Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Movie >> View Post
Post By
The Black Guardian

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Member Since: Tue Aug 01, 2017
Posts: 24
Subj: Re: Here's what's wrong with movie making in Hollywood.
Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2019 at 07:46:58 pm EDT (Viewed 168 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Here's what's wrong with movie making in Hollywood.
Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 at 09:00:07 pm EDT (Viewed 185 times)

Previous Post

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.

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
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software