Marvel Cinematic Universe Movies and Streaming Series Discussion

Fletch said:
I've heard this a lot, but I don't think it holds up based on the movies. When Thanos uses the Reality Stone to mask Knowhere and fuggup Drax and Mantis, those effects immediately end after he leaves. Either there's a range limit or a concentration requirement, but they're not permanent.
Click to expand...

Good point. That's why everyone who got snapped reappeared the second Thanos destroyed the stones.

Oh ... wait ...

Okay, then that's why everyone who got snapped reappeared the second Thor lopped off Thanos' head.

Oh ... wait ...

Fletch said:
Meh. It was a cute node for the readers who knew, but it doesn't have to be taken so literally to think that was their original plan.

Speaking generally (not to fac directly), I think it's long past time that people stop asking for superhero movies to just do the stories we've already read. Like, I enjoy a good fanpitch, where people talk about how they would have done a certain movie or franchise, but as soon as they say something to the effect of "I'd introduce Ant-Man earlier so he can make Ultron like in the comics" I check out.

As long as you get the basic characterizations right (and I mean basic), I'm more interested in seeing a new story than I am in a re-enactment of 'The Night Gwen Stacy Died' or whatever.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. That's why when the BBC does their adaptation of Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities", I hope it's an all new story with new characters. I mean, I've read a Tale of Two Cities. Why would I want to see a movie based on that story?

:rolleyes:
 
SDcomics said:
Oh, absolutely. That's why when the BBC does their adaptation of Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities", I hope it's an all new story with new characters. I mean, I've read a Tale of Two Cities. Why would I want to see a movie based on that story?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
BINGO.
 
I get why people want to see on screen what they loved on the page but I also get why they wanna do their own thing with it as long as they remain true to the characters. And I also do see a difference between making a film or even miniseries of one (albeit lengthy) classic story, and adapting DECADES of soap opera like plots into 1-3 films.
 
I also question whether the basic characterizations are even there a lot of the time, especially with nearly everyone ‘suddenly’ being military or ex-military. Sometimes “basic characterizations” means just the name and maybe some costume details and maybe some powers, grafted onto a character that bears little resemblance to the source material in a story that also bears little resemblance to the source material.
That’s not exactly an “adaptation” to me.
🤷‍♂️
 
AceofKnaves said:
I also question whether the basic characterizations are even there a lot of the time, especially with nearly everyone ‘suddenly’ being military or ex-military. Sometimes “basic characterizations” means just the name and maybe some costume details and maybe some powers, grafted onto a character that bears little resemblance to the source material in a story that also bears little resemblance to the source material.
That’s not exactly an “adaptation” to me.
🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

Precisely. I still remember Leonard Maltin's review of Superman III (Remember that one? The horrible one with Richard Pryor?). He said "It makes very little sense to make a movie based on a legend and then REJECT the legend on which it's based."

Exactly.

Leonard is an actual movie critic. That's what I love about him. He gets it. He's not some internet wanna be pretending to be the real thing.
 
SDcomics said:
Superman III (Remember that one? The horrible one with Richard Pryor?)
Click to expand...
I was 5 when that movie came out, and I viscerally remember the disappointment.
I walked out demanding to know why they did an evil computer that wasn’t Brainiac but obviously should have been, an evil businessman who was obviously supposed to have been Lex Luthor but wasn’t for some reason (now I know why but still), and then a “negative version” of Superman that wasn’t Bizarro and also made no damn sense. I also did not understand why the guy from The Toy was there or why I was clearly supposed to think this was all “funny”.
Oy.
 
Superman III, the 2004 Catwoman, the Josh Trank Fantastic Four, Wonder Woman 1984, Batman and Robin, Howard the Duck, The Spirit ... that's the kind of shit you get when you stray too far from the source material.
 
SDcomics said:
Good point. That's why everyone who got snapped reappeared the second Thanos destroyed the stones.
Click to expand...

In most cases, destroying something is very different from making something.

I mean, during the final fight, he sticks Hulkbuster in a rock and crumples War-Machine into a ball, but after he leaves, they're both just up and walking around.
 
Okay.

Yes, Thanos could have used the stones to solve the Universe's over population problem.

Yes, the effects would have been as permanent as the Snap.

Yes, I would still very much like to see a scene with Josh Brolin and Aubrey Plaza together. They're great actors and they played their roles in the MCU perfectly. I'd love to see them share some screen time. It would be a great nod to an iconic sequence from the comics. It would take 2, maybe 3 minutes of the movie.

Yes, Thanos was a player in Jonathan Hickman's Secret Wars. He will most likely have some scenes in the film.

The Secret Wars movie is going to have a LOT more than just the Young Avengers.

Sorry, NOT sorry.
 
SDcomics said:
That's why when the BBC does their adaptation of Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities", I hope it's an all new story with new characters. I mean, I've read a Tale of Two Cities. Why would I want to see a movie based on that story?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
These are not adaptations though, and they have never claimed they are. These are films using the the cliff notes being pulled from the vast history of Marvel and reworking them for films with the characters they have access to. I can't think of a single Marvel film that was a faithful adaptation of a comic run...it is what it is.

Did you really want the end of Infinity War to be Nebula getting the Gauntlet, then another super powerful character in Warlock gets it from her for reasons and the Avengers are basically side characters? Because that's the comic ending.
 
fac said:
Did you really want the end of Infinity War to be Nebula getting the Gauntlet, then another super powerful character in Warlock gets it from her for reasons and the Avengers are basically side characters?
Click to expand...
I mean . . . yeah. I did.
Or at least something closer to the actual story and less a “two big armies run at each other in the dark” generic Big Saga Ending.
🤷‍♂️
 
d9e9445d-74f1-4cf0-b3a1-9006ae465648_text.gif
 
fac said:
These are not adaptations though, and they have never claimed they are. These are films using the the cliff notes being pulled from the vast history of Marvel and reworking them for films with the characters they have access to. I can't think of a single Marvel film that was a faithful adaptation of a comic run...it is what it is.

Did you really want the end of Infinity War to be Nebula getting the Gauntlet, then another super powerful character in Warlock gets it from her for reasons and the Avengers are basically side characters? Because that's the comic ending.
Click to expand...

Let me just turn that around on ya. Would you really want to see a movie called "Winter Soldier" and have the Winter Soldier be someone OTHER than Bucky Barnes? Because in the comics Bucky was the Winter Soldier. Maybe have Natasha be the Winter Soldier? Or Dum Dum Dugan? How well do you think THAT shit would play in Peoria?

Look, I never, ever, ever said that I wanted any Marvel movie or TV show to be a straight, panel by panel adaptation of the comics. I never said that. I don't think I'd want that. But there is no doubt that these films are BASED ON THE COMICS. Take a look at the credits in any MCU project. You're going to see something that looks like this:

bzjcn0S.png


That's from WandaVision. That's a nod to all the writers and artists who worked on the comics that show was based on.

I'll say this again: I do not mind changes to the comics. But when you stray too far from the source material? You wind up with shit like Catwoman and Howard the Duck. I don't think anyone wants that. At least I sure as hell don't.

Yes, these films and shows are based on the comics, dude. In my mind, that's exactly what's made the MCU so great. You get Galactus, you don't get Galactus as a storm cloud. You get Bullseye, you don't get Bullseye with a target branded on his forehead. You get yellow spandex, not Matrix style black leather.

Look, all this started because I simply said I'd love to see an iconic scene from the comics play out on the screen between two great actors. That scene is so iconic that it's still talked about 50 years later. Yes, I read that when I was 15 years old. I'm 66 now.

So I posted that and then I got hit with this "Fanboy/ bad fanfic/ RUINING THE MOVIES!" bullshit. And that's exactly what it was: bullshit. Posted by someone who clearly doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. I probably should have just ignored it. I think that would have been the wise thing to do. I should have just shut the stupid computer off and walked away. I mean, regardless of what any of us do or say here Marvel's going to do what Marvel's going to do. We'll either like it or we won't. What gets said here doesn't make a fucking bit of difference.

But no, I took the bait and here we are. I probably shouldn't have done that, but after awhile ... you get tired of the bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top