And I don't understand how you can think people somehow weren't critical of that character, the debate raged on forever in the Bat boards (and still does) about that character's place in the last movie, some even calling it cheesy that they named dropped Robin at all. So don't make out like Chris Nolan has gotten away with anything, TDKR and IM3 have both received their fair share of angst amongst their respective fan bases for the same reason, they've both decisive films that promised a lot but didn't necessarily deliver for everyone.

 

[Mario_Galaxy]

Of course he was a tribute to the many side kicks Batman has had throughout the years, but a) he's not Robin and him being called that doesn't change a thing about the story, and b) it's hardly comparable to the Mandarin situation. And I don't understand how you can think people somehow weren't critical of that character, the debate raged on forever in the Bat boards (and still does) about that character's place in the last movie, some even calling it cheesy that they named dropped Robin at all. So don't make out like Chris Nolan has gotten away with anything, TDKR and IM3 have both received their fair share of angst amongst their respective fan bases for the same reason, they've both decisive films that promised a lot but didn't necessarily deliver for everyone.

In the context of "twists" it's an appropriate correlation. And I definitely think Blake being called Robin qualifies as that, since the final shot of the film both centers on him and calls back to the name of the film. I doubt it would have held the same controversy it does now if the prior scene had not taken place. Depending on how you see Nolan as a storyteller likely decided how you felt about the whole thing but regardless. There's intended emphasis on confirming Blake as Robin, or else the lady probably would have called him something else.

So I find it quite comparable to the outcry over Mandarin. Over the forums I'm seeing people debate that Pearce is Mandarin or denying it, just like with Blake and Robin. Some are loving it and some are hating, and that's of course how it goes. But I'm finding the hate and the denial for this instance of it particularly confusing. The most faithful adaptation of the Mandarin would have likely seemed out of place and a bit of a bore in a series already infamous for clunky third acts. I realize Black seemed kind of insulting in how he said it but I agree in just having no interest in a stereotypical fu manchu wearing Asian with silly rings. Especially after the..."grounded"... or technology driven image they've been building up with this series. If you don't like the execution of it, again that's subjective. But to act like it's such a fall from grace for the character is being dramatic.

 

[MichaelChen]

People should stop comparing him to Fu Manchu. He literally has not looked like Fu Manchu since before I was born.

 

[Mario_Galaxy]

Huh? A quick Google search has shown me pictures from a 60's comic, the Marvel game he was recently in, a more recent comic, and the 90's tv show. All have him with the exact same facial hair and long green robe. When were you born dude?

 

[MichaelChen]

Facial hair, I'll grant you that, but there is more to looking like Fu Manchu than the facial hair, otherwise a lot of truck-drivers and bikers would be said to look like Fu Manchu. His face hasn't been offensive looking since the sixties.

As for clothes: he was drawn in martial artsy pajamas for most of the 60's. From the 70's through the 80's he looked like this: http://imageshack.us/a/img31/7619/smashingo.jpg

He looks like a comic book supervillian in the above, but not really like Fu Manchu.

In the late eighties he wore a blue armor.

It wasn't until the 90's that he actually started wearing true robes. He started wearing robes in the 90's and stopped wearing them in the nineties as well.

In the 2000's he's worn business suits. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J6MScz1ST...oVs16kg/s1600/IRONMAN3_MANDARIN_TEN-RINGS.png

 

[Son of Coul]

Facial hair, I'll grant you that, but there is more to looking like Fu Manchu than the facial hair, otherwise a lot of truck-drivers and bikers would be said to look like Fu Manchu. His face hasn't been offensive looking since the sixties.

As for clothes: he was drawn in martial artsy pajamas for most of the 60's. From the 70's through the 80's he looked like this: http://imageshack.us/a/img31/7619/smashingo.jpg

He looks like a comic book supervillian in the above, but not really like Fu Manchu.

I just popped in this thread, not really following the debate, but a couple funny things here.

Though I agree with you, your argument would be better supported if Stark didn't actually call The Mandarin "Fu Manchu" right in the example

Other thing-- that scene is strikingly similar to the climax of IM3. I actually read it in [BLACKOUT]Guy Pearce's voice[/BLACKOUT].

 

[DrCosmic]

Are you kidding me? You can't honestly look at these movies and say faithfulness to their characters aren't the goal. Let's take out the Mandarin twist for a second.

Look at all the characters that were faithfully adapted, and I'm not talking visually. They nailed the core of 99% of their characters. The Avengers was a huge success, and others before it were successful in their own rights because they stuck to the characters. And they will still stick to the characters.

This thread reeks of just fanboy whining and entitlement because the angry fans didn't get what they wanted.

Right back at you, bro. When you see Iron Man publicly revealing his identity, the whole Donald Blake experience radically changed, Captain Rogers and his Howling Commandoes by way of Howard Stark's tech... are you seriously telling me all these changes were made to be more faithful to the comics? They were successful because they created great characters loosely based on those from comics, they did so in a way that was appealing and endearing. So much so that now the comics personalities line up more with the movie personalities when there were differences. The changes to the characters' personalities and stories and casts was motivated the same way changes to their visuals were - to make great movies. That is the goal, and anything 'faithful' that didn't fit that got cut, or at best, held off until a later sequel. There may be wining in the thread, but lets not counteract it with madness like faithfulness was more important than making successful films.

 

[jmc]

In the context of ''twists'' it's an appropriate correlation. And I definitely think Blake being called Robin qualifies as that, since the final shot of the film both centers on him and calls back to the name of the film. I doubt it would have held the same controversy it does now if the prior scene had not taken place. Depending on how you see Nolan as a storyteller likely decided how you felt about the whole thing but regardless. There's intended emphasis on confirming Blake as Robin, or else the lady probably would have called him something else.

So I find it quite comparable to the outcry over Mandarin. Over the forums I'm seeing people debate that Pearce is Mandarin or denying it, just like with Blake and Robin. Some are loving it and some are hating, and that's of course how it goes. But I'm finding the hate and the denial for this instance of it particularly confusing. The most faithful adaptation of the Mandarin would have likely seemed out of place and a bit of a bore in a series already infamous for clunky third acts. I realize Black seemed kind of insulting in how he said it but I agree in just having no interest in a stereotypical fu manchu wearing Asian with silly rings. Especially after the..."grounded"... or technology driven image they've been building up with this series. If you don't like the execution of it, again that's subjective. But to act like it's such a fall from grace for the character is being dramatic.

Blake's real name being Robin is not a plot twist, it has no affect on the story, the films was going to end in that manner whether his name was John Blake, Robin, or Joe Average, that scene is thrown in merely as recognition of Batman's sidekicks throughout the years which is what Blake represents. I don't get how you think they're even close to comparable.

 

[metaphysician]

Right back at you, bro. When you see Iron Man publicly revealing his identity, the whole Donald Blake experience radically changed, Captain Rogers and his Howling Commandoes by way of Howard Stark's tech... are you seriously telling me all these changes were made to be more faithful to the comics? They were successful because they created great characters loosely based on those from comics, they did so in a way that was appealing and endearing. So much so that now the comics personalities line up more with the movie personalities when there were differences. The changes to the characters' personalities and stories and casts was motivated the same way changes to their visuals were - to make great movies. That is the goal, and anything 'faithful' that didn't fit that got cut, or at best, held off until a later sequel. There may be wining in the thread, but lets not counteract it with madness like faithfulness was more important than making successful films.

I both agree and disagree. I agree that the movies have never cleaved exactly to the comic source material, but I think faithfulness *has* been a big element, and a big part of their success. Its just that "faithfulness" does not mean "takes everything exactly from the comic, and films it." It means "finding the core essence of the character, the important parts that define the character and make them who they are, and putting *that* onscreen." And that is what Marvel has done, IMO.

 

[DrCosmic]

A big element, yes, the main priority, not at all, that was my original statement. Making a good film is the priority, then other movie making concerns such as practicality and artistic flair, then being faithful to the comics. Generally in that order. I don't think finding the core essence of the character is the same as being faithful to the comics. Perhaps being faithful to the core idea that inspired the comics, or to the origin story comics at best, but after that, clearly, all other comic book facts/details/cast/personality/visuals/villains are up for being radically changed... and we love it, because comics faithfulness isn't what makes us like the movies either. What I'm saying is, this is not the first change on a whim the MCU has done... it's just the first one that has gone this badly.