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

[TheVileOne]

Cap wouldn't kick Banner in the face. He's not a dick.

 

[kedrell]

He would if Banner purposefully became the Hulk and killed over 800 people, destroyed half of downtown New York, then beat the crap out all the Ultimates who barely managed to take him down while sustaining tons of painful injuries themselves. Yeah, I could imagine Cap kicking Banner in the face. Cap shouldn't be a goody two-shoes like Superman. Is he an honorable man and usually a rather nice guy? Yes. But he's been through the hell of war and goody two-shoes don't survive in that enviroment.

 

[Shivsguy616]

Cap wouldn't kick Banner in the face. He's not a dick.

Have you not read Civil War? Yes, Cap IS a dick.

 

[TheVileOne]

That wasn't Cap. That was a Skrull. And Civil War is not what I consider to be the definitive Cap with all the OOC writing.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Again, we know that we're not going to have to worry about all the Hulk related stuff in the Ultimates, because the Hulk that Marvel is portraying is one much more similar to 616. The only real thing it had in common with the Ultimate-verse is that the Hulk's creation is related to trying to recreate the Super-soldier serum.

We won't have the people eating Hulk in the Ultimates, so that won't be a problem.

 

[Blade X]

Ultimates isn't mainstream friendly either if they want this movie to play to the little kids and action figure crowd like Iron Man.

Just saying, if the movie was a celluloid copy of the Ultimates, it would probably bomb.

It would bomb because no one would go to see a movie if for instance that Hank/Jan scene from the comics was filmed exactly as is.

Just remember folks. The crossover audience between comics and mainstream moviegoers for these types of movies is miniscule. So catering to the Ultimates crowd is a foolish idea.

No one is going to like Cap if he does *****e-ish things so Cap can be *flawed*. Iron Man is our flawed hero.

TDK is still more mainstream friendly than The Ultimates.

Nope. And that's Batman. Batman is different. Batman is not Ultimates. There is no NURSE EATING HULK in The Dark Knight.

Ultimates isn't ****ing family friendly. The heroes are stuck up *****e-nozzles and downright sadistic at times.

That's like saying Basic Instinct is more family friendly than Showgirls. One rating lower.

Also its not just about what it would rate. Its about that these are not how these heroes should be represented onscreen to a mainstream moviegoing audience for the first time ever.

Just remember, the crossover appeal between moviegoers and comic readers is miniscule at best. Watchmen proves.

Avengers should not be a movie that caters to the Ultimates fanbase. It should be a movie most everyone can enjoy.

Well said. I agree with everything you said. Heck, you even did a much better job of explaining why a faithful adaption of THE ULTIMATES would under perform at the box office then I did.

 

[Blade X]

Faulty logic for a few reasons.

1.) Watchmen didn't under-perform. It did quite well for an R-rated movie, especially one based on a cult comic book that 99% of the general audience has never heard of before. The only reason it's considered a "flop" is because it cost so much to make, but it still made it's budget back in world wide totals. Add in the $ that's going to be made off the multiple DVD releases, and it's going to be doing quite well.

2.) The Ultimates isn't close to being as dark, or having characters as f*&cked up as the people in Watchmen. It was much more family-friendly. Yes, it was still adult, but if you made a straight adaptation of the first volume of the Ultimates, there's nothing in there that would push it over a Pg-13 rating.

3.) We're not going to be getting a straight adaptation of the Ultimates. We know this for a fact just by watching The Incredible Hulk. Betty Ross isn't a publicity mongol, Banner wasn't knowingly working on the super-solider serum, and Hulk isn't a crazy monster that wants to screw the crap out of Betty and eat people. The characterizations of Betty/Bruce were very much in line with the 616 interpretation.

So, all that aside, it's basically confirmed that we won't be getting a straight Ultimates adaptation.

1. WATCHMEN did under performed at the box office. It's pretty much been confirmed by various news sources.

2. True, however a horney Hulk who willingly kills and eats people,Iron Man acting like a selfish jackass and making anti gay insults towards Jarvis,Thor being an enviromental terrorist,and Hank beating (and trying to murder) Jan would MOST LIKELY turn off MAINSTREAM non comic book moviegoers. There's no way in hell you can market that type of movie to kids. This is one of the reasons why the heroes in the ULTIMATE AVENGERS animated movies DID NOT have any of the negative unheroic characteristics of the ULTIMATES and were more similar in personality to their original MU versions.

3. I know we're not going to get a straight faithful adaption of THE ULTIMATES. Hell, I NEVER said we were going to get a faithful adaption of THE ULTIMATES. MY point was/is that a straight up faithful adaption of THE ULTIMATES would NOT go over well with the MAINSTREAM non comic book reading movie going audience and would MOST LIKELY under perform at the box office.

 

[Blade X]

Funny how TDK(being darker than dark and all) WAS mainstream friendly.

The major difference is that despite it's darkness, Batman was still a LIKABLE HERO in TDK. The same thing cannot be said about MOST of the Ultimates.

 

[Infinity9999x]

1. WATCHMEN did under performed at the box office. It's pretty much been confirmed by various news sources.

2. True, however a horney Hulk who willingly kills and eats people,Iron Man acting like a selfish jackass and making anti gay insults towards Jarvis,Thor being an enviromental terrorist,and Hank beating (and trying to murder) Jan would MOST LIKELY turn off MAINSTREAM non comic book moviegoers. There's no way in hell you can market that type of movie to kids. This is one of the reasons why the heroes in the ULTIMATE AVENGERS animated movies DID NOT have any of the negative unheroic characteristics of the ULTIMATES and were more similar in personality to their original MU versions.

3. I know we're not going to get a straight faithful adaption of THE ULTIMATES. Hell, I NEVER said we were going to get a faithful adaption of THE ULTIMATES. MY point was/is that a straight up faithful adaption of THE ULTIMATES would NOT go over well with the MAINSTREAM non comic book reading movie going audience and would MOST LIKELY under perform at the box office.

I'm going to have to disagree on Watchmen. How the heck did people expect it to perform? It's an R-rated movie based on a cult comic book that 99% of the general audience has never heard of, and it's not an action story like 300, but much more cerebral. It did fine for an R-rated movie. People who expected it to put up 300 numbers were stupid.


And I think we've already seen Iron Man be a selfish jackass, however he did end up changing, which definitely helped. But he was still arrogant and chippy, and I really found the Ultimate Iron Man to be pretty likable in the first two volumes. I don't remember the anti-gay remarks though, it's been a while since I've read the volumes. However, I will agree that a straight up adaptation of the Ultimates may be harder for people to swallow. I think the Hulk part is what would turn people off the most, because besides that, the rest of the team reminds me a lot of the way the first season of Heroes was (you know, back when it was actually good.) A lot of the characters in Heroes were pretty messed up, and in some cases not very likeable at all, and people loved that.

I was reacting to your post more as a statement to not use the Ultimates at all in the Avengers movie, which, in my opinion, would be a mistake, because there are some things that the Ultimates did beautifully. The Cap stuff in the first volume springs to mind. Everything with him trying to cope with being suddenly in the 21st century was great, and the scenes with him visiting Bucky and trying to see his old girlfriend, and in the graveyard with Fury, that was great stuff. That, and the way the Skrulls and the whole invasion was handled in Vol. 2 was also done very well, and I think keeping that would be great (except replacing Kliesier with Red Skull).

But I suppose I misunderstood, as I said above, I thought you were lobbying for no inclusion of the Ultimate-verse in the Avengers movie. But I agree, while I like Ultimates, I wouldn't want a straight adaptation of them, because there are many things from 616 I like more, and if Iron Man and Hulk are any indication, we're going to be getting a nice blend.

 

[TheVileOne]

Warner Bros. expected it to perform like 300 and they pushed a ton of money into it with that expectation. Same director, same release date.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Warner Bros. expected it to perform like 300 and they pushed a ton of money into it with that expectation. Same director, same release date.

Then they were stupid. Look at the subject material. It's not an action movie like 300. It really doesn't have that much action at all. It's long, and it's essentially an odd mystery story that features heroes that are all f*&cked up to various degrees. Not only that, it's based on a cult comic that most of the general public has never even heard of.

Expecting it to perform like 300 was unrealistic.

 

[TheVileOne]

They put a lot of action INTO Watchmen to appease WB execs who thought they would satisfy the 300 and male adolescent with perverse need for martial arts demographics.

There was a lot of fighting and action inserted into the movie that was never in the comics.

Regardless of it being unrealistic or not, it had a ton of buzz and hype going up to last March. Because of 300, WB put a ton of money into the movie and gave Snyder a lot of leeway. And studios do this because they expect a big return on their investment.

 

[Infinity9999x]

They put a lot of action INTO Watchmen to appease WB execs who thought they would satisfy the 300 and male adolescent with perverse need for martial arts demographics.

There was a lot of fighting and action inserted into the movie that was never in the comics.

Regardless of it being unrealistic or not, it had a ton of buzz and hype going up to last March. Because of 300, WB put a ton of money into the movie and gave Snyder a lot of leeway. And studios do this because they expect a big return on their investment.

They definitely did add quite a bit more action, which I was a bit iffy on (especially when it made people like Dan and Luarie look superhuman).

I get that WB wanted it to do as well as 300, I just think it was an unrealistic goal. Watchmen the comic was popular, but it was a cult hit. Just the nature of the material pretty much guarantees that it's not going to be as big as 300.

However, I see your and Blade X's point. As I said above, I automatically went into the mindset that you were both saying we should have absolutely no influence from the Ultimates in the Avengers movie, which I think would be a mistake. A mesh of the two is the best idea in my opinion.

 

[Shivsguy616]

That wasn't Cap. That was a Skrull.

You think that was already decided at the time of writing? They were writing Cap.

 

[Blade X]

But I suppose I misunderstood, as I said above, I thought you were lobbying for no inclusion of the Ultimate-verse in the Avengers movie. But I agree, while I like Ultimates, I wouldn't want a straight adaptation of them, because there are many things from 616 I like more, and if Iron Man and Hulk are any indication, we're going to be getting a nice blend.

Well I HATE THE ULTIMATES and would be happy as hell if all elements of the Ultimates were completely left out of the Avengers movie (I'm old school). That being said, some of the things that the Ultimates are often given credit for creating/adding to the mythos of the Avengers were actually done several years earlier in previous comics and cartoons. So I'm not oppose to SOME of those same things being used in the Avengers movie. Heck, the IRON MAN movie was more heavily influenced by the MU and 90's animated version of the character then it was the Ultimate version of the character (which was very little if any at all).

 

[TheVileOne]

Yup.

Yes, except for Ultimate Nick Fury who I know Blade X isn't a fan of even though Blade X is black .

I'd be really annoyed if there's a scene of Fury talking about Samuel L. Jackson playing him in a movie.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Yup.

Yes, except for Ultimate Nick Fury who I know Blade X isn't a fan of even though Blade X is black .

I'd be really annoyed if there's a scene of Fury talking about Samuel L. Jackson playing him in a movie.

Ah, I really don't care about that stuff. But like I said above, the things I want to see most in the Avengers movie that takes from the Ultimates is the Cap-related stuff.

I also liked that fact that they made Cap stronger in the Ultimates. Because with Cap, I've always felt more or less the same I have with Batman. Yes, they're both peak human, but in all fairness, somebody like Spider-man should be able to waste them in a fight. I don't care how smart or trained you are, somebody who can doge bullets and pick up a car is going to be able to beat you.

Which is why I liked the fact that they beefed him up in the Ultimates, but I was also glad they didn't go too far. I don't want Superman Cap, just a superhuman Cap with slightly super-human speed and strength.

Besides that, I loved the way the Skrulls were handled in Vol. 2, and I liked the portrayal of Hawkeye.

 

[Hmarrs]

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 Goodness!!!!!!

 

[Ace of Knaves]

How much did Watchmen cost to make? A lot of money wasn't it? So yea, you could say it definitely under-performed.

 

[kedrell]

They spent too much money on it. They only should've had a 75-100M budget for it rather than 150M. Then it would be a modest success.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was quite a bit more than 150 mill.

 

[TheVileOne]

It depends. Studios have very shady bookkeeping sometimes, "Hollywood accounting" and what not. Stuff like the Producers actually happens.

BOM reports it as $150 million. Watchmen had HUGE P&A which is not cheap. Big worldwide distribution is not cheap.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Ya, I'd put it closer to 200 Mill personally.

But I don't care if it under-performed, I liked it.

 

[kedrell]

And it's not like we ever were expecting a sequel for it.

 

[TheVileOne]

That's great guys. Glad you liked Watchmen. Knew there wasn't a sequel. It sort of did underperform

bloddy bloddy blah

The point is that Avengers shouldn't be made like Watchmen or The Ultimates. That's how myself and Blade X feel.

Something more akin to classic Avengers is what can be adapted to play to the masses.