Movie >> View Thread

Posted with Google Chrome 74.0.3729.169 on Windows 10
Posted with Google Chrome 75.0.3770.100 on Windows 10
Author
christian


Member Since: Tue Aug 01, 2017
Posts: 23


https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/dark-phoenix-bomb-suggests-marvel-has-reboot-work-cut-out-for-it-130000228.html


So here we have 'creative' people in Hollywood contemplating how to fix the mess made with the Fantastic Four and X-Men. Words like 'formula' and 'diversity' and 'vision' are trotted out, indicating that the executives have no idea how to make a good movie. Even when the source material is right there for them to read. They could even consult the fans, if they weren't so imperious about their jobs. No where in the article does it mention the folly of hiring the same writer to butcher the same story line twice (Kinberg). Or the stupidity of portraying biological siblings as coming from different ethnic backgrounds, TWICE (Fantastic Four). The blame always goes to vague concepts like viewer fatigue with the franchise (which is hard to justify given super hero comics have had a loyal following for decades).

To integrate them successfully into the Marvel Universe, here's what they should do:

Fantastic Four: Don't shoe-horn minorities into the cast. The FF is a family, every identifiable group doesn't have to be represented. If they want a minority so bad, then remind the audience that Ben Grimm is Jewish. Reed is an alpha male, not some dork who's into science. Hollywood seems to be hooked on the stereotype that scientists have to be socially awkward and incompetent. Reed leads the team, authoritatively. Dr. Doom is a dictator from Latveria, and he wears battle armor. No changes to his origin. He's a megalomaniac. Period. And Galactus isn't a cosmic gas formation. Once that's established, hire a writer/director who knows a thing or two about science fiction. The movie won't be a success if the director's only experience has been making romantic comedies.

The X-Men. Don't reinvent the wheel. Start with the original team, which would build Cyclops' reputation BEFORE Wolverine shows up. If Wolverine is there from the start, then the movie becomes WOLVERINE AND THE X-MEN. I'm not interested in watching a movie about a team of one guy. Let Wolverine be introduced as a solo project, and free the X-Men to actually engage in character development for the others. Use the comic book cast and timeline. Don't deviate from a successful story. The Dark Phoenix story doesn't have any emotional weight if no one knows anything about Jean Grey, and Cyclops. And for God's sake, don't take that idiot woman's advice from the article above, and rename the X-Men to something more inclusive to women, and make the team female-centered, and change their purpose to being explorers. We don't need yet another executive who doesn't understand why the X-Men are popular.



Posted with Google Chrome 74.0.3729.169 on Windows NT 4.0
Vincent


Member Since: Mon Jul 06, 2015
Posts: 188


Do What Marvel did to Spider man Homecoming and What Comic creators had been doing for years after Origin stories and the Original creators had left the book: Craft a NEW ORIGINAL STORY, ADVENTURE, LOOK, OR PATH for the hero, but keep elements of the hero true.

Look at Nolan's Batman series, Begins and Dark Knight, he kept the driven, obsessive Bruce Wayne to fight Crime, that he invented Batman, the vigilante, working with the Police and the Politician. Then the Joker showed up and F**ked everything up. These are elements and themes in Batman books but crafted to a Cinematic look.

The Xmen and Fantastic Four movies just became rewrites of the books. Reflective and Nostalgic, but offered nothing new. Those 90s Batman sequels were remakes or cookie-cut versions of the Tim Burton Batman movie, Celebrity badguy(s), crazy scheme to destroy Gotham, new version of Batmobile or vehicles or weapons and a fave like Robin, Batgirl, Catwoman, ...like what Hollywood has been doing for years, find a HIT and do that over and over again.

Those Marvel movies, after the Origin movies, the characters went on to emotional ups and downs, new adventures with elements of their books in the movie, and different twists and turns. Like the Mandarin becoming an actor, Corporate greed and money behind Terrorism, ...Secret organizations within America's government, ...new takes on Marvel's space characters.

With Daredevil, ...his book was a standard superhero comic book, bad guy does something evil, DD battles foe, goes on adventures in Savage land, Europe, etc. Then Frank Miller came on board (Around issues 100 plus), made Daredevil a Ninja, introduced Elektra, re-invented Bullseye and Kingpin. That became Daredevil comics for years. Then Miller came back, destroyed DD's law business, drove DD into religion and made him a cook.
And the TV series just took elements of all that, made 3 seasons of the great superhero adventures that everyone must see.


Posted with Google Chrome 74.0.3729.169 on Windows 10
Dragon Red


Member Since: Fri Jul 05, 2013
Posts: 1,283



    Quote:
    No where in the article does it mention the folly of hiring the same writer to butcher the same story line twice (Kinberg).


The Phoenix saga was a BIG storyline. IMHO to do that any justice in a film, it would need similar build up as we got with Thanos, a slow burn so to speak. Either that, or simply don't bother. Its too much to do in one film.


    Quote:
    Or the stupidity of portraying biological siblings as coming from different ethnic backgrounds,


As I recall when they announced that Michael Jordan would be playing Johnny Storm in the reboot, there was a lot of negative fan reaction to that. In addition and equally if not more importantly to it being a strange idea, Jordan's limited strengths as an actor lie in playing the resentful, chip on his shoulder malcontent. Johnny Storm is not outwardly like this.


    Quote:
    The blame always goes to vague concepts like viewer fatigue with the franchise


Yes, typically the current modus operandi is "blame anything and everybody but ourselves."

For example game of thrones, Kit Harrington told fans if they don't like Series 8 to go and "F*** yourself." Very professional there Harrington. Sophie Turner said its "Disrespectful" to not like series 9 because they all worked "really hard"

Blaming the fans is the way to go. Star Wars blamed the fans, Paul Feig's crappy Ghostbusters reboot attempt blamed fans called them all sexist. Basically, in TV and Film now, if the film bombs, the fans are to blame.


    Quote:
    Fantastic Four: Don't shoe-horn minorities into the cast. The FF is a family, every identifiable group doesn't have to be represented. If they want a minority so bad, then remind the audience that Ben Grimm is Jewish. Reed is an alpha male, not some dork who's into science. Hollywood seems to be hooked on the stereotype that scientists have to be socially awkward and incompetent. Reed leads the team, authoritatively. Dr. Doom is a dictator from Latveria, and he wears battle armor. No changes to his origin. He's a megalomaniac. Period. And Galactus isn't a cosmic gas formation. Once that's established, hire a writer/director who knows a thing or two about science fiction. The movie won't be a success if the director's only experience has been making romantic comedies.


I hate that about films with scientists. Its always scientist = socially inept nerd. I blame the Big Bang Theory for this. Reed is not lacking in "take charge" attitude, in the comics you could argue he's a borderline arrogant sod who is clever AND he knows it! Ben is Jewish, I forgot all about that!

Doom having his own superpowers I think is done because the villain needs to have it. This comes back to your early point about "formulas" in the right usage formulas are great but if you use the wrong formula at the wrong time you get a lot of stuff wrong.


    Quote:
    The X-Men. Don't reinvent the wheel. Start with the original team, which would build Cyclops' reputation BEFORE Wolverine shows up. If Wolverine is there from the start, then the movie becomes WOLVERINE AND THE X-MEN. I'm not interested in watching a movie about a team of one guy. Let Wolverine be introduced as a solo project, and free the X-Men to actually engage in character development for the others. Use the comic book cast and timeline. Don't deviate from a successful story. The Dark Phoenix story doesn't have any emotional weight if no one knows anything about Jean Grey, and Cyclops. And for God's sake, don't take that idiot woman's advice from the article above, and rename the X-Men to something more inclusive to women, and make the team female-centered, and change their purpose to being explorers. We don't need yet another executive who doesn't understand why the X-Men are popular.


I disagree a bit here about Wolverine. I think it'd be very hard to have an x men film without him now. And the other flip is, Hugh Jackman is so iconic in this role any replacement has got a really hard path to follow.

Rebooting the X - men will be a lot harder than the FF I think. For the wolverine problem, and also for the PC aspect as now men are the fairer sex.... apparently...


Posted with Google Chrome 74.0.3729.169 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 17,393


I don't think that is true for scientists. I mean it may have highlighted it for the last decade, but the idea of scientists as nerds or dorks is something that has been in movies or TV shows for a long time.

Reed is all over the place really in terms of personality. Distant is often the thing that comes to my mind. He ranges from a good dad and warm husband to emotionally distant and too lost in his own mind.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 67.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 17,393


I honestly think most of this has more to do with movies in general than anything else. The more studio involvement with nearly any movie, the worse it is probably going to be. Just the way it is.

I am not sure diversity or anything else has much of an impact. It will make fans upset to varying degrees but it is not a problem to end all problems nor a solution. It is just there. If you have a good script, actors and director than you will probably be ok, even if there are iffy moments.

The x-men movies and the FF movies (for the most part, but particularly the last one) have not had good scripts, have been all over the place in quality and directors are bad.

True for any type of movie, comic, superhero or not.

They could easily make Ben originally a black guy and then have him turn into a rock monster and who would know it. I am not advocating that. I thought it was stupid what they were going for in the last FF film. I am still not even sure what that is.

Galactus is trickier to do. I love the character, but a giant pink and purple guy is probably going to be harder to depict than some of the other guys. Dr. Doom, there is no excuse for doing him wrong. Honestly, I would love for him to be a major baddie in the movies, he easily should be. He should be involved long before the FF are introduced, IMO. They can come in when his plan is going off.

IMO, he makes more since than Norman Osborne. At least from a comic significance point of view.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 67.0 on Windows 7
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 26,439




    Quote:
    The X-Men. Don't reinvent the wheel. Start with the original team,

We're not going to agree, probably. IMO, the original team should be completely ignored. Seriously. They suck. They've always sucked. They were as boring as grass. Biggest failure of Stan/Jack's 1960s. Angel, Beast, and Iceman are totally unnecessary to everything that's popular about the X-Men. Keep the leader and his girlfriend, but make her much, much more than just his girlfriend. Fill out the team with the popular X-Men: Wolverine, Storm, Rogue, Colossus, Nightcrawler. Maybe introduce Kitty. Reduce the significance of Wolverine-- this ain't your story, bub. No Hogwarts-style school filled with kids.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 67.0 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,076



    Quote:
    We're not going to agree, probably. IMO, the original team should be completely ignored. Seriously. They suck. They've always sucked. They were as boring as grass. Biggest failure of Stan/Jack's 1960s. Angel, Beast, and Iceman are totally unnecessary to everything that's popular about the X-Men. Keep the leader and his girlfriend, but make her much, much more than just his girlfriend. Fill out the team with the popular X-Men: Wolverine, Storm, Rogue, Colossus, Nightcrawler. Maybe introduce Kitty. Reduce the significance of Wolverine-- this ain't your story, bub. No Hogwarts-style school filled with kids.


I agree that Angel and Iceman are boring, but not Beast, especially in his best version, the funny but still brainy Avengers incarnation. Rogue is also not a fundamental character. The team should be Cyclops (leader), Jean Grey (psionic), Beast (science brain), Wolverine (melee), Storm (versatility), and Colossus (tank) initially. Starting with any more than that doesn't give sufficient screen time to develop each character.



Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Ancient One 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 6,930


I'm with Christian on this. Angel, Iceman and Beast are iconic, first-generation Marvel characters for me.

If they've sucked for you up to this point it's just that... well, they haven't been handled particularly well in ANY medium to date. All they need is a bit of TLC to bring them to life.

You could argue (Quite successfully I think) that Marvel Girl was in an even worse position than them for the first 15 years of her publishing history. But all it took was one writer (Chris Claremont) with the will to put things right, and today Jean Grey is one of the best known and best loved characters in the Marvel universe.

One good writer (Or producer, or director). That's all it would take.

And I certainly wouldn't call the original X-Men the biggest failure of 1960's Marvel. Sure, they weren't Marvel's biggest selling title, but they did better than Ant-Man/Giant-Man, The Human Torch solo feature and even initially the Hulk. It's doubtful whether Doctor Strange and SHIELD could have supported their own titles for as long as X-Men did back then.

And X-Men only got cancelled during a wave of Marvel cutting back on it's lower-end books. Doctor Strange, SHIELD and Captain Marvel all got the chop in late 1969, while X-Men and Silver Surfer lasted a little longer, through mid to late 1970.

AND, X-Men was immediately revived as a reprint title that lasted 28 issues (Right up to the revamp in Giant-Size X-Men #1). The only other title to be given ongoing reprint status was SHIELD. and that lasted... three issues.


Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,076



    Quote:
    And I certainly wouldn't call the original X-Men the biggest failure of 1960's Marvel. Sure, they weren't Marvel's biggest selling title, but they did better than Ant-Man/Giant-Man, The Human Torch solo feature and even initially the Hulk. It's doubtful whether Doctor Strange and SHIELD could have supported their own titles for as long as X-Men did back then.


And from an aesthetic point of view, the first 7 issues of the X-Men are about as well written as anything Stan was doing at that time. The quality really dropped as Stan left with issue #19.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Happy Hogan 

Manager

Location: Northern Virginia
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,161




    Quote:
    https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/dark-phoenix-bomb-suggests-marvel-has-reboot-work-cut-out-for-it-130000228.html



    Quote:

    So here we have 'creative' people in Hollywood contemplating how to fix the mess made with the Fantastic Four and X-Men. Words like 'formula' and 'diversity' and 'vision' are trotted out, indicating that the executives have no idea how to make a good movie. Even when the source material is right there for them to read. They could even consult the fans, if they weren't so imperious about their jobs. No where in the article does it mention the folly of hiring the same writer to butcher the same story line twice (Kinberg). Or the stupidity of portraying biological siblings as coming from different ethnic backgrounds, TWICE (Fantastic Four). The blame always goes to vague concepts like viewer fatigue with the franchise (which is hard to justify given super hero comics have had a loyal following for decades).

Fortunately, the one who will be in charge of introducing the FF and X-Men into the MCU is Kevin Feige, and he certainly seems to know what he is doing in regards to Marvel comic book property.


    Quote:
    To integrate them successfully into the Marvel Universe, here's what they should do:



    Quote:
    Fantastic Four: Don't shoe-horn minorities into the cast. The FF is a family, every identifiable group doesn't have to be represented. If they want a minority so bad, then remind the audience that Ben Grimm is Jewish. Reed is an alpha male, not some dork who's into science. Hollywood seems to be hooked on the stereotype that scientists have to be socially awkward and incompetent. Reed leads the team, authoritatively. Dr. Doom is a dictator from Latveria, and he wears battle armor. No changes to his origin. He's a megalomaniac. Period. And Galactus isn't a cosmic gas formation. Once that's established, hire a writer/director who knows a thing or two about science fiction. The movie won't be a success if the director's only experience has been making romantic comedies.


Well Reed's not an alpha male in the same sense that Logan or even Tony Stark is. In fact Victor Von Doom is more of an "alpha male" than Reed most of the time. Like someone else here pointed out, Reed can be distant and into his own mind sometimes. He's also one of the more introverted team leaders. Ioan Gruffudd was actually a pretty good Reed. (Jessica Alba was wrong for Susan, and the pair didn't have good chemistry)

Sure, Doom can be a megalomaniacal dictator in body armor. He doesn't have to show up in an FF movie first. Let Marvel play up the magic angle, maybe he can show up in a Doctor Strange movie first. (Not as the main villain, just let people know he's there.) Another possibility could be having Doom show up in the planed MCU miniseries. Doom could be in Wanda-Vison or perhaps the show that showcases Loki.



    Quote:
    The X-Men. Don't reinvent the wheel. Start with the original team, which would build Cyclops' reputation BEFORE Wolverine shows up. If Wolverine is there from the start, then the movie becomes WOLVERINE AND THE X-MEN. I'm not interested in watching a movie about a team of one guy. Let Wolverine be introduced as a solo project, and free the X-Men to actually engage in character development for the others. Use the comic book cast and timeline. Don't deviate from a successful story. The Dark Phoenix story doesn't have any emotional weight if no one knows anything about Jean Grey, and Cyclops. And for God's sake, don't take that idiot woman's advice from the article above, and rename the X-Men to something more inclusive to women, and make the team female-centered, and change their purpose to being explorers. We don't need yet another executive who doesn't understand why the X-Men are popular.



I agree with all that. Let Wolverine show up somewhere else in the MCU before he meets the X-Men. Perhaps he can meet the Hulk first. I hear people are excited about "Far from Home", is it possible that a new Logan has a cameo in that film? It might be better fit might be to have him appear first in that Falcon and Winter Soldier miniseries. There's also a Black Widow movie coming up, we might see (or at least learn of) a new Wolverine there.

But there should probably be time to forget the Fox X-Men before introducing new ones.






Ancient One 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 6,930




    Quote:
    And from an aesthetic point of view, the first 7 issues of the X-Men are about as well written as anything Stan was doing at that time. The quality really dropped as Stan left with issue #19.


Yes, indeed. It was a book that started well with the Lee and Kirby stuff, and ended well with the Thomas and Adams material, but sags in the middle.


Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 10
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 26,439


Beast, perhaps, but Angel and Iceman are irrelevant to everything about the X-Men. Period. There's nothing whatsoever iconic about them. You don't see Avengers movies including members like Swordsman, Hellcat, Starfox, etc. Angel and Iceman are to the X-Men what these characters are to the Avengers.

For the past 55+ years, Iceman had one single important showing: OZT. That's it. Nothing before. Nothing since.

Angel got important when Apocalypse twisted him. That's it. Nothing before. Nothing since.

But neither of these things are very important to the overall X-Men story. Both are easily done by the vastly more important "second genesis" X-Men characters.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 67.0 on Windows 10
Ancient One 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 6,930



    Quote:
    Beast, perhaps, but Angel and Iceman are irrelevant to everything about the X-Men. Period. There's nothing whatsoever iconic about them. You don't see Avengers movies including members like Swordsman, Hellcat, Starfox, etc. Angel and Iceman are to the X-Men what these characters are to the Avengers.


I'm not sure I'd agree with that. When was the last time Scott Lang was important to the MU? Or even to the Avengers? Hawkeye and to a greater extent Black Widow (As much as I adore both characters) have never been anything other than unimportant until the films. None of the current Guardians of the Galaxy ever amounted to a hill of beans before the films. How about Shuri? An absolute nothing in the comics, but the breakout star of Black Panther. Carol Danvers? 50 years of being a victim, and suddenly THE single most important character in the Marvel Universe (Not to most fans, but to the powers that be), even over and above Captain America, Iron Man and Thor.

I say again, all it would take to make Angel, Iceman and Beast great characters is a writer with the will to do it. Then it would happen quicker than a finger snap from Dumbthanos.


    Quote:
    For the past 55+ years, Iceman had one single important showing: OZT. That's it. Nothing before. Nothing since.


Maybe we read different books. I remember him single-handedly squaring up to Magneto, saving the lives of the other X-Men and Warren's parents and wrecking Magneto's plan, all while recovering from an illness (issue 18). He didn't save the universe, or even the world, but the courage, determination and skill he showed while hopelessly outclassed is an extremely important showing in my book. I could cite more examples for Iceman, and similar ones for Angel and Beast.

'Important' doesn't necessarily equate to 'big'.


    Quote:
    But neither of these things are very important to the overall X-Men story. Both are easily done by the vastly more important "second genesis" X-Men characters.


Like Nightcrawler? Or Colossus? Both of whom have... um, what the heck HAVE they done?

I'm kidding there. Well, half kidding. I love me some Nightcrawler and Colossus, and I know how important they are. But they're only important because some writer(s) had the will to give them something important to do. However, you could substitute Angel or Iceman for either one, and they'd have ended up being just as important to the story.

The Fantastic Four can have a hell of a time thwarting Doctor Doom's latest plan. But take the FF out of the equation and Cap's Kooky Quartet will do just as well. So will Spider-Man. Or Luke Cage. Or Daredevil. Or...

Galactus? No sweat. Call Squirrel Girl.

That's just the way comic books are written.

Chris Claremont was technically a better writer than either Stan or Roy. And storytelling in comic books developed rapidly in the early 1970's too, so it's hardly surprising that the new X-Men fared better (for characterisation) than the originals.

It doesn't take anything away from the originals, though, without whom we would have no X-Men (Not to mention Magneto, the Brotherhood, the mutant rights issues, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch and so on) at all.


Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,076


I was skeptical about Angel and Iceman, but you make a convincing argument.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
christian


Member Since: Tue Aug 01, 2017
Posts: 23


Ancient One is entirely correct. The X-Men are fictional characters, so if one of them is 'boring,' then it's because of the limitations or biases of the writer. Where I think Black Guardian's views go awry is his implication that Angel and Iceman are inherently boring. That any new movie shouldn't use them, because no one will find them interesting. And that's where the Ancient One's point corrects that idea: all it takes is a good writer to make Angel and Iceman interesting.

I also agree that Angel and Iceman are iconic, and for that reason, can't be overlooked. That would be much like the Avengers' movies. The Pyms were left out, and that didn't sit well with a lot of fans. The Black Widow was an odd choice, since she really didn't spend much time as an Avenger. Johansson did a decent job (although she was way too American IMO). But how much better would she have been if she had been cast as the Wasp? I think she'd have made a much better Janet, than Natasha. So why handicap the X-Men the same way? Just use the original team, and hire a good writer (admittedly, an endangered species in Hollywood).

It's also important to note that 'boring' is subjective. Bruce Timm once said that every character is someone's favorite. While Black Guardian may find Angel, Iceman and the Beast boring, others do not. The Beast is one of my all time favorite characters (the Avengers version). While I don't love Angel and Iceman, I do like them. There are plenty of X-Men who are more boring than Bobby and Warren. Jean actually had no personality until the Phoenix saga. Lorna was even worse. Female characters were written as love interests, and nothing more. It hasn't gotten much better with time. Dazzler is one dimensional. And Jim Lee's changes to Psylocke were all style, and no substance. Just an excuse to draw a hot Japanese babe in provocative clothing. To me, that's boring. Bishop, in spite of his cool powers and back story, is actually pretty dull. Banshee had great potential that went no where. Now, just because I feel that way, should those characters not be used? A good writer could revitalize them in no time.

A parting example: Bruce Timmm again. He took Hawkgirl and John Stewart, two of the most boring characters at DC, and turned them into fantastic characters in the Justice League animated series. I grit my teeth when I found out Hal and Katar weren't being used, but by the time it was over, I loved them both. I might even go as far as to say the John Stewart surpassed Hal as a character.

Do the original X-Men. Expand the roster as it happened in the comics. And make Bobby, Warren, Lorna and Jean interesting in the process.


Posted with Google Chrome 75.0.3770.100 on Windows NT 4.0
christian


Member Since: Tue Aug 01, 2017
Posts: 23



    Quote:
    Well Reed's not an alpha male in the same sense that Logan or even Tony Stark is. In fact Victor Von Doom is more of an "alpha male" than Reed most of the time. Like someone else here pointed out, Reed can be distant and into his own mind sometimes. He's also one of the more introverted team leaders. Ioan Gruffudd was actually a pretty good Reed. (Jessica Alba was wrong for Susan, and the pair didn't have good chemistry)


No, I can't agree with that. I suppose it depends on what era we're talking about. I tend to view contemporary Marvel as retconned garbage. But, if we're talking about the original Reed, from Kirby to Byrne, he's an alpha male. Superior to both Logan and Tony. Utterly brilliant, not just at science, but as a leader and tactician. Anyone who's familiar with the Reed back then knows how commanding and dominant he was. Byrne wrote it perfectly (through Sue) when Doom repowered Tyros, and sent him after the FF. "Even with all their power, all Ben and Johnny can do is prolong the battle. We need Reed."

I don't doubt that modern writers have made a basket case out of Reed. But their view of the character should never make it to the big screen.


Posted with Google Chrome 75.0.3770.100 on Windows NT 4.0
Happy Hogan 

Manager

Location: Northern Virginia
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,161




    Quote:

      Quote:
      Well Reed's not an alpha male in the same sense that Logan or even Tony Stark is. In fact Victor Von Doom is more of an "alpha male" than Reed most of the time. Like someone else here pointed out, Reed can be distant and into his own mind sometimes. He's also one of the more introverted team leaders. Ioan Gruffudd was actually a pretty good Reed. (Jessica Alba was wrong for Susan, and the pair didn't have good chemistry)



    Quote:
    No, I can't agree with that. I suppose it depends on what era we're talking about. I tend to view contemporary Marvel as retconned garbage. But, if we're talking about the original Reed, from Kirby to Byrne, he's an alpha male. Superior to both Logan and Tony. Utterly brilliant, not just at science, but as a leader and tactician. Anyone who's familiar with the Reed back then knows how commanding and dominant he was. Byrne wrote it perfectly (through Sue) when Doom repowered Tyros, and sent him after the FF. "Even with all their power, all Ben and Johnny can do is prolong the battle. We need Reed."



    Quote:
    I don't doubt that modern writers have made a basket case out of Reed. But their view of the character should never make it to the big screen.


First let me say that I think I made a bit of a mistake in the my first post in this thread. I meant to say Steve Rogers and Tony Stark were different kinds of Alpha males. I commented on Wolverine later on, and must have had Logan on the brain when I didn't mean to.

All that said, while I agree that Reed is a great character in his own right, there are some ways that he's not quite as awesome as Steve or Tony. In my own head canon, while Reed is even smarter than Tony, he's not a good of a fighter. He's been beaten by Paste Pot Pete, (or the Trapster, or whatever he's calling himself now)
He's had issues with, and even been beaten by high level acrobats like Daredevil and T'Challa. This has been true as far back as the Lee/Kirby issues.

Cap and Iron man can be leaders to a wider group of people than Reed. Reed is primarily a leader to just his family; Steve and Tony tend to be leaders to the superhuman community at large.

Anyway, you may have taken my statements the wrong way. I think Reed is a different kind of alpha male, but I didn't necessarily mean a lesser kind. Reed is a complex, even complicated character. Under his leadership, the FF tends to go up against the most powerful cosmic entities. (Even more that the Avengers tend to do.) That's in spite of the FF being only four people to the Avengers commonly six or seven people. That's also in spite of the FF generally being less powerful that most Avengers teams.






The Black Guardian

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 26,439


Sure, any character can be made good. That's irrelevant though. What the movies should be is a distillation of what's best about the pre-existing characters and stories. Nothing else. Angel and Iceman aren't A-list enough. Nothing about their stories or concepts have ever been large, iconic parts of the teams or books. People want the major players, not the also-rans.

Beast is only arguably A-list.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 67.0 on Windows 10
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 26,439


Hawkeye has always been a huge part of the Avengers.

You're kind of right about Black Widow. And she was the biggest mistake of the Avengers movies.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 67.0 on Windows 10
Ancient One 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 6,930



    Quote:
    Hawkeye has always been a huge part of the Avengers.


Oh, far from always.

He doesn't join until issue 16, and hangs out with them until issue 109. But not always as Hawkeye. During this period he has his own Hank Pym style crisis of confidence and spends some 40 issues as Goliath.

He then makes a bunch of guest appearances, but doesn't rejoin the team until issue 172. This turns out to be a brief homecoming as he's kicked off the team in #181.

His next period of membership starts in #221 and ends (kind of) in #243.

At this point he gets to lead a team of Avengers. But it's the 'B' team - an affiliate branch. He quits in West Coast Avengers #45, rejoins in issue #60, and sticks around until the book folds with issue # 102.

He doesn't return to the main team until issue # 397 and stays until the book folds with # 402.

His next stint as a member starts in vol 3 issue # 4, but only lasts until # 9. He's then back for a fifteen issue run between issue 73 (488 in old numbering) and 502. And that's it for the original run of the book.

I don't have the numbers for anything after the Disassembeld storyline as I dropped the book, but I think I've made my point: Far from being 'always a huge part' of the team, there are actually HUGE chunks of Avengers history that Hawkeye is simply not part of, AND another period where he was relegated to leading the 'B' team.

Plus, in all that time, I can only think of ONE story off the top of my head that really revolves around Clint - the three-parter in issues 63 to 65 where he becomes Goliath. The rest of the time he's just another part of the team battling external threats, or part of another Avenger's storylines.

I'd certainly agree that Hawkeye FEELS like he's been a regular member practically since day one, but it's an illusion caused by a couple of extended periods of membership. The reality is quite different.


    Quote:
    You're kind of right about Black Widow. And she was the biggest mistake of the Avengers movies.


Mistake or not, her film will be opening next year.

Where's the big budget Hawkeye standalone film?

Not even a consideration.



Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,076



    Quote:
    You're kind of right about Black Widow. And she was the biggest mistake of the Avengers movies.


Nah, Black Widow has been a high spot in the MCU. ScarJo has been great in the role. Her fight scene in Iron Man 2 was the best thing about that movie. Her opening against the arms dealers in Avengers was delightful as is her interrogation of Loki in which she lets him believe he's in control. She's great again in Winter Soldier in her bantering with Steve Rogers and pestering him about dating. Her cell phone fake out against Bucky and her climactic disguise reveal are highlights. The Banner romance was a mistake in Age of Ultron, but her stint as leader of the superheroes in Endgame was merited.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
skrayper


Member Since: Mon Jul 24, 2017
Posts: 173



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Well Reed's not an alpha male in the same sense that Logan or even Tony Stark is. In fact Victor Von Doom is more of an "alpha male" than Reed most of the time. Like someone else here pointed out, Reed can be distant and into his own mind sometimes. He's also one of the more introverted team leaders. Ioan Gruffudd was actually a pretty good Reed. (Jessica Alba was wrong for Susan, and the pair didn't have good chemistry)



    Quote:
    No, I can't agree with that. I suppose it depends on what era we're talking about. I tend to view contemporary Marvel as retconned garbage. But, if we're talking about the original Reed, from Kirby to Byrne, he's an alpha male. Superior to both Logan and Tony. Utterly brilliant, not just at science, but as a leader and tactician. Anyone who's familiar with the Reed back then knows how commanding and dominant he was. Byrne wrote it perfectly (through Sue) when Doom repowered Tyros, and sent him after the FF. "Even with all their power, all Ben and Johnny can do is prolong the battle. We need Reed."



    Quote:
    I don't doubt that modern writers have made a basket case out of Reed. But their view of the character should never make it to the big screen.


You mean the Reed Richards who used to beat his wife? Was just a terrible human being that treated his own wife like garbage?

Pass.


Posted with Google Chrome 76.0.3809.100 on Windows 10

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software