The Avengers The under performance of WATCHMEN is proof why Marvel should not do THE ULTIMATES

[bunk]

Let's be honest, it is very unlikely that Marvel will do a completely faithful adaption of the first 6 issues of THE ULTIMATES comic for the live action AVENGERS movie, since THE ULTIMATES (as written in the comics) would not appeal to the non comic book reading all ages general audience. This is one of the reasons why the 2 ULTIMATE AVENGERS movies were an amalgamated version of the original 616 AVENGERS and THE ULTIMATES. If the under performance of the WATCHMEN movie has taught us anything, it's that MOST (NOT ALL) non comic book readers/moviegoers DO NOT have any interest in superhero movies where the MAIN heroes in the movie are either (a) full blown insane or (b) morally corrupt to down right evil. I believe that MOST people want heroes who have (a) have easilly forgivable and/or redeemable flaws (b) who actually act like heroes and (c) who they would want to be (or would like to imagine themselves being). I also think that MOST (NOT ALL) people want (and expect) superhero movies to be more fantasy with a touch of realism as opposed to being ultra realistic with elements of fantasy.

Who the hell cares, they have their hands full with the real Avengers.

I'd rather watch a "The Authority" movie anyway.

 

[roach]

Again, you're missing my point. The type of realism I don't want to see in this movie is the heroes acting like psychos or unheroic. I also want to see the characters in their classic 616 colorful costumes and not dressed in played out black leather or realistic uniforms.

i dont see that happening. Iron Man is in the 616 armor so it stands to reason that the rest of the team will be in their 616 costumes.

 

[JackIvyGB]

I don't think that's an entirely accurate parallel. Current 616 Iron Man's suit has just as realistic a look as Ultimate Iron Man. Now, I prefer the current movie design, but my point is that the only difference is the design/look of the armor, not how plausible one is over the other. The difference between for example 616 Hawkeye and Ultimate Hawkeye is more like the difference between current 616/movie Iron Man and these:

In the pictures above, it's not as believable when it's a robotic suit of armor where you are seeing rippling muscles and such and it's not explained that it's made of somesort of ever flexible alloy. With the Iron Man film, I don't think realism/plausibility was ever a concern with the suit, especially when the current comics armor was already so believable (especially under the artistic skill of Adi Granov).

I definitely think there will be some 616 influences in the movie suits, but I think it'll be more Ultimate with a dash of 616, as opposed to the other way around (ie, if it were Hawkeye, Ultimate suit as a starting point, maybe purple or blue instead of red on his chest, maybe some sort of mask instead of only shades, but no points on the mask, no pirate boots, no loin cloth).

Then again, on the subject of masks, you have to wonder why they'd need them as a government agency. After they leave SHIELD (if that's the story they use) I could see more of the newer members start to wear masks, but as long as they are with the govt., their families and such would have protection and it wouldn't be as much of a concern. Tony already went public, which is how it is in the Ultimates.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

i think the movie will have a 616 feel with ultimates style look for some heroes(cap, fury, thor, giantman & wasp)

 

[sdc10]

i dont see that happening. Iron Man is in the 616 armor so it stands to reason that the rest of the team will be in their 616 costumes.

Well thats because everyone knew what the basic look of what Iron Man is however they did make pretty obvious changes to the suit. You also have to consider how well something will translate into real life, for example I cant see how you can take Hawkeye's purple outfit and translate it into real life without having it look silly.

 

[JackIvyGB]

That's what I said 2 posts up

 

[MilkmanDan]

Again, you're missing my point. The type of realism I don't want to see in this movie is the heroes acting like psychos or unheroic.

I don't feel like he missed your point:

So basically, the original post says "Don't do the Ultimates because audience won't like a hero as the villain'?
---
Just because it's the Ultimates story doesn't mean they have to use every detail. Just delete the Black Widow kills Hawkeye's family subplot and keep her a good guy, lose all the giant man beats wasp shenanigans, the defenders, Hulk trial, all that. Just have Giant man upset that he spends more time in the lab than in the field, he gets in a fight with jan (not physical, just a common verbal fight like couples get in), but he has a chance to redeem himself when he is the one swatting UFOs out of the air like flies.

I agree. If you take away Banner's deliberate choice to turn Hulk, Pym's various shenanigans and Black Widow being a traitor, the heroes in Ultimates aren't psychos or particularly unheroic. Cap isn't quite as saintly as he is in 616 but he's hardly an unlikeable character either. Stark is pretty much as seen in Iron Man. And while Thor's questionable mental health was an important sub-plot in the comic (making him a potential "psycho", but still not an unpleasant character) it will probably won't be in the movie, since Avengers will be released after his solo movie.

 

[roach]

Well thats because everyone knew what the basic look of what Iron Man is however they did make pretty obvious changes to the suit. You also have to consider how well something will translate into real life, for example I cant see how you can take Hawkeye's purple outfit and translate it into real life without having it look silly.

well considering how he will be on a team with Thor and Captain America i dont see the need for a realistic suit.

 

[November Rain]

i'm not sure about an avengers film as it's somewhat very gimmicky to do individual films and expect everyone to still be interested by the time avengers comes out.

big risk, the supehero angle may not last, post tdk numbers may show a lack of interest for it in its current guise.

 

[roach]

as long as the films are good and they tease it at the end of each i dont see anyone not going to see it

 

[weezerspider]

Watchmen has been loved by most of the general public. Who cares if the critics don't like it.....

 

[November Rain]

so far marvel has put out one good film, one mediocre and one poor one.

not the world's greatest record.

 

[Chewy]

So far Marvel has put out two good films.

I have no idea what you think Marvel's third film is

 

[Daredevil_2003]

...Comparing Watchmen to The Ultimates?

 

[roach]

so far marvel has put out one good film, one mediocre and one poor one.

not the world's greatest record.

Marvel Studios put out TIH and IM...and i didnt think TIH was mediocre

 

[Daredevil_2003]

Me either, I liked TIH a lot, actually...

 

[Chewy]

Yeah, lots of people did.

 

[Sawyer]

Let's be honest, it is very unlikely that Marvel will do a completely faithful adaption of the first 6 issues of THE ULTIMATES comic for the live action AVENGERS movie, since THE ULTIMATES (as written in the comics) would not appeal to the non comic book reading all ages general audience. This is one of the reasons why the 2 ULTIMATE AVENGERS movies were an amalgamated version of the original 616 AVENGERS and THE ULTIMATES. If the under performance of the WATCHMEN movie has taught us anything, it's that MOST (NOT ALL) non comic book readers/moviegoers DO NOT have any interest in superhero movies where the MAIN heroes in the movie are either (a) full blown insane or (b) morally corrupt to down right evil. I believe that MOST people want heroes who have (a) have easilly forgivable and/or redeemable flaws (b) who actually act like heroes and (c) who they would want to be (or would like to imagine themselves being). I also think that MOST (NOT ALL) people want (and expect) superhero movies to be more fantasy with a touch of realism as opposed to being ultra realistic with elements of fantasy.

 

[marcvader]

so far marvel has put out one good film, one mediocre and one poor one. not the world's greatest record.

Which is the poor one?

 

[topdog1]

I doubt that Marvel will be doing a straight up adaptation with the Ultimates. I think they'll end up doing an Ultimate/616 hybird with the Avengers being operatives of the government, but they'll still be their traditional superheroic selves.

And based on how Iron Man was, I'd say that it'll feel more 616 than Ultimate.

Thank God for that. Ultimates is severely overrated. If they use aliens at all, Avengers would be doomed.

Watchmen has been loved by most of the general public. Who cares if the critics don't like it.....

It's general audiences that are hating on the film. Word of mouth has been dismal among those that never read the source material. I never read Watchmen and I was underwhelmed by the movie.

 

[marcvader]

And others I know that have not read the book loved it.

 

[Blade X]

I don't feel like he missed your point:



I agree. If you take away Banner's deliberate choice to turn Hulk, Pym's various shenanigans and Black Widow being a traitor, the heroes in Ultimates aren't psychos or particularly unheroic. Cap isn't quite as saintly as he is in 616 but he's hardly an unlikeable character either. Stark is pretty much as seen in Iron Man. And while Thor's questionable mental health was an important sub-plot in the comic (making him a potential "psycho", but still not an unpleasant character) it will probably won't be in the movie, since Avengers will be released after his solo movie.

Actually, he did miss my point since I was talking about a completely FAITHFUL (Or as faithful as a movie version of a comic can be) adaption of THE ULTIMATES vs a completely faithful adaption of the 616 AVENGERS. I'm not just talking about the basic story of THE ULTIMATES, I'm also talking about keeping all of the negative and unlikable traits about the characters.

 

[JackIvyGB]

No superhero film has ever done COMPLETELY FAITHFUL adaptation of any one single comic story. They've always taken the best elements of some of the best stories and most powerful and well known moments/scenes/imagery/narrative, woven them together to form a coherent tale, while still putting their own spin on the material. Sometimes it comes out spectacularly (Dark Knight, a mix of Long Halloween, elements of Killing Joke, other stories, and it's own narrative glue), sometimes not so spectacular (X-men 3, a mix of the Dark Phoenix and Whedon stories, and Spider-man 3, with Harry becoming a goblin and the venom story). Heck, look at Hulk! It has elements of the 616 and Ultimate books (hulking by helicopter drop), but at the end of the day, what it most felt like resembled was a big budget, modern extended episode of the old TV series! Complete with Lonely Man theme! The closest there has ever been to a completely faithful adaptation of a single book/story has been Watchmen, and even that wasn't 100% faithful to the book.

Comic book movies are all about looking at whatever versions of the character have been successful and, if I may use an analogy, putting them on a pallette and letting the artist(s) pick and choose which paints they need to make their masterpiece. As long as you're not doing something like "Dark Knight Returns" or any other one off tale/ well known single volume graphic novel, a completely faithful adaptation of any one story from the pages of an ongoing comic will not happen. A COMPLETELY FAITHFUL adaptation of the Ultimates was never and will not be an issue.

And how would the use of aliens doom the Avengers? It's a plausible threat. And it's mentioned in the books that the Chitauri go by many names, one of which I remember being skrulls, which makes them bascially the ultimate version of skrulls, which also exist in the 616 universe the ultimate haters seem to be so fond of. Last time I checked, they were fighting them in "Secret Invasion".

(deep breath, exhale) Anyway, I love both universes, though I am partial to Ultimate which is probably obvious. Let the discussion Continue!


Sorry, I have no idea why the question smiley popped up by the thread title...

 

[topdog1]

And how would the use of aliens doom the Avengers? It's a plausible threat. And it's mentioned in the books that the Chitauri go by many names, one of which I remember being skrulls, which makes them bascially the ultimate version of skrulls, which also exist in the 616 universe the ultimate haters seem to be so fond of. Last time I checked, they were fighting them in "Secret Invasion".

I'm sure fans would love it but even done right, little green men invading earth would open the door for critical disapproval and would turn off the general movie fans that made Iron Man a mega hit. Headline: Iron Man brings his friends along as he "jumps the shark"

Artificial Intelligence run wild (Ultron), The Hulk, or other super villains are an amazing sci-fi stretch but grounded in the same type reality that made Iron Man or TDK great. Indiana Jones tried to run in to alien-land and even Spielberg himself couldn't deliver nothing but a crazy crap film. Indy made money but only because of the anticipation and previous trilogy.

NO ALIENS!

 

[JackIvyGB]

Ahhh, gotcha. Hmmm, that is a good point. I don't know, I think there is definitely a fine line, but if Ultron were to be the main villain...I don't know. Thinking film structure wise and in terms of well put together fight scenes, I just think that Ultron wouldn't work as the only villain against an entire team of the world's greatest super folk. It's the same reason that a Justice League movie with only Darkseid as the villain wouldn't quite work when it came to fight scenes. As an enemy for one hero or the leader of an evil force of some sort, it works. But here you'd have one singular entity around the size of a human being attack by 6 or 7 other humanoids. It's hard to create an interesting fight dynamic on screen with that set up. It even bends logic to a degree. If you have half the team with projectile based attacks (Black Widow, Hawkeye, Iron Man, sometimes Cap when he throws his shield), Thor in close with his hammer, and 2 guys who could just pound him into scrap (Giant man and Hulk), and one who could get in him and screw up his wiring (wasp), it doesn't seem like he provide not only enough fights, but none that would be especially "epic" outside of effects. In a movie like this, audiences are going to come in banking that a movie featuring a collection of heroes like this is going to be packing the fisticuffs like no other.

Ultron as a mastermind with some sort of force behind him would work. As I recall, Pym was working on the Ultron robots for SHIELD as expendable soldiers. Maybe when we meet him in the Avengers film, he is already employed by SHIELD and working on them as an alternative if the super soldier project falls through. It works and Cap is revived and they start working on a new formula to give to more soldiers. The Ultrons are effectively no longer needed, but they decide that they will serve a purpose regardless of what their master wishes...

Maybe? I don't know, I think it would work, but past the premise, it starts to sound like Marvel's version of "I Robot", replacing Will Smith's character with the Avengers. I think either way you go (aliens or Ultron), you walk a fine line. With the talent onboard so far, whether in front of or behind the camera, I have faith in the direction they'll take. You're right though. The concept of technology gone wrong does serve for an easier transition for an audience.

The other choice could be to jump staright to an Ultimates 2 type of scenario, with all the hero's respective major villains conspiring to attack the city (minus the black widow traitor aspect. I'd like her to stay hero)...

PS
Sorry for the long posts. I have alot of ideas. t: