Spotted this in the IMDB Thor forum

[TheCorpulent1]

I don't think we have to worry about that in Deadpool's case. I think the movie portrayal is pretty much universally hated by anyone who knows anything about the comics.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Yeah. I hated it.

Badly.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Who didn't?

He was actually pretty fun earlier in the movie, though. Back near the beginning when the film still had narrative cohesion.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a bad movie.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

It's okay if you're looking for passively interesting action. Sorta.

And yeah, he was not bad in the beginning of the movie. Not the vulgarity we've come to know and love out of Wade, but definitely was the only one with a slightly distinctive personality.

 

[Spider-Vader]

I'm actually more worried about Marvel morphing things to fit the movie in the comics like they did with Iron Man.

Huh? What'd they do to the comics besides changing the armor? Which I thought was good because I think the movie Iron Man is the best design. t:

I really liked Wade at the beginning of Wolverine. If only they used that electricity guy for Weapon XI. Nobody cares about him.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

The movie armor was based on Avi Granov's comic armor.

But they switched his origin story.

Which, thinking about it, came before the movie.

Nvm.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Marvel periodically updates origins or fudges the details of existing origins anyway. Thor's shown testing weapons in 1962 in a Journey into Mystery issue, but obviously that's different now. Same principle. The sliding timescale has to be used if the characters are going to stick around forever, so Vietnam becomes random middle eastern conflict, a science show in the '60s becomes a modern-day one, etc.