Semper's Stupendous to Infinity and Beyond Everything Marvel Movie/TV Thread (3 Viewers)

Spoken like someone that's never read a comic in his life.

But then, we all know what you *really* mean when you say this.
Lol, tell me what I really mean then. If your right, you have my Frank Miller signed copy of the dark knight returns, first printing. Or if you close, my McFarland signed copy of Amazing Spider-Man #300, though I personally preferred Web of Spider-Man. Also got a bunch of Dark Horse and Valant gems as well, that if your interested in storytelling that takes more then 3 issues of splash pages.
 
Lol, tell me what I really mean then. If your right, you have my Frank Miller signed copy of the dark knight returns, first printing. Or if you close, my McFarland signed copy of Amazing Spider-Man #300, though I personally preferred Web of Spider-Man. Also got a bunch of Dark Horse and Valant gems as well, that if your interested in storytelling that takes more then 3 issues of splash pages.
Did you read them?
 
Did you read them?
Of course not, why would I waste my time mowing lawns in the Louisiana heat to earn money to buy and then actually read them. Of course I didn’t read them, that would ruin my chance to make posts on the internet that didn’t exist 35 years later about butchered movie plot lines to the enlightened of the inter web and Twatter-verse
 
Its the characters that make Marvel, Marvel. Change the characters, their backstories, and Marvel becomes nothing more then Amazon Prime's The Boys.
To get this back on track and avoid more folks putting their comics on the table and measuring....

Can you expand on this? i.e. what brought you to even say this, and what did you mean? I'm a bit lost here. I'd rather not comment too much until I get your point better, or if you're taking exception to something.

I don't think other folks need to be looking for dog whistles from something somewhat vague.
 
To get this back on track and avoid more folks putting their comics on the table and measuring....

Can you expand on this? i.e. what brought you to even say this, and what did you mean? I'm a bit lost here. I'd rather not comment too much until I get your point better, or if you're taking exception to something.

I don't think other folks need to be looking for dog whistles from something somewhat vague.

Sounds similar to my take on changes to Magneto or Elrond. You've got this character with a certain backstory, certain characteristics, attitudes, etc. If you go changing those too much, you no longer have that character. You've got someone else entirely. IE: Homelander or Deep.
 
Sounds similar to my take on changes to Magneto or Elrond. You've got this character with a certain backstory, certain characteristics, attitudes, etc. If you go changing those too much, you no longer have that character. You've got someone else entirely. IE: Homelander or Deep.

I mean, that's true, but does it really matter that much if the character is still good or the story is still good?

I get that those who are highly comic book knowledgeable may have some issues with changes made in movies or TV shows to those characters or stories, but saying that it's not the same as the comics isn't saying it's bad. Couldn't it be different but possibly just as good or even better?

I think a lot of the success of Marvel's movie and TV empire has been the ability to pay homage to the comics, but also change the characters and stories in ways that make sense and work well in a medium that is vastly different than a comic book.
 
Last edited:
I am an X-Men fanatic. I have collected all forms of mutant comics books, from the regular series to X-Force, you name it. Probably have several thousand mutant comics alone. Scott Summers to this day remains my favorite comic book character ever (slightly beating out Falcon).


I have given this a lot of thought. I was so into "being exact" that I HATED the first X-Men movie for a while solely because they made Iceman a kid and not part of the original team. However, in my reflection since then, coupled with the brilliant things Marvel has done in the MCU so far, I actually think that it will be really hard to have the X-Men as they existed in the comics be a part of the MCU without using "alternate" realities.


End game, if I remember right, was 2023. Having Magneto be Magneto and still be a concentration camp survivor doesn't work without alternate reality explanations. So, if they don't go that route, and make mutants come from the current MCU, the backstory will have to change. It absolutely must, and I mean must center around prejudice and singling out "different" people. And I am not smart enough to decide here and now what that difference will be. All I know is that I won't be mad whatever it is. The comics are the comics, will always be the comics and will still continue to hold a dear place in my heart. It's just that now the MCU holds a different, dear place in my heart. I have room for more universes.

Unless they screw up Cyclops again. He's the best X-man, by far. Don't do him dirty again please.
 
I am an X-Men fanatic. I have collected all forms of mutant comics books, from the regular series to X-Force, you name it. Probably have several thousand mutant comics alone. Scott Summers to this day remains my favorite comic book character ever (slightly beating out Falcon).

Unless they screw up Cyclops again. He's the best X-man, by far. Don't do him dirty again please.

I know nothing about the X-Men comics and all I really knew about the X-men, outside of the movies, was the cartoons from the 80s or 90s. Cyclops always seemed like a cool character in the cartoons, but in the movies he's a bit of an emo douche. I assume that is not how he was in the comics?
 
I know nothing about the X-Men comics and all I really knew about the X-men, outside of the movies, was the cartoons from the 80s or 90s. Cyclops always seemed like a cool character in the cartoons, but in the movies he's a bit of an emo douche. I assume that is not how he was in the comics?

I mean, he had his moments, but the movies made him into a douche so that people would ship Wolvie and Jean. meanwhile, in the comics, Jean and Cyclops were a huge couple for the longest time, and it just meant more to have Scott kill Jean when she became the phoenix, not wolverine like in the movies.

But, wolverine makes the money, so that was that. Cyclops for decades was the perennial leader of the X-Men, a master tactician, and was the older brother raising all the kids for years. Not one other person had the psychological weight of leadership like Scott did, and he rocked it all while fighting just like any other X-man. As a pre-teen in the 80s, I really looked up to him as an icon of strength and determination. So it really hurt me when the movie made him out to be the preppy whiny dork that existed just to be pushed aside by Wolverine. Who, even before Hugh Jackman, I never liked. Wolverine was fun in the 80s when he could be hurt. Now, he can take baths in the sun and be just fine. It's boring.
 
Sounds similar to my take on changes to Magneto or Elrond. You've got this character with a certain backstory, certain characteristics, attitudes, etc. If you go changing those too much, you no longer have that character. You've got someone else entirely. IE: Homelander or Deep.
Spiderman, originally, was about 15 in 1963 - all subsequent tellings of this story must preserve this 'fact'?
Queens today looks NOTHING like Queens in the 60s - we need to stick with Archie Bunker Queens?
How many Hulk's are there? there are several storytelling reasons why the Banner +/- Hulk dynamic is fluid
the war backdrop for many characters used to be Vietnam, now it's Afghanistan bc obviously
The stories were created in the context of their times - why wouldn't their re-tellings also reflect the context of 'these' times
 
I know nothing about the X-Men comics and all I really knew about the X-men, outside of the movies, was the cartoons from the 80s or 90s. Cyclops always seemed like a cool character in the cartoons, but in the movies he's a bit of an emo douche. I assume that is not how he was in the comics?
mostly bad casting that plagued many of the Fox movies, but i think a character's powers are a huge reason why a character might change from book to screen - esp those stories that developed when cgi was still developmental
Wolverine became the xmen standout bc his powers were easiest to portray and also jackman was a stronger performer than any of the rest of the team (except patrick stewart obviously - but X's powers are very tricky to get right)
 
Spiderman, originally, was about 15 in 1963 - all subsequent tellings of this story must preserve this 'fact'?
Queens today looks NOTHING like Queens in the 60s - we need to stick with Archie Bunker Queens?
How many Hulk's are there? there are several storytelling reasons why the Banner +/- Hulk dynamic is fluid
the war backdrop for many characters used to be Vietnam, now it's Afghanistan bc obviously
The stories were created in the context of their times - why wouldn't their re-tellings also reflect the context of 'these' times


And this is something that NEEDS to be taken care of when introducing the X-Men. When the X-Men was first created, it was Cyclops, Jean, Bobby, Warren, and Hank. 4 white men and a white female, lead by another white man. I am a 44 year old white man, and recognize the need to change that up. The X-Men were created in 1963, and the first prominent black mutant wasn't until Storm in 1975.

Storm NEEDS to be, in the MCU, an original member. Maybe even Forge, as a native American. Sunspot too. You do need the original team in there. But there is no reason why you can't expand that original team.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom