Movie >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
Ancient One 

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,833
Subj: Re: Here's what's wrong with movie making in Hollywood.
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 at 01:06:56 pm CDT (Viewed 198 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Here's what's wrong with movie making in Hollywood.
Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 at 01:56:32 pm CDT (Viewed 211 times)

Previous Post

    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.

    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'.

    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.

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

How to make an entrance:
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software