Ultimate Avengers 3 Ideas

[R&B]

i'd like to see red skull in the third one and have it tell of cap's invaders days too so the like of namor,torch,union jack and spitfire are in it too....
and when the threat of the red skull with a new team of super powered nazis emerges its up to cap and the ultivengers to save the day..but they'll need help from some old friends!!!

(basically slightly based on caps current stroyliner in captain america)

The Invaders, Red Skull and all would be cool as long as they stay as far away from the ultimates as possible

 

[GoldGoblin]

They need to fight a team of villains,like "The Liberators",but they should change some of the members for the movie.They should have:
-Crimson Dynamo
-Abomination
-Loki
-Red Skull
-Ultron
-Deadpool
-The Rhino

And Ultron could create Vision,who decides to join the Avengers.And you can have Spider-Man and Wolverine joining the Avengers as well.

 

[Chris Wallace]

No Spidey. No Wolverine. No Rhino.
Actually that whole suggestion just sounds bad, IMO.

 

[GoldGoblin]

No Spidey. No Wolverine. No Rhino.
Actually that whole suggestion just sounds bad, IMO.

^They were members of the team,so why not?

 

[GL1]

The Ultimate vibe and the New Avengers vibe don't vibe together. They're mismatched in theme and tone. To try and shoehorn New Avengers, and Rhino into an Ultmates styled movie seems silly to me...

 

[ShadowBoxing]

First of all, I hope Marvel doesn't take advice from DC anytime soon. Second of all, you are never going to get a word for word comic book adaptation, animated or not. DC might have the same title and everything, but I can gurantee there will be some changes. (I mean, seriously, look what they're planning on doing with Green Latern)

Right. Not talking about their feature films. Their DTV department will be doing WORD FOR WORD adaptations of Judas Contract and New Frontier since the writers who wrote those stories are writing the videos. So yes, that is what marvel should be doing.

 

[Dread]

Right. Not talking about their feature films. Their DTV department will be doing WORD FOR WORD adaptations of Judas Contract and New Frontier since the writers who wrote those stories are writing the videos. So yes, that is what marvel should be doing.

The main problem with DC'S DTV idea is that you have NO context for the storylines in their animated incarnations. JUDAS CONTRACT was a hoot because it built upon the past Titans stuff and had Terra running with the team for a year before it happened. A sheer adapation will confuse people who got used to the last TITANS series, plus folks who buy the DTV will be leaping into a story feet first. SUPERMAN RETURNS did that, and good lord, I haven't seen people whine about a that much film since X3 (which sucked, IMO). A straight adaptation is boring because you need to keep "hindsight" in mind and rework what doesn't work. Any storyline has that. FOR THE MAN WHO HAS EVERYTHING, as adapted for JLU, was reworked and altered to work better, and it worked out better. If JUDAS CONTRACT is just a straight adaptation, then as soon as you meet these Teen Titans, they're betrayed. It could seem awkward.

I'm a bit different than a lot of fans, in that I actually DON'T want to see the same stories over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Good lord, how many times do I have to sit through SOME new version of Dark Phoenix!? Maybe if they stopped rehashing it, Jean Grey could have become an actual character. In all the raving reviews of SIN CITY, I never found one from someone who'd actually read all the comics, because they'd probably have gotten bored to tears just seeing the entire thing, word for word. I mean, anyone can do that. Anyone. You just cut & paste the lines, etc. Even SHAKESPEARE gets altered when it comes to film, yet fans still believe comics should be unholy scripture, and it boggles my mind how irrational that is. I look foward to new interpretations and seeing how they work, or don't.

Rant over...

I would like to see an ULTIMATE AVENGERS 3 (moreso than "Teen Avengers" hooey), and it would be a good idea if they battled a team of earth based villians. Since the production crew is so keen on Ultimates, they could use the Liberators crew that showed up, only could actually paint them as outright villians instead of "gods answering the Extremist Liberal bleating of Micheal Moore" as Millar did. If there's one thing I liked about the UA films, it's that they aren't as cynical and focused on preaching extremist Liberal baloney.

For that roster you have classic villians like Abomination, Crimson Dynamo, and Loki. It would be interesting if Loki was given PERMISSION, of sorts, on this quest by Odin to sort of "pay back" Thor for disobeying him so many times, and of course like any good God of Mischief, Loki takes it too far. Abomination could be a good way to rework the Hulk, or the search for him, back into a climax, although it'd also be interesting if the Avengers had to overcome him without the Hulk. As for Dynamo, Iron Man is always cooler when he's fighting someone else in armor instead of ghetto mystics. And of course you have the other newer designs from Liberators, which are Schizoid Man (who duplicates himself), Swarm, and that woman who runs fast (forgot her name...Hurricane? Ugh). Or they could select other villians. Maybe Loki works with HYDRA to make this team and go about their mission.

Giant-Man needs to stay dead. If they are going to go through the bother of axing him off, then it needs to stick. Ultron can still come about if one wishes, by perhaps someone, maybe even Wasp, looking through Hank's notes on ideas & inventions he never got to (which ANY scientist has) and maybe wanting to make some of them a reality to honor him, which of course leads to Ultron.

As cool as Red Skull is, Klieser basically served as a poor man's copy of him (and Klaw), so I wouldn't want yet ANOTHER Nazi villian in UA 3.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

The main problem with DC'S DTV idea is that you have NO context for the storylines in their animated incarnations. JUDAS CONTRACT was a hoot because it built upon the past Titans stuff and had Terra running with the team for a year before it happened. A sheer adapation will confuse people who got used to the last TITANS series, plus folks who buy the DTV will be leaping into a story feet first. SUPERMAN RETURNS did that, and good lord, I haven't seen people whine about a that much film since X3 (which sucked, IMO). A straight adaptation is boring because you need to keep "hindsight" in mind and rework what doesn't work. Any storyline has that. FOR THE MAN WHO HAS EVERYTHING, as adapted for JLU, was reworked and altered to work better, and it worked out better. If JUDAS CONTRACT is just a straight adaptation, then as soon as you meet these Teen Titans, they're betrayed. It could seem awkward.

Key difference.

These DTV are made for the fans. period. Not to bring in a new audience. I can see the logic to say making changes to Batman in order to make Batman Begins both accessible to the public AND the fans. However in the case of said movie you are trying to fit many of the important elements of the character into one story.

With DTV adaptions you can focus on your fan base. Transformers, for example, will be a ton different on the big screen. Remember TFTM though, it is the biggest hit with it's fanbase...and it ignores the hell out of the general audience which panned it.

FOR THE MAN WHO HAS EVERYTHING was changed. One thing Robin was omitted, however I bet he would have been involved had Teen Titans not claimed the rights to him. Furthermore it was part of an ongoing series, and the changes were driven by the need to fit it into thirty minutes not made out of a need to make it appeal to a broader fanbase.

bit different than a lot of fans, in that I actually DON'T want to see the same stories over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Good lord, how many times do I have to sit through SOME new version of Dark Phoenix!? Maybe if they stopped rehashing it, Jean Grey could have become an actual character. In all the raving reviews of SIN CITY, I never found one from someone who'd actually read all the comics, because they'd probably have gotten bored to tears just seeing the entire thing, word for word. I mean, anyone can do that. Anyone. You just cut & paste the lines, etc. Even SHAKESPEARE gets altered when it comes to film, yet fans still believe comics should be unholy scripture, and it boggles my mind how irrational that is. I look foward to new interpretations and seeing how they work, or don't.
.

Sin City. Yeah I read it, and I speak for some fans when I say sometimes that is exactly what they want. For you to cut and paste and comic on screen.

These comics are self contained stories. Cosmetic changes, like the one's in FOR MAN WHO HAS EVERYTHING are fine so long as the story and it's motivations stay intact. However if you cannot adapt a story into the time frame alotted and do it in a way that preserves it, don't do it. Ultimate Avengers 1 was trash because it dumbed down and retooled a story that was in no way needing retooling. I would have rathered Mark Millar's prize Ultimates run had stayed on the page than see it turned into that mess. It took every last thing that was edgy and new about the story and ruined it.

The closer you stick to the material the better.

(As for Shakespeare, as a reader of Shakespeare I can tell you Shakespearean actors and theatre Professors I know get irrate when people change Shakespeare)

 

[Dread]

Key difference.

These DTV are made for the fans. period. Not to bring in a new audience. I can see the logic to say making changes to Batman in order to make Batman Begins both accessible to the public AND the fans. However in the case of said movie you are trying to fit many of the important elements of the character into one story.

With DTV adaptions you can focus on your fan base. Transformers, for example, will be a ton different on the big screen. Remember TFTM though, it is the biggest hit with it's fanbase...and it ignores the hell out of the general audience which panned it.

But UNLIKE the DTV's, TRANSFORMERS: THE MOVIE, circa 1986, DIDN'T just come "out of nowhere", with no prior context. It spawned from two seasons of a TRANSFORMERS TV series that had become immensely popular and lucrative. It even birthed a third season (and a short 4th) that took place after the events of the film (the film took place maybe 20-30 years after the first 2 seasons of the show, as Spike'd grown from a teenager to an adult and had a young son). The fanbase that it was appealing to in 1986 had the TV series as the frame of reference, the reason to care about Optimus Prime, or the various Transformers (including Ironhide) who are slaughtered within the first 10 minutes, or the Dinobots, etc.

Contrast this with DC's upcoming JUDAS CONTRACT. It has no relation to the anime-aping TEEN TITANS TV series, which coincidentally already did a version of that story in their second season (admittedly, a half-arsed version). You may poo-poo the concept of "crossover appeal", but the fact is that you HAVE to be aware that many viewers may not be familiar with the universe and may be picking it up for the first time (or watching it when it inevitably airs on CN; while the network supposedly has no say on these, any DTV maker knows that it reairing on CN is inevitable, and that's part of why they keep the time-length at 75 minutes or less, so CN only has to devote a 90 minute block. Even the feature film MASK OF THE PHANTASM for some reason was only 76 minutes). JUDAS CONTRACT is a story that relies on there being past adventures of the Teen Titans.

As someone who saw the TV series as underwhelming, if DC REALLY wanted to do this story justice, then they'd do a first TEEN TITANS DTV in this new, mature styke. Have Wolfman and Co. translate the first arc or two of, say, NEW TEEN TITANS and so forth to provide the basis for the team and the new animated incarnation. Then do JUDAS CONTRACT and suddenly the story is better appreciated. I think most fans, casual or hardcore, would approve of this (as the TV series homaged NEW TEEN TITANS #1 and, again, did a half-arsed job due to time). But, just spitting out JUDAS adheres to the two rules of an executive company: Faster and Cheaper.

FOR THE MAN WHO HAS EVERYTHING was changed. One thing Robin was omitted, however I bet he would have been involved had Teen Titans not claimed the rights to him. Furthermore it was part of an ongoing series, and the changes were driven by the need to fit it into thirty minutes not made out of a need to make it appeal to a broader fanbase.

Many of the changes had nothing to do with the JLU series in general and were due to either artist vision or maybe not wanting to repeat previous episodes of B:TAS. Karkull at the JLA WATCHTOWER site does a good job of pinning down some of the differences between FTMWHE the comic and FTMWHE the episode. Check it out here:

http://jl.toonzone.net/trophyroom/season3/trophy3.htm

Now I ask; if you liked the animated version, should the writers had merely been slaved and just copied & pasted everything? Because I'll tell you, what disappointed me was actually how much poorer the animated sequence of "BURN!" was. They paced the scene exactly like the comic. They had the actors deliver the same lines (and well, too). They did everything right and it STILL looked more awkward in motion than on panel. Compare that with a Superman moment made entirely for the TV show: his "Superpunch" against Darkseid in "DESTROYER". On panel, it would have looked cool but not quite as good, as it lacked the music, the delivery, and the motion. It was at least ten times better than "Burn!" turned out to me.

Sin City. Yeah I read it, and I speak for some fans when I say sometimes that is exactly what they want. For you to cut and paste and comic on screen.

These comics are self contained stories. Cosmetic changes, like the one's in FOR MAN WHO HAS EVERYTHING are fine so long as the story and it's motivations stay intact. However if you cannot adapt a story into the time frame alotted and do it in a way that preserves it, don't do it. Ultimate Avengers 1 was trash because it dumbed down and retooled a story that was in no way needing retooling. I would have rathered Mark Millar's prize Ultimates run had stayed on the page than see it turned into that mess. It took every last thing that was edgy and new about the story and ruined it.

The closer you stick to the material the better.

(As for Shakespeare, as a reader of Shakespeare I can tell you Shakespearean actors and theatre Professors I know get irrate when people change Shakespeare)

See, I'd only scimmed some of them (and most of that was Marv's story, THE HARD GOODBYE).

I defy you to watch BRAINIAC ATTACKS and tell me how rotten UA 1 & 2 were. Or ELEKTRA or STEEL or CROW: CITY OF ANGELS or all the countless examples of underwhelming comic related material (like the first season of THE BATMAN, mostly). Some fans seriously need to have a better memory for past crap. Compare this to the last Avengers cartoon and this is Oscar product. Perspective is key.

And really, what happened in Millar & Hitch's THE ULTIMATES? The characters sat around, saying pop culture references or crude jokes that'd make an illiterate sailor blush. They fought no villians and thus had no purpose for assembling as they were assembling for a threat that didn't exist. Did you WANT a DTV to relate to historical facts that Ultimates, as part of the Ultimate line, could and the DTV couldn't? Have Fury mention crap like Magneto or Spider-Man when this had nothing to do with them? And after 4 issues of just sitting around and talking, Banner becomes the Hulk because he's neurotic and to desperately give the team "something to fight so you don't lose funding". And then afterwards, you watch a man visciously beat his wife into a come and lose any and all sympathy, and ANY FAN who WANTS to see something like that animated, IMO, deserves to be alone forever. Furthermore, by that point the Ultimates were all in one way or another *****ebags who you only root for because they happen to be the stars of the vehicle, much like THE AUTHORITY (where Millar made a name for himself).

In the next arc, they fight aliens, who have ZERO PURPOSE FOR INVADING THE EARTH. Zilch. You're told that these aliens have been on Earth since WW2 and Cap fought some, but they have no motivation except for "blind conquest". At least in the films, they were after Vibranium, which they needed for everything, from their ships to their bio-armor. But somehow, any and all flaws of the source material become untouchable scripture when a media version is adapted. It happens with other comics (I can't count many many fanboys bleated, "I want yellow spandex and a masked Wolverine!" when X-MEN came out in 2000, and the sequal later). I respect admiring the past and being faithful to source material, but not SO faithful that you ignore hindsight and don't seek to improve flaws as you see them. To say a story written 5, 10, 20 years ago in some cases is 100% translatable is the height of ignorance. A plot of "Loki randomly picks a fight between Hulk and Thor, and other heroes get involved" would not work the same now as it did in 1963, and deep down everyone knows it.

A lot of fans love the characters and the stories to death, and I respect that because I do too. But I don't have so much love that I smother the creations and don't seek something new or original, a fresh take. Even one that fails can at least be learned upon, but a straight copy is just that. Everyone's free to like and dislike what they want for their own reasons, and if you disagree with me, hey, cool. I just think short-sightedness and too much illogical emotional bleating doesn't do the industry, or those who like and give critical imput, any good. It's why the bigwigs don't take us seriously, because all they see is a mass of people going, "Thor didn't have a cape, it sucked, wahh wahh wahh!" and nothing concrete to offer and little ability to be flexible. Things that are inflexible in nature tend to crack and break.

 

[Spider - Man]

I like that story, but I really hope the next film concentrates on Thor.

Also I hope Pym is not really dead. He hasn't created Ultron yet.

Not sure but I thought the Vision created Ultron.

 

[Dread]

Not sure but I thought the Vision created Ultron.

Quite the reverse. In the original comic book, Hank Pym created Ultron, who originally was a nasty looking "jack o lantern"-esque metal box whose AI was based on Pym's brain patterns, but who became evil and wished death on humanity. Ultron would later build a better andriod form and created Vision via the andriod form of the robotic WW2 era Human Torch and the brain patterns of Wonder Man, who was then dead. He sent him to attack the Avengers, but Vision turned against Ultron and was grateful for being offered membership on their team, even to the point of crying (how an andriod has tear ducts is one of those "inaccuracies" that a current writer would question but of course an irrational fan would find baloney excuses for not touching. Why would Ultron build a robot that had tear ducts? It was a death machine!).

 

[Spider - Man]

Iron Man was not Ultimate and Dr Strange looks regular to me; hopefully they go around and overlook all Ultimates from now on and even have a regular Captain America animation movie with regular WW2 and modern design side-wings and all, and a Thor animation too with the real costume design, real hammer, helmet on, red cape, staying as far away from the ultimate Village People design

Strange isn't regular. I don't know what he is but where's his trademark red cape with the big collar with the hooks? It doesn't even sem like him without that.

 

[Spider - Man]

Quite the reverse. In the original comic book, Hank Pym created Ultron, who originally was a nasty looking "jack o lantern"-esque metal box whose AI was based on Pym's brain patterns, but who became evil and wished death on humanity. Ultron would later build a better andriod form and created Vision via the andriod form of the robotic WW2 era Human Torch and the brain patterns of Wonder Man, who was then dead. He sent him to attack the Avengers, but Vision turned against Ultron and was grateful for being offered membership on their team, even to the point of crying (how an andriod has tear ducts is one of those "inaccuracies" that a current writer would question but of course an irrational fan would find baloney excuses for not touching. Why would Ultron build a robot that had tear ducts? It was a death machine!).

Oh ok. I had it backwards. Duh.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

But UNLIKE the DTV's, TRANSFORMERS: THE MOVIE, circa 1986, DIDN'T just come "out of nowhere", with no prior context. It spawned from two seasons of a TRANSFORMERS TV series that had become immensely popular and lucrative. It even birthed a third season (and a short 4th) that took place after the events of the film (the film took place maybe 20-30 years after the first 2 seasons of the show, as Spike'd grown from a teenager to an adult and had a young son). The fanbase that it was appealing to in 1986 had the TV series as the frame of reference, the reason to care about Optimus Prime, or the various Transformers (including Ironhide) who are slaughtered within the first 10 minutes, or the Dinobots, etc.

Actually TFTM as you put it CAME OUT OF NOWHERE. None of the characters save Blaster and Perceptor were previously established. Hot Rod, Kup, Galvatron, Unicron, the Matrix had zero mentions EVER in the series. Not to mention the fact that Prime's insides had been nicely displayed before in a Starscream episode entitled "Divide and Conquor".

Not to mention the frequent trips to Cybertron, and not noticing there were more Autobots running around.

Contrast this with DC's upcoming JUDAS CONTRACT. It has no relation to the anime-aping TEEN TITANS TV series, which coincidentally already did a version of that story in their second season (admittedly, a half-arsed version). You may poo-poo the concept of "crossover appeal", but the fact is that you HAVE to be aware that many viewers may not be familiar with the universe and may be picking it up for the first time (or watching it when it inevitably airs on CN; while the network supposedly has no say on these, any DTV maker knows that it reairing on CN is inevitable, and that's part of why they keep the time-length at 75 minutes or less, so CN only has to devote a 90 minute block. Even the feature film MASK OF THE PHANTASM for some reason was only 76 minutes). JUDAS CONTRACT is a story that relies on there being past adventures of the Teen Titans.

Thats the point these videos are not made for someone who HAS NO PRIOR knowledge. Just like Transformers which did swqit when introducing who the Transformers were JUDAS CONTRACT doesn't introduce Teen Titans, it just continues a story, that if you WEREN'T paying attention, you would not understand.

Transformers had never mentioned any of it's plot points before the movie, yet it is beloved by fans because those fans already understood the movie characters enough to pick up without anyone explaining anything to them. Heck the toys had already come out.

Transformers, had you never ever seen a single episode would leave you lost. Who are these robots and why are they fighting now? It is not even addressed. JUDAS CONTRACT is much like TFTM since fans who are familiar with the series won't have any trouble understanding exactly what is going on.

As someone who saw the TV series as underwhelming, if DC REALLY wanted to do this story justice, then they'd do a first TEEN TITANS DTV in this new, mature styke. Have Wolfman and Co. translate the first arc or two of, say, NEW TEEN TITANS and so forth to provide the basis for the team and the new animated incarnation. Then do JUDAS CONTRACT and suddenly the story is better appreciated. I think most fans, casual or hardcore, would approve of this (as the TV series homaged NEW TEEN TITANS #1 and, again, did a half-arsed job due to time). But, just spitting out JUDAS adheres to the two rules of an executive company: Faster and Cheaper.

Are you honestly such a person that you need an entire story your familiar with spelled out for you for you to watch it. I frankly was glad Batman TAS did not bother to insult my intelligence by retelling the story of Batman for the hundreth time.

Faster and cheaper really? Okay, thats a dumb comment. Faster and cheaper was Catwoman or X3, making a quick product with tons of explosions hoping to appeal to everyone they can at once. They have a good story to tell that fans want to see on video. They really should take the time to produce ten stories fans don't want to get to this one. Wow you're crazy So I should sit through some dumb tell all DTV that explains to me who Nightwing and the Titan's are WHEN I ALREADY KNOW. God DC must hate me to spare me that.

Many of the changes had nothing to do with the JLU series in general and were due to either artist vision or maybe not wanting to repeat previous episodes of B:TAS. Karkull at the JLA WATCHTOWER site does a good job of pinning down some of the differences between FTMWHE the comic and FTMWHE the episode. Check it out here:

http://jl.toonzone.net/trophyroom/season3/trophy3.htm

Now I ask; if you liked the animated version, should the writers had merely been slaved and just copied & pasted everything? Because I'll tell you, what disappointed me was actually how much poorer the animated sequence of "BURN!" was. They paced the scene exactly like the comic. They had the actors deliver the same lines (and well, too). They did everything right and it STILL looked more awkward in motion than on panel. Compare that with a Superman moment made entirely for the TV show: his "Superpunch" against Darkseid in "DESTROYER". On panel, it would have looked cool but not quite as good, as it lacked the music, the delivery, and the motion. It was at least ten times better than "Burn!" turned out to me.

Yes, if they can. Because if you want to do a story do THAT STORY. Don't do another story and call it the same thing. I don't pull out ULTIMATE AVENGERS when I want the ULTIMATES, I read the comic. But if I had a direct to movie adaptation, I'd watch it. Screwing around with a story is just that, and unless you have a ten times better idea your screwing up the story.

Coming from a position of an essayist, I would hate it if someone rewrote "parts" of my essay and then claimed it was the same thing. IT'S NOT. Writing is self contained, making changes makes it something different. Artists have a very distinct vision when they sit down and write something.

The funny thing is we would not be having this discussion if you had written a script, turned it into DC and they changed it. You'd be mad as hell unless you were given a damn good reason or at least creative control over the change. That is your work not someone else's.

Movie and TV seems to forget comics can be as high art as a book. They tend to give a lot more credit to a book like "ALL THE KING'S MEN" then "BATMAN:YEAR ONE" because comics are seen as being for kids.

See, I'd only scimmed some of them (and most of that was Marv's story, THE HARD GOODBYE).

I defy you to watch BRAINIAC ATTACKS and tell me how rotten UA 1 & 2 were.

Even if it's good in comparison to suck, it still sucks.

That is like saying eat sh** and tell me how bad cow entrails are.

Or ELEKTRA or STEEL or CROW: CITY OF ANGELS or all the countless examples of underwhelming comic related material (like the first season of THE BATMAN, mostly). Some fans seriously need to have a better memory for past crap. Compare this to the last Avengers cartoon and this is Oscar product. Perspective is key.

Perspective. So I should be happy the crap today is slightly better than other crap. Really. So since STEEL is worse than CATWOMAN I should praise all that is DC and WB for saving me by casting Halle Berry in CATWOMAN and having Pitoff direct it. Oh I see.

And really, what happened in Millar & Hitch's THE ULTIMATES? The characters sat around, saying pop culture references or crude jokes that'd make an illiterate sailor blush. They fought no villians and thus had no purpose for assembling as they were assembling for a threat that didn't exist. Did you WANT a DTV to relate to historical facts that Ultimates, as part of the Ultimate line, could and the DTV couldn't? Have Fury mention crap like Magneto or Spider-Man when this had nothing to do with them? And after 4 issues of just sitting around and talking, Banner becomes the Hulk because he's neurotic and to desperately give the team "something to fight so you don't lose funding". And then afterwards, you watch a man visciously beat his wife into a come and lose any and all sympathy, and ANY FAN who WANTS to see something like that animated, IMO, deserves to be alone forever. Furthermore, by that point the Ultimates were all in one way or another *****ebags who you only root for because they happen to be the stars of the vehicle, much like THE AUTHORITY (where Millar made a name for himself).

Okay so you don't like Millar, YOU. Guess what I really don't give a sh**. You reserve the right to hate certain comics. But I bet if I found a comic you did like and pissed on it, you wouldn't be happy.

In the next arc, they fight aliens, who have ZERO PURPOSE FOR INVADING THE EARTH. Zilch.

Perhaps from the perspective of humans we wouldn't know why they were invading.

You're told that these aliens have been on Earth since WW2 and Cap fought some, but they have no motivation except for "blind conquest".

The original WAR of the WORLD's was blind conquest. I never hear people go around calling that crap.

At least in the films, they were after Vibranium, which they needed for everything, from their ships to their bio-armor. But somehow, any and all flaws of the source material become untouchable scripture when a media version is adapted.

Yeah, because if you go around this board and actually talk to someone besides yourself, you'd realize people love this story. Every last bit of it.

It happens with other comics (I can't count many many fanboys bleated, "I want yellow spandex and a masked Wolverine!" when X-MEN came out in 2000, and the sequal later). I respect admiring the past and being faithful to source material, but not SO faithful that you ignore hindsight and don't seek to improve flaws as you see them.

Thats the problem. Who said comics HAVE flaws. Some do, and they tend to get cancelled. But some flaws, like I don't know an incredible lack of realism, is actually embraced in comics. Take LOTR, aren't their flaws in that. Aren't talking trees and dwarfs a little goofy sounding. What about POTC. Zombie Pirates, are we seriously making a movie about zombie pirates. Ideas may be absurd, but success comes with risk, not with trying to fix things so they are "safer" for "general audiences". Whatever the F*** that means.

To say a story written 5, 10, 20 years ago in some cases is 100% translatable is the height of ignorance. A plot of "Loki randomly picks a fight between Hulk and Thor, and other heroes get involved" would not work the same now as it did in 1963, and deep down everyone knows it.

Okay great and guess what those stories don't get translated. I am not expecting X-Men #2, Enter: The Vanisher to make the big screen. It was stupid then and it wouldn't work now. But you know what Ultimate X-Men 1-6 or the Phoenix Saga, if they stayed for the most part in tact would work very well.

Furthermore with ongoing you inevitably condense things. Look at Spider-Man for example. Sure #1 is different, but for the most part they get it right. The biggest shame was that producers, in their infinite wisdom, prevented Raimi from doing the original story which would have featured Gwen Stacy instead of MJ...and she would have died at the end.

A lot of fans love the characters and the stories to death, and I respect that because I do too.

After you're Millar rant, I doubt this

But I don't have so much love that I smother the creations and don't seek something new or original, a fresh take. Even one that fails can at least be learned upon, but a straight copy is just that. Everyone's free to like and dislike what they want for their own reasons, and if you disagree with me, hey, cool. I just think short-sightedness and too much illogical emotional bleating doesn't do the industry, or those who like and give critical imput, any good. It's why the bigwigs don't take us seriously, because all they see is a mass of people going, "Thor didn't have a cape, it sucked, wahh wahh wahh!" and nothing concrete to offer and little ability to be flexible. Things that are inflexible in nature tend to crack and break.

Producers don't trust us because they think they have better ideas than everyone else. The hell that Superman was put through is evidence of this. Read Superman: Man of Steel by Alex Ford and tell me it's not everything Superman should have been...and then find out why they dropped it. Because the producers quote (according to Ford) "had no idea who Superman was beyond his powers"

Producers just care about one thing: money. They don't care to sit down and try to understand why the character is making money already or why fans are inflexible. They just look at a character and if they think it is stupid. It must be stupid. Heck the producer of Superman wanted a giant spider because "he thought it would be cool". Thank god he moved onto WILD WILD WEST.

 

[Dread]

Actually TFTM as you put it CAME OUT OF NOWHERE. None of the characters save Blaster and Perceptor were previously established. Hot Rod, Kup, Galvatron, Unicron, the Matrix had zero mentions EVER in the series. Not to mention the fact that Prime's insides had been nicely displayed before in a Starscream episode entitled "Divide and Conquor".

Not to mention the frequent trips to Cybertron, and not noticing there were more Autobots running around.

You're correct, many key elements of that film WERE "new". But what I meant was that the concept of the Transformers and their key fundamentals, the Decepticons, them being on Earth, many of the killed characters, etc. were not new and derived as an extention from the TV series. In fact, the movie had more potency because it had the TV series as a backstory (much as MASK OF THE PHANTASM didn't "drop out of nowhere" and had the continuity of the peak-popularity B:TAS going for it). And technically, Galvatron was simply Megatron repaired and reconstituted into a new form.

This is not the same as making an animated DTV that will probably confuse many buyers that isn't not connected to the other Teen Titans (which is getting it's own DTV), while at the same time bringing us a story that was the result of many months of backhistory in the comics. More on that later. Yes, you have characters that due to the TV series are more well known now, but what about characters who weren't in the show, like Wonder Girl? Do you risk the audience knowing nothing about her and thus not caring one whit? Granted, admittedly, ULTIMATE AVENGERS did nothing about Black Widow's backstory in two films aside for her being "Nick Fury's Number One" with a thick Russian accent, and you're naturally left to assume that we're going with her comic origin as an ex-Commie spy. But a new animated incarnation to me should always be clear on the backstory in case they feel like adding anything, or to define what version of the character it is. People BASHED UA for not going into backstories, and now you're saying that it's not needed?

Thats the point these videos are not made for someone who HAS NO PRIOR knowledge. Just like Transformers which did swqit when introducing who the Transformers were JUDAS CONTRACT doesn't introduce Teen Titans, it just continues a story, that if you WEREN'T paying attention, you would not understand.

Transformers had never mentioned any of it's plot points before the movie, yet it is beloved by fans because those fans already understood the movie characters enough to pick up without anyone explaining anything to them. Heck the toys had already come out.

Transformers, had you never ever seen a single episode would leave you lost. Who are these robots and why are they fighting now? It is not even addressed. JUDAS CONTRACT is much like TFTM since fans who are familiar with the series won't have any trouble understanding exactly what is going on.

By that logic, STAR WARS is a useless film because EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is where it gets REALLY interesting and many consider it to be the highlight of the REAL trilogy. So why bother seeing SW at all? Context is unimportant. Darth Vader's reveltion to Luke is aided in no way from him being the core villian in the first installment, and the characters are all iconic, so who cares? You need buildup before a climax. EMPIRE was incredible not only because it was well done, but because it had that backstory of STAR WARS to build on. A DTV of JUDAS, on the other hand, has nothing to build on in the animated spectrum. These DTV's are dropping you in mid-storyline. Your first SW film is EMPIRE and not A NEW HOPE.

You seem to believe that TF:TM came out in a vaccuum and created an entire universe instead of being an extention of a universe that was well cemented and established in 2 seasons of a network TV show. I guess we're not going to settle this one.

Are you honestly such a person that you need an entire story your familiar with spelled out for you for you to watch it. I frankly was glad Batman TAS did not bother to insult my intelligence by retelling the story of Batman for the hundreth time.

Actually, Batman's origin was referenced by several episodes in it's first season, which had some 50+ episodes. The first was the 10th, "Nothing to Fear" (which, considering that B:TAS originally aired on weekday afternoons, made this an episode that aired in Week 2 of release). Then you had other stories that established that Wayne travelled the world and trained with Zatara the Magician or Martial Artists in the orient and whatnot. No, they didn't do a direct "origin of Batman" in that show, but the origin was heavilly referenced.

They DID do an origin of Superman, starting from being a baby, in SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. Surely he's the most iconic hero in the comic spectrum and "everyone" knows his origin. Did this 3-parter insult your intelligence? Or did it give you a proper footing for what was to be Superman's first season (of an underrated show that ended in it's prime)?

Am I to assume, however, that you're one of the people who actually liked SUPERMAN RETURNS? Because I did.

Faster and cheaper really? Okay, thats a dumb comment. Faster and cheaper was Catwoman or X3, making a quick product with tons of explosions hoping to appeal to everyone they can at once. They have a good story to tell that fans want to see on video. They really should take the time to produce ten stories fans don't want to get to this one. Wow you're crazy So I should sit through some dumb tell all DTV that explains to me who Nightwing and the Titan's are WHEN I ALREADY KNOW. God DC must hate me to spare me that.

Admittedly, I always wanted a more mature and less anime-ish TEEN TITANS incarnation than the CN show gave me, so in wanting Wolfman & Co. to do a TT DTV before JUDAS, to me it'd be like getting the Titans show I always wanted. But I also believe it goes into context. Again, seeing NEW HOPE before EMPIRE. I see JUDAS as being the EMPIRE sort of story for the New Teen Titans. Just diving feet first into it without the context being show is jarring. I've never seen a teen team superhero show done as well as it could be, and a TT DTV series could fill that void. But, I guess that's a fanboy wish. I'll instead have to settle for a DTV that I'm sure will be thrilling but have no backstory. "Welcome to episode 87".

FYI, Dick Grayson only became Nightwing during JC, after Deathstroke had captured the other Titans with Terra and sold them to HIVE. He'd still be Robin before that point in JC.

Yes, if they can. Because if you want to do a story do THAT STORY. Don't do another story and call it the same thing. I don't pull out ULTIMATE AVENGERS when I want the ULTIMATES, I read the comic. But if I had a direct to movie adaptation, I'd watch it. Screwing around with a story is just that, and unless you have a ten times better idea your screwing up the story.

But the Lion's Gate people and Marvel INTENTIONALLY titled it differently then THE ULTIMATES. If these films were called ULTIMATES then I could understand a lot of the hate. But they are a new title, ULTIMATE AVENGERS, a mergence of the Ultimates comics with altered bits from 616 or the writers' imaginations and revisions. The very title ADMITS it won't be the same product, panel for panel. So why the heck is anyone shocked that it didn't have Hulk screaming for Freddie Prince Jr. (surely the best line in all of comicdom )?

Coming from a position of an essayist, I would hate it if someone rewrote "parts" of my essay and then claimed it was the same thing. IT'S NOT. Writing is self contained, making changes makes it something different. Artists have a very distinct vision when they sit down and write something.

Like I said, they deliberately retitled it to reflect that it wasn't the same. Much as those endless movies that say, "INSPIRED by a true story" which means, "we found this great, interesting real life story and then changed bits of it to make it fit our visions and the Hollywood ideal". They outright admit that it's not 100% accurate or faithful, so you can't claim it's a shock.

The funny thing is we would not be having this discussion if you had written a script, turned it into DC and they changed it. You'd be mad as hell unless you were given a damn good reason or at least creative control over the change. That is your work not someone else's.

That is a Strawman Arguement. Obviously none of us have written anything that will ever be printed anywhere, and never will. I've given up on the notion of writing for comics and haven't written fan fiction in years. Therefore, going with the "how you'd feel" agruement is moot. It's like whenever someone on a comic forum whines about some change, like Cyclops losing his visor for instance, and someone who inevitably goes, "you'd hate it if you had some bold idea to advance an X-Man and no one saw it". It's a moot point. Of in theory, that's true. But it's not reality so agrueing it is pointless, and a distraction.

Movie and TV seems to forget comics can be as high art as a book. They tend to give a lot more credit to a book like "ALL THE KING'S MEN" then "BATMAN:YEAR ONE" because comics are seen as being for kids.

But books get changed all the time. Even the BIBLE is altered when it's homaged in films. I agree that comic books can be high art too. But when people seem unable to comprehend that if books get altered when made into TV and movies, even books written by Shakespeare, Poe, or Disciples of the Almighty (whether in Christianity or Older Myths which were religions once), the comics will inevitably have to deal with that to, it seems illogical. If you're expecting any converted work to be 100% accurate, then no movie or film of any adaptation will please you. NONE are 100% accurate. All, even great ones, have to adapt to the new medium or reflect changed times if accurate.

Even if it's good in comparison to suck, it still sucks.

That is like saying eat sh** and tell me how bad cow entrails are.

Touche', but when I hear people go, "UA is the worst thing ever", I sort of roll my eyes and figure they're overreacting.

Perspective. So I should be happy the crap today is slightly better than other crap. Really. So since STEEL is worse than CATWOMAN I should praise all that is DC and WB for saving me by casting Halle Berry in CATWOMAN and having Pitoff direct it. Oh I see.

Actually, it is worth something that "crap" today is sometimes better than stuff that was crap decades ago. Watch a bad episode of THE BATMAN, and then watch a bad episode of THE 1967 SPIDER-MAN SERIES and tell me which is superior. Evolution is evolution, and it always starts in the mud.

Okay so you don't like Millar, YOU. Guess what I really don't give a sh**. You reserve the right to hate certain comics. But I bet if I found a comic you did like and pissed on it, you wouldn't be happy.

Y'know, I thought about editting that last post and going, "and I actually liked THE ULTIMATES". Because I did. But there is a difference between enjoying a story (or even loving it) and believing that it is above all flaw. Part of love is accepting that flaws exist, not denying them. Of course, what are flaws to others are enjoyable to other people. Some people love the fact that at one point Nick Fury says he should be played by Samual L. Jackson. Others see it as pop-culture that in 30 years will only make you go, "damn, this comic is old". To each their own.

Millar's other works are variable. If you "talked to other people desides yourself", you may know that I find his ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR work horribly underrated and hate that it's over, because I liked it. I also enjoyed his ULTIMATE X-MEN stuff, although that wasn't flawless either. But I'm not here to narrow down which Millar works I liked and which I didn't. I just don't pretend that things I like are flawless.

Perhaps from the perspective of humans we wouldn't know why they were invading.

The original WAR of the WORLD's was blind conquest. I never hear people go around calling that crap.

Now we're being hypocritical. Throughout the UA review conversations, I heard complaint after complaint after complaint about the aliens "having no purpose to be there" or to attack the planet. People whined on and on about it like it was some horrible flaw, and maybe it was. But if THE ULTIMATES does it too, it's suddenly alright? Why? Why is the same flaw bad in one thing and good in another? I could easily have said, "from Fury and the Avengers' perspectives, they'd have no clue why the Chituri attacked when and where they did", and most people'd scoff it off as being "easy" on the film. But if I say that about THE ULTIMATES I can suddenly compare it to WAR OF THE WORLDS? Good god, man. Methinks you're the one being hard on cartoon adaptations.

Yeah, because if you go around this board and actually talk to someone besides yourself, you'd realize people love this story. Every last bit of it.

Including watching Pym beat his wife into a coma? Including watching Cap kick a man when he's down? Including all the pop culture references that are old NOW? I liked THE ULTIMATES, I just can admit some bits that aren't perfect about it, and other stories I liked. They all have them.

Thats the problem. Who said comics HAVE flaws. Some do, and they tend to get cancelled. But some flaws, like I don't know an incredible lack of realism, is actually embraced in comics. Take LOTR, aren't their flaws in that. Aren't talking trees and dwarfs a little goofy sounding. What about POTC. Zombie Pirates, are we seriously making a movie about zombie pirates. Ideas may be absurd, but success comes with risk, not with trying to fix things so they are "safer" for "general audiences". Whatever the F*** that means.

You misunderstand me. By flaws I meant elements in the story that a rational person would say, "this doesn't exactly work 100%", not genre elements. Every genre takes some suspension of belief. But a story, with a beginning, middle, and end, has to work on it's own terms.

I'll give you an example. A genre element is the fact that a radioactive spider-bite gives someone superpowers, that they can put on a costume and fight for justice, and that there're simularily outfitted bad guys out there to fight with their own names. That's part of the superhero genre. A story flaw, by contrast, would be the hero figuring out how to conjure up some mystical spell without any prior knowledge, because that was what the plot required. That is a story flaw.

And while we're on LOTR, what if Peter Jackson and book fans felt TWO TOWERS was the best part of the trilogy, and therefore started the film franchise with that, and not FELLOWSHIP? The book's fans would have understood, right? It wouldn't have mattered, yes? Folks who know LOTR don't need to be introduced to Gimley or Frodo or so forth. And yes, I am aware that LOTR itself was a sort of extention of THE HOBBIT. My point stands. Bilbo was introduced in LOTR and HOBBIT referenced. It worked.

Okay great and guess what those stories don't get translated. I am not expecting X-Men #2, Enter: The Vanisher to make the big screen. It was stupid then and it wouldn't work now. But you know what Ultimate X-Men 1-6 or the Phoenix Saga, if they stayed for the most part in tact would work very well.

X-Men #2 is stupid? Didn't you say, "Who says comics have flaws?" So which is it? What makes some comics "stupid" and others "flawless"? Is it opinion or can it also be certain elements? And if so, then can't someone else narrow down some of these elements, maybe some decades after the fact, like restoring a piece of classical art and cleaning off the dust to display it's true color?

IMO, at this point I am tired of homaging the Dark Phoenix Saga. I've seen that story done in comics, movies, TV shows and subsequent rehash arcs so often I almost never want to see it again. I get tired. It was great, but flogged to hamburger. And even that had some cheesy elements if you look for them.

Furthermore with ongoing you inevitably condense things. Look at Spider-Man for example. Sure #1 is different, but for the most part they get it right. The biggest shame was that producers, in their infinite wisdom, prevented Raimi from doing the original story which would have featured Gwen Stacy instead of MJ...and she would have died at the end.

You mean the movies. They also changed the origin a bit too if you want to get specific. In the comics, SPIDER-MAN lets the robber go out of pure arrogance; in the movie, it was about revenge. That's not even the only change (carjacking instead of a burglary, the robber dies at the end, the chase across Manhattan in the wrestler suit, etc). But they still got the spirit of it right and that's why it was so great, and why it made a half billion dollars.

I actually would have liked Gwen in there sooner, and so forth. But I understand Raimi's reasons. It makes more sense if you know that "THE DEATH OF GWEN STACY" is probably my favorite Spider-Man story, if only because there was so much emotion in it. It was his loss of innocence and that splash of him blaring, "You killed the woman I love, Goblin -- and for that, you're going to DIE!" to an enemy was something you just never heard from Spider-Man, or many heroes for that matter. I could go on but I'm digressing. The 90's cartoon, the movie, none of these ever did that story panel for panel. But I understood the homages of Raimi's SPIDER-MAN and I still enjoyed it a lot.

After you're Millar rant, I doubt this

Admittedly, I like some of his work but not others, and usually he gets too many passes.

Producers don't trust us because they think they have better ideas than everyone else. The hell that Superman was put through is evidence of this. Read Superman: Man of Steel by Alex Ford and tell me it's not everything Superman should have been...and then find out why they dropped it. Because the producers quote (according to Ford) "had no idea who Superman was beyond his powers"

Producers just care about one thing: money. They don't care to sit down and try to understand why the character is making money already or why fans are inflexible. They just look at a character and if they think it is stupid. It must be stupid. Heck the producer of Superman wanted a giant spider because "he thought it would be cool". Thank god he moved onto WILD WILD WEST.

You mean the original 1978 SUPERMAN film?

You're right about producers, they're not artists a lot of the time. I won't bend over backwards to defend them, because execs are one way or another responsible for mangling every comic TV show or film I ever liked or disliked. But I'm saying sometimes modifications to genre for a new adaptation can work out. What those modifications are and whether it works is entirely subjective. The original author should at least be told about it, though, and nowadays that usually jappens. Millar and Hitch didn't have any issues with UA 1 & 2.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

You're correct, many key elements of that film WERE "new". But what I meant was that the concept of the Transformers and their key fundamentals, the Decepticons, them being on Earth, many of the killed characters, etc. were not new and derived as an extention from the TV series. In fact, the movie had more potency because it had the TV series as a backstory (much as MASK OF THE PHANTASM didn't "drop out of nowhere" and had the continuity of the peak-popularity B:TAS going for it). And technically, Galvatron was simply Megatron repaired and reconstituted into a new form.

And if you had never watched the TV show you were lost. Just as if you had never read Teen Titans I doubt you'd get JUDAS CONTRACT

This is not the same as making an animated DTV that will probably confuse many buyers that isn't not connected to the other Teen Titans

Good thing all the DTVs are aimed at an audience of late teen to adult fans of the comic huh. Brillant how you can "market" stuff to certain "audiences".

while at the same time bringing us a story that was the result of many months of backhistory in the comics. More on that later. Yes, you have characters that due to the TV series are more well known now, but what about characters who weren't in the show, like Wonder Girl? Do you risk the audience knowing nothing about her and thus not caring one whit?

Again this DTV is not aimed at the TV show fans it AIMED AT FANS OF THE COMIC.

Granted, admittedly, ULTIMATE AVENGERS did nothing about Black Widow's backstory in two films aside for her being "Nick Fury's Number One" with a thick Russian accent, and you're naturally left to assume that we're going with her comic origin as an ex-Commie spy. But a new animated incarnation to me should always be clear on the backstory in case they feel like adding anything, or to define what version of the character it is. People BASHED UA for not going into backstories, and now you're saying that it's not needed?

Ultimate Avengers adapted an existing story into a kiddie film, changed many elements. Made once three dimensional characters into two dimensional clinche's. I fail to see the comparison.

JLU backstories were non existent, yet no one complains. Maybe because it was good.

By that logic, STAR WARS is a useless film because EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is where it gets REALLY interesting and many consider it to be the highlight of the REAL trilogy.

Star Wars was not an established franchise when it came out. However there are people who have read Teen Titans, New Frontier, Death of Superman, Ultimates, etc.

So why bother seeing SW at all? Context is unimportant.

See last point

Darth Vader's reveltion to Luke is aided in no way from him being the core villian in the first installment, and the characters are all iconic, so who cares? You need buildup before a climax. EMPIRE was incredible not only because it was well done, but because it had that backstory of STAR WARS to build on. A DTV of JUDAS, on the other hand, has nothing to build on in the animated spectrum.

Animated spectrum of what exactly. It's an adaption of AN EXISTING COMIC. Go outside your house, buy it. Then you might start to understand.

These DTV's are dropping you in mid-storyline. Your first SW film is EMPIRE and not A NEW HOPE.

No your first film is "I already know who the Teen Titans are because I am a comic book fan, the person this DVD is being marketed to."

I bet Star Wars fans don't pop in the NEW HOPE DVD if they want to watch EMPIRE.

You seem to believe that TF:TM came out in a vaccuum and created an entire universe instead of being an extention of a universe that was well cemented and established in 2 seasons of a network TV show.

Kinda like Teen Titans has cemented a fanbase who will be watching this through 40 years of comics. Heck it is not even doing a new story, it's adapting one EVERY TEEN TITAN fan knows. Yeah they will be real lost

Actually, Batman's origin was referenced by several episodes in it's first season

Key word "referenced".

which had some 50+ episodes.

Pontificating

The first was the 10th, "Nothing to Fear" (which, considering that B:TAS originally aired on weekday afternoons, made this an episode that aired in Week 2 of release).

The sewer changing into a gun. Yeah I remember. Pontificating

Then you had other stories that established that Wayne travelled the world and trained with Zatara the Magician or Martial Artists in the orient and whatnot. No, they didn't do a direct "origin of Batman" in that show, but the origin was heavilly referenced.

But they did not show it, in fact they started off with a story "The Man Bat" that most bat fans were familiar with.

They DID do an origin of Superman, starting from being a baby, in SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. Surely he's the most iconic hero in the comic spectrum and "everyone" knows his origin. Did this 3-parter insult your intelligence?

I don't remember since I was young and probably did not care back then. But then they must not be that memorable.

Or did it give you a proper footing for what was to be Superman's first season (of an underrated show that ended in it's prime)?

If this were an ongoing show like Superman your point might hold some water. But sadly, it doesn't.

Am I to assume, however, that you're one of the people who actually liked SUPERMAN RETURNS? Because I did.

No I hated it. It had a horrible plot. It was better when it was called Superman I.

MAN of STEEL by fanboy Alex Ford would have been better, BTW it did not have an origin either. But it was a revamp.

Admittedly, I always wanted a more mature and less anime-ish TEEN TITANS incarnation than the CN show gave me, so in wanting Wolfman & Co. to do a TT DTV before JUDAS, to me it'd be like getting the Titans show I always wanted. But I also believe it goes into context. Again, seeing NEW HOPE before EMPIRE. I see JUDAS as being the EMPIRE sort of story for the New Teen Titans.

Okay great. But unlike in an ongoing series, which builds upon itself, this is a direct market to the fans. The origin story is unnecessary. BTW when are you making a NEW POINT.

Just diving feet first into it without the context being show is jarring.

To someone unfamiliar. Good thing those people won't be advertised to.

I've never seen a teen team superhero show done as well as it could be, and a TT DTV series could fill that void. But, I guess that's a fanboy wish. I'll instead have to settle for a DTV that I'm sure will be thrilling but have no backstory. "Welcome to episode 87".

I think you miss the point of these videos now for the 10th time. They are not ongoing shows. They are adaptions of comics.

FYI, Dick Grayson only became Nightwing during JC, after Deathstroke had captured the other Titans with Terra and sold them to HIVE. He'd still be Robin before that point in JC.

Yep I have the original issues.

But the Lion's Gate people and Marvel INTENTIONALLY titled it differently then THE ULTIMATES.

They could have tried not pirating the story.

If these films were called ULTIMATES then I could understand a lot of the hate. But they are a new title, ULTIMATE AVENGERS, a mergence of the Ultimates comics with altered bits from 616 or the writers' imaginations and revisions. The very title ADMITS it won't be the same product, panel for panel. So why the heck is anyone shocked that it didn't have Hulk screaming for Freddie Prince Jr. (surely the best line in all of comicdom )?

Great then do what X-Men Evolution did and do a new story, not half a$$ an existing one.

Actually Hulk's horny nature is quiet interesting, it makes him more of a base human being rather than just a savage animal. He is Banner's inner desires embodied rather than a mere animal. I found the change interesting. And a little comedic relief is never bad. And that was funny.

Like I said, they deliberately retitled it to reflect that it wasn't the same. Much as those endless movies that say, "INSPIRED by a true story"

Right but this is not live action cinema to general audiences. again

which means, "we found this great, interesting real life story and then changed bits of it to make it fit our visions and the Hollywood ideal".

Hollywood ideal? When do you do your stand up routines?

They outright admit that it's not 100% accurate or faithful, so you can't claim it's a shock.

Again, sigh. DTVs are not feature films. They are DTVs and thus are not subject to that general audience that all producers feel they have to ****e out to.

That is a Strawman Arguement.

No straw man argument is arguing against distortions. Like arguing how a DTV market towards fans would not work based on Live Action "Based on a True Story" movies are made.

Obviously none of us have written anything that will ever be printed anywhere, and never will. I've given up on the notion of writing for comics and haven't written fan fiction in years. Therefore, going with the "how you'd feel" agruement is moot.

To you. But not to Alex Ford, who was a fan who actually sold his MAN of STEEL script. All you are doing is coping out of admitting you might be mifted if someone messed around with your own intellectual property.

It's like whenever someone on a comic forum whines about some change, like Cyclops losing his visor for instance, and someone who inevitably goes, "you'd hate it if you had some bold idea to advance an X-Man and no one saw it". It's a moot point. Of in theory, that's true. But it's not reality so agrueing it is pointless, and a distraction.

Not really, since comics too tend to return to status quos that are easily identified by readers. But I digress.

But books get changed all the time.

Not to the extent of comics. And if they do they tend to be poorly received. Like poorly adapted comic films

Even the BIBLE is altered when it's homaged in films.

Story is typically preserved to the letter. Like PASSION OF THE CHRIST, which is obviously their most successful film to date.

I agree that comic books can be high art too. But when people seem unable to comprehend that if books get altered when made into TV and movies, even books written by Shakespeare, Poe, or Disciples of the Almighty (whether in Christianity or Older Myths which were religions once), the comics will inevitably have to deal with that to, it seems illogical.

Right, but no one is talking about TV or movies aimed at general audiences or TV or movies that are condensing massive amounts of material. We are talking about adaptions of single stories into fan marketed home DVDs.

If you're expecting any converted work to be 100% accurate, then no movie or film of any adaptation will please you. NONE are 100% accurate.

Of course not, because movies and comics are different media. Things are lost in translation. But expecting 98% is not to much.

Actually, it is worth something that "crap" today is sometimes better than stuff that was crap decades ago. Watch a bad episode of THE BATMAN, and then watch a bad episode of THE 1967 SPIDER-MAN SERIES and tell me which is superior. Evolution is evolution, and it always starts in the mud.

You seem like the kind of guy who would be happy with a car if it were slightly better than the last piece of crap you had. Frankly. I'd like to pay for a good product. Customers should require more than just evolution starting in the mud. At some point you have to pull your head out of the mud and do something worth while.

Y'know, I thought about editting that last post and going, "and I actually liked THE ULTIMATES". Because I did.

Right, because otherwise you'd just look like the guy who said all the fans ought to be alone if they want a DTV.

But there is a difference between enjoying a story (or even loving it) and believing that it is above all flaw. Part of love is accepting that flaws exist, not denying them.

No one said the story was perfect. But if your going to adapt it, adapt it. Flaws and all. As I said writting is self contained.

Of course, what are flaws to others are enjoyable to other people.

Hence, when possible, why things should remain in tact.

Some people love the fact that at one point Nick Fury says he should be played by Samual L. Jackson. Others see it as pop-culture that in 30 years will only make you go, "damn, this comic is old". To each their own.

Okay cool. I don't mind updating a story to the times. But to change it when it can be adapted word for word is idiotic.

Millar's other works are variable. If you "talked to other people desides yourself", you may know that I find his ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR work horribly underrated and hate that it's over, because I liked it. I also enjoyed his ULTIMATE X-MEN stuff, although that wasn't flawless either. But I'm not here to narrow down which Millar works I liked and which I didn't. I just don't pretend that things I like are flawless.

Straw man, no one said they were flawless.

Now we're being hypocritical. Throughout the UA review conversations, I heard complaint after complaint after complaint about the aliens "having no purpose to be there" or to attack the planet. People whined on and on about it like it was some horrible flaw, and maybe it was. But if THE ULTIMATES does it too, it's suddenly alright? Why? Why is the same flaw bad in one thing and good in another? I could easily have said, "from Fury and the Avengers' perspectives, they'd have no clue why the Chituri attacked when and where they did", and most people'd scoff it off as being "easy" on the film. But if I say that about THE ULTIMATES I can suddenly compare it to WAR OF THE WORLDS? Good god, man. Methinks you're the one being hard on cartoon adaptations.

No one asked you to change the story. So don't change it. Simple as that. If you can adapt, adapt as is. If you have to make a ton of changes it is not worth adapting.

Including watching Pym beat his wife into a coma? Including watching Cap kick a man when he's down? Including all the pop culture references that are old NOW? I liked THE ULTIMATES, I just can admit some bits that aren't perfect about it, and other stories I liked. They all have them.

Those things are what made it edgy. Without them it could have been run of the mill.

You misunderstand me. By flaws I meant elements in the story that a rational person would say, "this doesn't exactly work 100%", not genre elements. Every genre takes some suspension of belief. But a story, with a beginning, middle, and end, has to work on it's own terms.

I'll give you an example. A genre element is the fact that a radioactive spider-bite gives someone superpowers, that they can put on a costume and fight for justice, and that there're simularily outfitted bad guys out there to fight with their own names. That's part of the superhero genre. A story flaw, by contrast, would be the hero figuring out how to conjure up some mystical spell without any prior knowledge, because that was what the plot required. That is a story flaw.

Then if it has a major plothole, don't adapt it.

And while we're on LOTR, what if Peter Jackson and book fans felt TWO TOWERS was the best part of the trilogy, and therefore started the film franchise with that, and not FELLOWSHIP? The book's fans would have understood, right? It wouldn't have mattered, yes? Folks who know LOTR don't need to be introduced to Gimley or Frodo or so forth. And yes, I am aware that LOTR itself was a sort of extention of THE HOBBIT. My point stands. Bilbo was introduced in LOTR and HOBBIT referenced. It worked.

It was an extension of the Hobbitt as you say. But again there is that whole "live action, big budget, general audience thing". Not an issue here.

X-Men #2 is stupid? Didn't you say, "Who says comics have flaws?" So which is it? What makes some comics "stupid" and others "flawless"? Is it opinion or can it also be certain elements? And if so, then can't someone else narrow down some of these elements, maybe some decades after the fact, like restoring a piece of classical art and cleaning off the dust to display it's true color?

Logical fallacy: Ignoring Context. You took the arguments out of their context. The first argument was about properties being adapted into films, the second was about existing comic books...not all of which will be adapted.

If your adapting a script like Sin City, then you are accepting that story is good enough to hold it's own on screen. Same with Judas Contract, same with Watchmen. Alotting for time is fine. But if you start changing it then you are saying you don't trust the source material supposedly you do trust enough to adapt.

IMO, at this point I am tired of homaging the Dark Phoenix Saga.

So am I, I'd want it "adapted" not "homaged"

You mean the movies. They also changed the origin a bit too if you want to get specific. In the comics, SPIDER-MAN lets the robber go out of pure arrogance; in the movie, it was about revenge. That's not even the only change (carjacking instead of a burglary, the robber dies at the end, the chase across Manhattan in the wrestler suit, etc). But they still got the spirit of it right and that's why it was so great, and why it made a half billion dollars.

Live ACTION GENERAL AUDIENCE FILMS ARE NOT UNTO DTVs. So sayth the LORD.

I actually would have liked Gwen in there sooner, and so forth. But I understand Raimi's reasons.

But he wanted her sooner than later. So you actually don't.

It makes more sense if you know that "THE DEATH OF GWEN STACY" is probably my favorite Spider-Man story, if only because there was so much emotion in it. It was his loss of innocence and that splash of him blaring, "You killed the woman I love, Goblin -- and for that, you're going to DIE!" to an enemy was something you just never heard from Spider-Man, or many heroes for that matter. I could go on but I'm digressing. The 90's cartoon, the movie, none of these ever did that story panel for panel. But I understood the homages of Raimi's SPIDER-MAN and I still enjoyed it a lot.

Okay but they would have had greesy Producers not whined "It's too dark" whaaa.

You mean the original 1978 SUPERMAN film?

No, unproduced script bought by WB.

You're right about producers, they're not artists a lot of the time. I won't bend over backwards to defend them, because execs are one way or another responsible for mangling every comic TV show or film I ever liked or disliked. But I'm saying sometimes modifications to genre for a new adaptation can work out. What those modifications are and whether it works is entirely subjective. The original author should at least be told about it, though, and nowadays that usually jappens. Millar and Hitch didn't have any issues with UA 1 & 2.

They don't have to be ***** like Alan Moore is about his stuff.

 

[Caliber]

I think it be cool if the Libertors would the villains. Seeing a worldwide reaction to them as fearful would interesting to see.

 

[Dread]

I think it be cool if the Libertors would the villains. Seeing a worldwide reaction to them as fearful would interesting to see.

I agree. The Liberators offer a good mix of classic villians like Loki, Abomination, and Crimson Dynamo (although technically, Swarm IS a Marvel villian, a D-List Spider-Man villian, whose design and basic powers were heavilly emended so only the name is the same in ULTIMATES 2), along with newer designs like Schizoid Man.

After some of the more generic action in UA 2, though, I would hope that if UA 3 wanted to go on their own tack, they'd at least take a gander at the Millar/Hitch stuff when it comes to pacing the fights. They referenced that stuff for UA 1, which had much better action as a result. In UA 2, even though I did enjoy it overall, I missed that Cap/Hulk/Klieser climax from the comic (even if it would have been harder to insert, with Black Panther there and all).

What's held back the Liberators story, and I guess ULTIMATES 2 in general, IMO, is the political polarizing. Sure, if these heroes existed in the real world today, politics would be involved, but some issues went so heavilly into it that it overshadowed the story, which was about the Liberators dividing the team and then invading. UA 3 could get around that sore spot.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I think it be cool if the Libertors would the villains. Seeing a worldwide reaction to them as fearful would interesting to see.

It could, it could.

 

[Dread]

And if you had never watched the TV show you were lost. Just as if you had never read Teen Titans I doubt you'd get JUDAS CONTRACT.

Fair enough. I'm willing to bet that more people had seen the TV shows and had the toys than people who have read JUDAS CONTRACT or know about the Teen Titans as they were in the comic, and not the show. We're never going to agree to this point. You believe TRANSFORMERS THE MOVIE is the same as a JC DTV and it's really different. But we're never going to agree, and neither one of us will submit on the point.

Good thing all the DTVs are aimed at an audience of late teen to adult fans of the comic huh. Brillant how you can "market" stuff to certain "audiences".

Now you're getting snippy.

I guess I see your point. In a way, the DTV approaches to DC and Marvel are showing off their publishing ambitions now, too. Marvel still has an ear towards wanting more "mainstream appeal" and getting new fans/readers. DC, feeling that these "mainstream approaches to new fans" almost never produce substantial results, are set about bringing out products exclusively for hardcore DC fans, and everyone else is just not invited. INFINITE CRISIS relied heavilly on a reader having a very intimate knowledge of the DC Universe to get all the references and truly appreciate it. I read it and I enjoyed it, and I did some research on it, but I'm more of a Marvel fan than DC. I admit that bias. A DC product has to work harder to please me than a Marvel product because of that bias. That's probably why I almost expected perfection from later JLU episodes but can enjoy action romps like the UA films, which I never said were flawless, either.

So to that end, Marvel puts out DTV's in the hopes of trying to please hardcore fans and mainstream audiences, while DC is only interested in pleasing their fanbase, because that fanbase never leaves, and everyone else can shovel it. Both POV's have their strengths and flaws. Marvel's ambitious, but DC may be more realistic.

Ultimate Avengers adapted an existing story into a kiddie film, changed many elements. Made once three dimensional characters into two dimensional clinche's. I fail to see the comparison.

PG-13 is hardly "kiddie" unless you consider every PG-13 film every made a children's film. PG-13 nowadays can allow a lot of hardcore content and is more or less the "de facto" rating for a lot of movies because R usually spells less sales because children "technically" can't have as easy access to it. Plus, while CN doesn't have a say in these DTV's, I'm sure Arad knows they're being reaired and CN would never air an R rated cartoon film. Even Adult Swim stuff is editted.

I think agruing THE ULTIMATES would be pointless, but while I enjoyed the story, I wouldn't call all of the characters "three dimensional" as at some point they all become cliches the longer it went, especially into ULTIMATES 2. Capt. America became the embodyment of Millar's depiction of an American Soldier, which is a violent, unreasonable thug with unflinching morals or POV. Janet became a poster child for a battered wife. Hank Pym became a malicious unrootable *****ebag. Even Thor, one of the most likeable characters in the series, has fallen into a cliche of overzealous hippy/lefty stuff. And the Hulk was simply a monster on every level, with none of the semi-heroic intones that some fans of the character liked. There's nothing to root for about a guy who eats people and brags about wanting to rape someone. And I guess that's Millar's point, that in real life EVERYONE has some dark side and no one is as squeaky clean as we like to believe. But that doesn't mean we like reading about a team of people who, in one way or an other, would be called "jerks" in real life.

That said, I did like THE ULTIMATES and it had a lot of great moments, which overshadowed the flaws to me. It wasn't as politically polarizing as ULTIMATES 2 would become as Millar went into his "angry that Kerry Lost" mode, and remembered that it was still supposed to be about superheroes. Cap's WW2 sequence, his awakening, his "man out of time" aspect, reuniting with Bucky and his old war sweetheart, Stark's revealing of his fatal brain tumor, and too many more to list. There was a lot UA missed out on, but that was due to time length. No DTV, even these DC ones you are lauding so much, seem to want to commit more than 80 minutes. Heck, surpassing 75 seems to be a chore; even MASK OF THE PHANTASM, a great feature film, clocks in at 76 minutes. The question is, if DC wants to slavishly and faithfully translate these stories into DTV's, can they do it in 75 minutes or less? And if they so have to "trim the fat", will the fans they're courting still appreciate it, or feel cheated?

JLU backstories were non existent, yet no one complains. Maybe because it was good.

I see it as a double standard. The first season of JL was mediocre at best. But because it improved, no one cares. These were Marvel's FIRST DTV's. And heck, their first new animation in 2 years. It'd been more than half a decade since some of the Avengers were animated (like Iron Man, Thor, Black Panther, etc). But Marvel's not allowed a learning curve?

Star Wars was not an established franchise when it came out. However there are people who have read Teen Titans, New Frontier, Death of Superman, Ultimates, etc.

Fair point.

Animated spectrum of what exactly. It's an adaption of AN EXISTING COMIC. Go outside your house, buy it. Then you might start to understand.

I'll spell it out one last time before I give up. You seem to believe JUDAS CONTRACT is a stand alone story, that dropped out of the sky out of nowhere. It wasn't. It needed the beginning of the NEW Teen Titans (not the TT in general, the New team was made in the 80's or so) and needed some of that backhistory for the full impact and effect of the story, that a new member (that the team historically was always easy upon admitting) would so heartlessly betray them, for little motive aside for sadism & selfishness.

Look at anime. 95% of anime are comics being converted to animation, panal for panal many times. But you don't just start at the manga's high-point (and anime that does has usually been panned as confusing, even if decent). You need some context to start out with, even when anime is usually being directed at people who liked the manga.

No your first film is "I already know who the Teen Titans are because I am a comic book fan, the person this DVD is being marketed to."

I bet Star Wars fans don't pop in the NEW HOPE DVD if they want to watch EMPIRE.

They don't need too. They've already seen NEW HOPE and get the context and the build-up. But what you're saying is that because TT has a comic book history, a beginning film like NEW HOPE isn't required. I disagree, because I see comics as a serial, especially the Wolfman/Perez NEW TEEN TITANS stuff. But at this point we're both slamming our heads into walls to try to convince the other of our points.

But they did not show it, in fact they started off with a story "The Man Bat" that most bat fans were familiar with.

I don't want to niggle about B:TAS because I enjoyed it. There were few bad episodes and it springboarded some 14 years of quality continuity DC Universe with countless brilliant writers, actors, animators, episodes, and moments (that managed to please old and new fans). So I can omit and forgive, say, "I'VE GOT BATMAN IN MY BASEMENT".

I don't remember since I was young and probably did not care back then. But then they must not be that memorable.

Do I get to automatically dismiss one of your points because I "don't remember it"? My point was that a new Superman animation could have went the B:TAS route and had a pre-existing Superman and some rogues, but they started from the beginning for context, to build it up.

If this were an ongoing show like Superman your point might hold some water. But sadly, it doesn't.

Touche'. So you believe JC is not a pivotal story from a serial that had a rich context to lead up to it, and instead is a one-shot sort of deal like KINGDOME COME or NEW FRONTIER (which is also getting a DTV) or WATCHMEN. As in something you could just read and give two figs about without the build up from previous volumes.

No I hated it. It had a horrible plot. It was better when it was called Superman I.

Okay. I liked it but I can understand someone who doesn't.

MAN of STEEL by fanboy Alex Ford would have been better, BTW it did not have an origin either. But it was a revamp.

Since you dismissed my S:TAS point because "you didn't remember it, so it doesn't matter", then I'll dismiss this one because, "I have no clue who Alex Ford is, never read the script, so it does't matter". We even?

Okay great. But unlike in an ongoing series, which builds upon itself, this is a direct market to the fans. The origin story is unnecessary. BTW when are you making a NEW POINT.

Now who's "Pontificating”?

You feel it’s not required because the fans “know the build-up and would surely hate to see the prior NEW TEEN TITANS stuff animated”. I feel that as the climax of a serial run, that context is needed for the full effect. At this point you either don’t understand my point, or, probably, disagree. Fine.

To someone unfamiliar. Good thing those people won't be advertised to.

And good thing the DTV’s won’t sell well enough for DC to commit to more of them in the long term. Yeah, I’ll call it now. They won’t be on the Top 10 DTV seller list for at least 2 weeks like the last batch of Marvel’s DTV’s, flawed as they are. And I’m sure a lot of people will post reviews about “being confused” that won’t help things.

I think you miss the point of these videos now for the 10th time. They are not ongoing shows. They are adaptions of comics.

Comics are a serial medium. Without some establishment of the buildup beforehand, it’s worthless. Say Marvel decided to animate THE DEATH OF GWEN STACY panal by panal, word for word, not even bothering to change the dialogue to reflect modern times (i.e., no Vietnam). Perfect translation. It is going to seem jarring for people because stuff like the death of Capt. Stacy, like prior battles with the Goblin, and so forth that are key to that boiling point won’t be there except for maybe a reference in dialogue or Spidey internal conflict narrative. That is why adapting these sorts of stories are better if they are adapted as part of a serial, not a one-shot movie, at least to me. I’d love to see a better JC adapation than the TT show did. But start from a beginning point, build it up, do it proper.

Hence, why I am VERY excited about a DTV Spider-Man SERIES coming up from Sony and Marvel, because they’ll get a chance to do a Spider-Man serial right, without having to knowtow to BS & P or a network. And they can build up to classic stories like the aforementioned one with the context sustained. But maybe I’m more patient than some. Maybe there’d be a million people who just want to see DEATH and so forth, but I’m not one of them. The story’s great because of being included in that serial, of that superhero soap, and removing it takes some of that away.

They could have tried not pirating the story.

Great then do what X-Men Evolution did and do a new story, not half a$$ an existing one.

Actually Hulk's horny nature is quiet interesting, it makes him more of a base human being rather than just a savage animal. He is Banner's inner desires embodied rather than a mere animal. I found the change interesting. And a little comedic relief is never bad. And that was funny.

Do you have any idea how many people whined and moaned about X-MEN EVOLUTION when it was around? I was there. I had to defend the show from endless hordes of people who wouldn’t let the 90’s series go or hated how it was “kiddie”. Even Marvel’s not been thrilled by the end product, which was why they haven’t fought with WB as much to release it as much as they’ve fought Disney over the rights to their 80’s/90’s material. Which is a shame because I enjoyed it, warts and all.

You just didn’t like UA 1 & 2, that’s fine.

I can’t believe you bought Millar’s baloney about there being a “deeper context” towards Hulk making raunchy sexual humor, and not just Millar liking that sort of thing. Ever read WANTED? That book had Millar doing what he wanted to do with no imput from an editor, nobody, just his own schtick, and that thing was a violence/profanity/raunchy parade. It was the sort of thing that’s maybe amusing the first time you hear it but makes you roll your eyes upon repeat readings, sort of like a lot of the potty jokes from GOLDMEMBER. At least to me. Some people liked that Hulk was an irredemanble monster without being the least bit heroic. I, on the other hand, found that limited; okay, so he went from anti-hero to “generic Mr. Hyde pariable, just with pop culture on his side”. In UA, on the other hand, Hulk got to be both a hero AND a monster, like he is in the original comics, and I enjoyed it more. Although I can see how a hardcore ULTIMATES fan, used to the “monstrous, crude Hulk”, may have felt it was “kiddified”. To each their own. I always felt Millar is a great writer when he doesn’t go too far off the deep end and doesn’t write from an extreme, such as having a character be a cannibilizing wanna-be rapist, or another be an almost inhuman wife-beater who then sells out his entire nation to ruthless thugs. When he’s not trying to be as extreme, or “edgy” as you later call it, like on ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR, ULTIMATE X-MEN, half his ULTIMATES stuff and agrueably CIVIL WAR, he’s usually more readable to me.

Right but this is not live action cinema to general audiences. again

FYI, you were the one who originally brought up LOTR.

Hollywood ideal? When do you do your stand up routines?

I meant the “Hollywood cliche/ending syndrome”. Every movie has to end in a triumph against adversity, etc.

Again, sigh. DTVs are not feature films. They are DTVs and thus are not subject to that general audience that all producers feel they have to ****e out to.

I just feel JUDAS would be stronger if the second part of a TT DTV series with Wolfman & Co. Why am I an idiot for wanting a great story to be stronger?

No straw man argument is arguing against distortions. Like arguing how a DTV market towards fans would not work based on Live Action "Based on a True Story" movies are made.

Touche’. I give you the point.

To you. But not to Alex Ford, who was a fan who actually sold his MAN of STEEL script. All you are doing is coping out of admitting you might be mifted if someone messed around with your own intellectual property.

I wasn’t copping out. I was admitting it but claiming it was an obvious, moot point. Like getting me to agree to, “if I shot you, it would hurt”. Well, duh. Next?

Not really, since comics too tend to return to status quos that are easily identified by readers. But I digress.

Curiously, do you think that is a bane or a boon to mainstream comics?

Not to the extent of comics. And if they do they tend to be poorly received. Like poorly adapted comic films

I think you’ll find that even well-recieved comic films have had to take major liberties with the source material. But they’re all movies or TV series, which you’ve branded as worthless. I had to use them as context because, THERE AREN’T MANY DTV’S TO COMPARE TO! The only DTV’s that one can compare this to are invalid because they come from TV shows like B:TAS or THE BATMAN or TT or BEYOND or whatever.

Story is typically preserved to the letter. Like PASSION OF THE CHRIST, which is obviously their most successful film to date.

And people debated that one, too.

Right, but no one is talking about TV or movies aimed at general audiences or TV or movies that are condensing massive amounts of material. We are talking about adaptions of single stories into fan marketed home DVDs.

Again, I brought them up because the DTV library is limited and usually reduced to spin off films from TV shows. I know you believe UA 1 & 2 are bad, but you have to admit DC’d never have announced theri new DTV ideas if UA 1 hadn’t sold like gangbusters and got their attention.

Of course not, because movies and comics are different media. Things are lost in translation. But expecting 98% is not to much.

2% wiggle room is not flexible. That would be like me expecting a kid to get a 98% on every test they ever take, ever. Having standards is great, having high standards even better, but I fear too many fans go into the extreme -- Unattainable Expectations. And that is a shame. I can live with maybe 85-90%, but ONLY if whatever changes are made, for whatever reason, work in the context of the film or series as a whole. That’s a purely subjective rulestick, but most reviews are.

Easy example; in the TMNT series (the original incarnation from 2003-2006), in which their creator IS involved in the production, BTW, they had a MAJOR change regarding the Shredder; basically, instead of being a human ninja, he was an alien (or at least an alien who may have usurped a Fuedal ninja’s identity). Huge change. Many people hated it. But I felt it worked for THAT series, and it opened the doors to a lot of quality stuff to explore. But if you haven’t watched this series, or dislike it, it’s a “worthless” point to you.

You seem like the kind of guy who would be happy with a car if it were slightly better than the last piece of crap you had. Frankly. I'd like to pay for a good product. Customers should require more than just evolution starting in the mud. At some point you have to pull your head out of the mud and do something worth while.

Pontificating...

What’s good for the goose, right?

I have high standards. I just have tried to come down from being inflexible and having unreasonable expectations. That limit is different for various people.

 

[Dread]

Right, because otherwise you'd just look like the guy who said all the fans ought to be alone if they want a DTV.

That isn’t what I said. I said that someone who was THAT disappointed that they didn’t get to see a superhero mercilessly beat his wife into a coma on the small screen probably shouldn’t date people. I was trying to be extremist to be funny, much like Mark Millar. Can I wax philosophical about it and get a pass, too? It was an ugly scene and I can understand omitting it, much like whoever does a treatment of WATCHMEN will inevitably write out the “bodies caked upon bodies caked upon blood and debris” from the climax after 9/11. And I’m sure many people will insensitively go, “but it’s pivotal to the work, to see NYC completely destroyed and pages of corpses”. And naturally that scene was written a generation before 9/11 and the stark reality cements Moore’s point. But I can understand the other side. I can be reasonable. Same here. There’s no way they could write Giant-Man as being relatable or someone to bother watching after he beats Jan THAT severely. He would instantly be a villian and the UA writers didn’t want that.

WATCHMAN, as a limited series, would work a lot better as one long film than JC does to me, IMO.

No one said the story was perfect. But if your going to adapt it, adapt it. Flaws and all. As I said writting is self contained.

Not all comic stories are self contained, though.

Okay cool. I don't mind updating a story to the times. But to change it when it can be adapted word for word is idiotic.

But who makes that distinction? Should dialogue be maintained even if the slang is outdated and the referenced obsolete? What if someone goes, “it’s pivotal to the work like a period piece”? Are you flexible or would you want it maintained? Because not all works can read the same 10-30 years later. What was topical then usually changes.

Straw man, no one said they were flawless.

You did.

Who said comics HAVE flaws.

In the same post where you bring up “for general audiences” Hollywood motion pictures like PIRATES and LOTR and then dismiss it when I do the same.

No one asked you to change the story. So don't change it. Simple as that. If you can adapt, adapt as is. If you have to make a ton of changes it is not worth adapting.

I got the impression that for UA at least, they kept what they could and changed other bits to make it work out better for them. UA 2 admittedly had very little from THE ULTIMATES, so is another animal (and if you’d read my review of it in another topic, I say that abandoning the comic material COMPLETELY in some ways was a misstep).

Those things are what made it edgy. Without them it could have been run of the mill.

With that attitude, you probably love NEW AVENGERS, right? Lots of “edgy” stuff there. Death. Destruction. Character mangling. All edgy, edgy stuff. I just prefer stuff like ULTIMATE FANASTIC FOUR that isn’t as busy being edgy and concentrates on imagination, character, and quality.

What seperates the difference between edgy and obscene? Besides opinion? What makes one wife-beating scene an artistic achievement and another a sexist exaggeration? Because nearly anything that’s “edgy” in comics has been done well and poorly by various creators and writers.

Then if it has a major plothole, don't adapt it.

But what if it’s a KEY plothole, like the aliens having no motive and your heroe assembling to fight nothing? That was probably the biggest quibble with THE ULTIMATES, they assembled to fight nothing until Hulk showed up, and he was a teammate ( a plot point that Millar would work to death in ULTIMATES 2, where they’d fight internally again and again). Do you change it and risk scorn or just keep it?

It was an extension of the Hobbitt as you say. But again there is that whole "live action, big budget, general audience thing". Not an issue here.

Then don’t bring in LOTR or PIRATES as evidence if I can’t take a gander at it, too.

Logical fallacy: Ignoring Context. You took the arguments out of their context. The first argument was about properties being adapted into films, the second was about existing comic books...not all of which will be adapted.

If your adapting a script like Sin City, then you are accepting that story is good enough to hold it's own on screen. Same with Judas Contract, same with Watchmen. Alotting for time is fine. But if you start changing it then you are saying you don't trust the source material supposedly you do trust enough to adapt.

You were saying that some comics are worth being completely faithful to, and others are outdated and “stupid”, and can’t be taken faithfully. So which is it? That’s why it sucks to have a 2% margin for error. Even most polls have at least 3%.

So am I, I'd want it "adapted" not "homaged"

The 90’s TV series was the closest.

I think the biggest problem others have with it is that the X-Men are suppose to fight domestic intolerance and threats, and DP has them fighting aliens in a full fledged space operatta. True, the X-Men had battled aliens from way back in the Lee/Kirby days, but that was merely because aliens were more topical in Silver Age comics and if the X-Men were remade in the 21st century, they’d hardly ever spend so long fighting aliens (ULTIMATE X-MEN, including Millar’s issues, went a long way to avoid doing that with Phoenix). Just playing Devil’s Advocate here.

Live ACTION GENERAL AUDIENCE FILMS ARE NOT UNTO DTVs. So sayth the LORD.

Then why did “the Lord” enter them into the equation?

But he wanted her sooner than later. So you actually don't.

So I don’t.

Okay but they would have had greesy Producers not whined "It's too dark" whaaa.

Greesy producers always do that. If if doesn’t look like something that’s sold before, they won’t have it.

No, unproduced script bought by WB.

Some of us mere mortals didn’t know about it.

They don't have to be ***** like Alan Moore is about his stuff.

But as creators, don’t they have a right to be ****** like Alan Moore if they feel their work has been butchered? You wanted me to concede that point earlier. Heck, I’d be pissed if my work was mutated into LXG too. Heck, not only were Millar and Hitch not *****’s, they appeared in a featurette! Hitch was called back in to do designs for the sequal and the covers!

Anyway, I guess it’s my fault, as it usually is, for getting into a heated debate (this hasn't been the first topic, just not with you). You don’t like the UA films and I don’t feel DC’s DTV direction is as wise as it could be. I understand it but I don’t think it will produce the results they want, especially in the wake of their SR expectations, and that would be a shame because they ARE onto something.

 

[Dread]

It could, it could.

Definately.

In addition to the Liberators, I'd like an UA 3 to naturally not forget the Hulk; yes, other characters need fleshing but he's easily the most popular and recognizable out of all of them, and they've done a decent job with him. Did the Banner persona "die" and is he merely the Hulk? And what kind? UA 1's "fact file" addition noted that the writers were going for a shift in Hulk's personas, him going from "The Professor" to "Savage Hulk" in the first. As the shrink said, at some point Banner had control over his Hulk form, but lost it. Besides, I sort of felt it was a cheap gimmick to heavilly include Hulk in trailers, promotional art and menus for UA 2 when he barely had a minute of screentime. Imagine if an X-cartoon did that with Wolverine.

Unless Black Panther is remaining as a full member of the team, past interviews with writer Greg Johnson show had wanted to bring a certain member in for both films, but never got the chance:

TZN: Was there anything you couldn’t fit in the original that you were dying to put in the sequel?

GJ: That would have to be Hawkeye. I’d mentioned in previous interviews how we’d worked out a back-story for him that was pretty cool. In that WWII battle sequence, there was a sharp-shooter who took out a Nazi machinegun bunker from a great distance by firing through the tiny slit. We had a scene in which Cap saved him from a grenade. That sharp-shooter was named Barton, and was the grandfather to Hawkeye. By having Hawkeye join the Avengers in present day, we had the makings of a very unique relationship. Hawkeye would never have been born if it hadn’t been for Cap.

We tried to fit it into the new movie as well, but it became evident that we just had too many characters to service. So once again, out he went.