The "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) thread - Part 7

[fangz]

I have no problems with Tony Stark.I was just pointing out that people could have problems with something so minute as Kitty Pryde's powers but not with Tony Stark's completely different personality

yeah, and i know what u mean about stuff like that in general.
but to me, that comes to them explaining why this minute difference with Kitty's powers is so important to them.
and none of it has anything to do with Tony Stark.

i guess if someone says or acts like "source variation, ugh!" then it makes sense to call them on that. but usually i think if u poke around, there's more to it than just that.

but i just think you can't argue someone into understanding the unreliability of their point of view. but yeah, sometimes it's pretty annoying, you're right.

 

[fangz]

oooooh! deleted Fox Sucks at X-Men rant. hey!

 

[fixxxer]

Other than making MCU Stark much more of an extrovert (and everything that entails... quippiness, flippancy, etc.) than comic-book Stark, I'd say he's been translated pretty frickin' accurately. The difference is cosmetic at best... and an improvement IMO. His internal struggles, his state of mind, the depth of his thought and everything else are all very reminiscent of Stark from the comics.

Kitty Pryde on the other hand is near unrecognizable between the comics and movies.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Other than making MCU Stark much more of an extrovert (and everything that entails... quippiness, flippancy, etc.) than comic-book Stark, I'd say he's been translated pretty frickin' accurately. The difference is cosmetic at best... and an improvement IMO. His internal struggles, his state of mind, the depth of his thought and everything else are all very reminiscent of Stark from the comics.

Exactly. Saying Stark is completely different from the comics version is totally wrong. He's merely been tweaked a bit. I don't know why people keep bringing it up because it isn't an accurate statement at all.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Exactly. Saying Stark is completely different from the comics version is totally wrong. He's merely been tweaked a bit. I don't know why people keep bringing it up because it isn't an accurate statement at all.

I would say film Stark vs. comic Stark is similar to Film Johnny Storm Vs. comic Johnny Storm.

In both cases, I think comic characters that didn't have real dynamic personalities were livened up a bit by the actors portraying them. I don't think many are going to have problems with those kind of revisions and those that do are probably going a bit too far with how 'accurate' they want these things to be.

I'm fine with those kind of revisions, but I have a problem when the characters are changed more dramatically - like when Reed is turned from a strong, confident leader into a bumbling geek.

 

[Docker2.0]

You mean Michael B Jordan's Storm?!?! Oh Willie!

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

You mean Michael B Jordan's Storm?!?! Oh Willie!

No, I meant Chris Evans' Storm.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I am sure you saw GoTG,and I am sure you loved it
But the character of Starlord and Drax are completely different from their comic book version,Marvel takes as much liberties as other studios,may more.They changed the entire personality of Tony Stark for example

But they are immune to criticism just because their characters weren't that famous among CBM fans and most people don't even realize how much liberties they have taken

True. Stark is very different and costuming the Guardians was a re-imagining with matching red leather (no outrage there) with Starlord being much more of a child in a mans body character

is it Marvel fanboys excusing Marvels changes and double standard like slam any other studio for changes?

Without question.

Come on man - RDJ overused? I don't see how you can say this at all. It's not shoehorning if they are doing a Civil War adaptation. You can't possibly have a Civil War movie without Tony Stark. As to whether or not they should be making Cap 3 a Civil War movie well that is another discussion.

Beyond that overused how? Because he had 3 movies? Captain America is getting 3 movies. Thor is getting 3 movies. GOTG will have 2 movies. Beyond that the characters Ant-Man, Hulk, Black Panther, Captain Marvel and now the Inhumans will all have their own feature films before all is said and done. To say nothing of the Avengers films which are ensemble pieces. The first Avengers was extremely well balanced considering all the characters it had to juggle. Stark was a star sure but he wasn't the only star. In fact, Steve Rogers had more screen time in the Avengers than Tony Stark.

By contrast, there has never been an X-Men film that did not feature Hugh Jackman's Wolverine. First Class is the closest thing to a film without Hugh Jackman and even that featured a cameo. I'm sorry but when it comes to character balance Fox can't hold a candle to what Marvel is doing.

They aren't. They're doing Civil War-INO. No secret identities, most of the characters missing and RDJ even said it's not like the comic. It'll be closer to the story than AOU which is by definition in-name-only

With RDJ he's had 5 appearances in 5 years. By 2016 Captain America will have had 6 straight years on being in cinemas without a break.

Compare that to Jackmans 8 appearances over 16 years by 2016 and Marvel is using those characters at almost double the rate.

It's true you can't compare Marvel to Fox as Fox only has X-Men and F4 and marvel has lots so they are more diverse in characters and leads as they have more output and variety. Therein lies a disiclntion. It doesn't appear the Marvel is using those character more because they're also providing franchises without them whereas Fox is only providing one franchise

well... to be honest, there's no way you can do a history of marvel without the F4 considering they did start the silver age and saved the company...

however.. they, other than a few brief mentions and images.. completely ignored the X-men, and did very little on spidey

So the show was in actuality "Half of the 75 years of Marvel as we've cut out our most popular franchises because we sold the movie rights and are pissy about it"

They only changed kitty to shoehorn wolverine into yet another movie, not for making anything better. Kitty should've been the main star if they really wanted to make a DOFP movie.

And how in the X-Universe could they send Kitty back? Into her dads ********????it wouldn't fit and if they changed the time travel method not only would it also be in-accurate but it'd change the whole dynamic and urgency of the movie

You know all this crap I hear about Marvel sabotaging FF, I think the "75 Years of Marvel" special just did a huge favor for Foxtastic by featuring the FF as the characters that pretty much put Marvel on the map. More marketing money Fox can now shave off of their budget to keep this thing in the green.

Them mentioning the property won't do anything for the movie just the same as them cancelling the comics won't hurt it

It's not free marketing as comics and movie are separate. Only people it hurts are the buyers of the comic

They should pay tribute to F4, Spidey and especially X-Men as much as any other as they're part of the MU and should be celebrated.

Movie politics should stay out of the comics side

 

[starscream22]

Right because the previous films didn't lead to the events of Days of Future Past and the time-travel because it was just all a dream.

And just because someone has the ability to send someone back in time, it doesn't mean timetravel will always be the solution.

Yeah that's just for when characters, continuity and films in general are all ruined beyond repair. So in other words Wolverine will have to time travel one more time to stop this reboot.....

Sentinels and Genocide are only secondary to that. t:t:

 

[Zarex]

So the show was in actuality "Half of the 75 years of Marvel as we've cut out our most popular franchises because we sold the movie rights and are pissy about it"

"From Pulp to Pop" was an hour-long network TV infomercial, and anyone taking it as a serious documentary is completely missing the point.

The FF, X-Men and Wolverine were featured in the special, with the First Family credited as kicking off the Silver Age of Comics for Marvel. The cinematic output of rival studios Sony and FOX were not included in the special. Why would Marvel take time away from showcasing their own extensive movie schedule to include them?

 

[Whiskey Tango]

So the show was in actuality "Half of the 75 years of Marvel as we've cut out our most popular franchises because we sold the movie rights and are pissy about it"

The only one acting pissy is you.

 

[starscream22]

Them mentioning the property won't do anything for the movie just the same as them cancelling the comics won't hurt it

It's not free marketing as comics and movie are separate. Only people it hurts are the buyers of the comic

(sigh).....It's already been confirmed from the a dozen different sources that the F4 comic is NOT SELLING WELL.

Spider-man and X-men comics haven't missed a beat so this false assumption that Marvel is punishing it's comic fans while going through battles with FOX is beyond absurd.

So you can continue to use this rant in the threads where you're confident the readers don't know any better but when pitching it in this thread, YOU should no better.

Once again Spider-man and X-men comics aren't going anywhere because sells are good but if you're going to whine about not finding any MBJ based Johnny Storm T-shirts at Walmart next Summer then forgive me in advance for LMAO!

 

[starscream22]

"From Pulp to Pop" was an hour-long network TV infomercial, and anyone taking it as a serious documentary is completely missing the point.

The FF, X-Men and Wolverine were featured in the special, with the First Family credited as kicking off the Silver Age of Comics for Marvel. The cinematic output of rival studios Sony and FOX were not included in the special. Why would Marvel take time away from showcasing their own extensive movie schedule to include them?

Because people wanna complain about Marvel cancelling books that they themselves don't even buy...?

But I'm sure their hearts are in the right place when they try so desperately to rile up the actual comic book readers....

 

[Dr. Evil]

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

"From Pulp to Pop" was an hour-long network TV infomercial, and anyone taking it as a serious documentary is completely missing the point.

The FF, X-Men and Wolverine were featured in the special, with the First Family credited as kicking off the Silver Age of Comics for Marvel. The cinematic output of rival studios Sony and FOX were not included in the special. Why would Marvel take time away from showcasing their own extensive movie schedule to include them?

Okey dokey. Wouldn't expect them to feature movie footage from movies that aren't there own.

Comic-wise though they should've featured them as much as any other, there seems to be conflicting accounts of if they showed them and how much.

Didn't get to see it myself

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Didn't get to see it myself

And yet you seem perfectly happy to be angry and judgmental about the content.

 

[starscream22]

Didn't get to see it myself

Unbelievable.......SMH.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

And yet you seem perfectly happy to be angry about the content.

Wow. He just lost all credibility.

 

[Dr Tactics]

Wow. He just lost all credibility AGAIN.

Fixed

 

[wobbly]

Okey dokey. Wouldn't expect them to feature movie footage from movies that aren't there own.

Comic-wise though they should've featured them as much as any other, there seems to be conflicting accounts of if they showed them and how much.

Didn't get to see it myself

I have seen it and they started off covering the Timely era, The Original Human Torch, Namor and Cap (Cap was given the most attention there). They then went on to briefly cover the 50's where the hero market was flat-lining for Timely until Stan Lee, on the verge of quitting, came up with The Fantastic Four. They even animated the cover of FF1 and highlighted how popular the Thing was. They only spent a little time on the Hulk (who was right after FF), and went into more detail on Spider-Man's creation and impact (and commented on his Tv show later on too). The comics for Thor, X-Men, Iron-Man, Ant-man etc, were all only briefly covered. Black Panther was given a bit more attention from that 60's era being the first black character given a major role in the Marvel lore.

Basically, they condensed the 75 years of Marvels history, it's transition from books into being a it's own studio, into 40 or so minutes with a little time to show some footage from their own efforts (and they would likely have been required to pay to use images or footage from Fox or Sony's efforts).

In the end the X-Men books got no more or less coverage than Thor or Iron-Man. Cap and the FF (the 2 pivotal books from the beginnings at Timely to the 60's boom with Marvel) I think had the most time overall. I'd have to see it again but when they went into the 80's discussing darker books and themes Millars Daredevil and Wolverine got the most on screen comic book cover time.

 

[Hamill-Joker]

Came into this forum looking for some info on the new movie, happened to stumble into this thread...

I understand people wanting to see a great Fantastic Four movie, I do too. However, wishing failure upon a movie so that it can go to other creative hands is something else.

No one here has seen this movie, it should not be pre-judged. I remember plenty pre-judging DOFP Quicksilver and he turned out to be the most popular character in the movie.

And even if the Fantastic Four license were to return to Marvel Studios, there is no guarantee that what they would do would satisfy those who deride this currently unreleased film. Marvel Studios is not Midas, everything they touch does not turn to gold.

I've never been a stickler for adhering directly to source material, so that isn't going to be my argument. My argument is more about allowing artists their own interpretation of the source material. One of the phrases I have always disliked is "the book was better" in the context of someone reviewing a movie and using that phrase as a means to deride the movie.

When going from one medium to another, changes will be made. But another thing is that you are working with different artists as well. Just as the writer of the comic and the illustrator have their chance to create the material, I think the writer/director of a movie should be afforded the same chance to make their own vision.

This is my same feeling when I hear people criticize the The Dark Knight trilogy for certain choices it made. I see them as Nolan's three graphic novels.

Just because I am saying this doesn't mean that someone has to like another artist's interpretation of the source material, but I do believe that it should be given a chance and not be pre-judged.

Look at something like Batman: The Animated Series, it had its own interpretation of different characters or even invented characters, some additions were so great that they were added into the comics like Harley Quinn and Mr. Freeze's new backstory.

I know some Batman fans were mixed on Two-Face in The Dark Knight, I personally thought it was the best interpretation of the character so far.

As you can see, villains are one of my favorite things about comic books. One of the things I really want to see is a great big screen adaptation of Dr. Doom and I am very willing to give this a chance to see what interpretation they have created for this movie. I honestly think that if Fox uses the same tone they have set in the X-Men movies for a movie like this, then it is the best chance to see an interpretation of the character that I will really enjoy.

As good as a lot of Marvel's movies are, I still have yet to see them create a villain that I love besides Loki and even including him I haven't seen a villain that has been truly intimidating. I think their choice of a largely more light-hearted tone has hurt them in this capacity. Granted we haven't see Ultron in a full film yet, just a trailer, but I am not going to fully judge the character off of anything but seeing the final product.

That being said I am not going to say that no one can have a feeling or an impression of how they think this movie will turn out. People can have a good feeling about it or a bad feeling about it, same as I have a good feeling about something like Marvel Studio's interpretation of Ultron based on the trailer.

I just don't think this movie should be condemned before it comes out.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I just don't think this movie should be condemned before it comes out.

Duly noted.

 

[justanotherguy]

somedays this thread needs The GAP band.

 

[fangz]

Exactly. Saying Stark is completely different from the comics version is totally wrong. He's merely been tweaked a bit. I don't know why people keep bringing it up because it isn't an accurate statement at all.

I don't know, i could go on for a while about how different I feel he is.
and i wouldn't be lying or exaggerating.
he's not merely tweaked, he's fundamentally different.

he's also a great movie translation and fundamentally similar. I love RDJ as Tony. It's not a problem to me, in other words. I think what he adds to it is great and charismatic enough to be worth it. But that's a judgement call and it's something to disagree and argue over.

Kitty's phase powers don't even make any kind of blip on my radar tho. There is so many other things that I have a problem with, and Kitty phasing time and space isn't hard for me to swallow and doesn't need to be explained I think. To me, that's not where the problems with DOFP are.

I'm saying all this becuz mostly seeing u say it's inaccurate, when i believe it's accurate, entirely that Tony Stark is different beyond just mere tweaks.

 

[the gael]

As you can see, villains are one of my favorite things about comic books. One of the things I really want to see is a great big screen adaptation of Dr. Doom

Don't worry, you won't be "disappointed" when you will see their Dr. Doom on screen. We can't post his pictures on the forum, it's the rule, but if you search on internet, you will find them. He will be "memorable", but maybe not in the way you expect him to be...