Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
So my understanding is that they were obligated to kill Gwen, but why would they need to do it in ASM 2? Was that also part of the contract?
Also, in regard to being faithful to the comics or not, I'm probably more lenient on that than a lot of people. I do think you have to keep SOME essence of the character, but in my honest opinion having full faithfulness can have problems when the source material itself has problems (and let's be honest, these comics have a LOT of problems). I see movies as an opportunity to modernize these characters, take out stuff that doesn't work, and experiment to take them in new directions. There's no point in continuing to rehash the same stuff over and over again, these are flexible characters who can sustain multiple interpretations. I want to see versions of these characters that only those directors, actors, etc could have brought to life, versions of these characters from creators with unique and strong visions.
I also want to point out that the fanbase for people who actually do read comics is very, very small. In February, only 3 comics sold over 100.000 units
; one of them is a series that was bound to attract sales by virtue of coming from a controversial author continuing a classic storyline, one of them is Batman, and one of them is Star Wars, aka one of the biggest if not the biggest multimedia franchise in the world. Of course, I don't think these account for digital sales, but even the figures were twice as large thanks to the digital sales, the audiences for films is much, much much larger.
So while they do provide good word of mouth, they aren't really a demographic with that much power in the end.
edited 21st Mar '16 11:07:29 AM by wehrmacht
Iron Man 3 took some pretty big liberties with the source material to create a pretty good movie and the result was 79% Freshness and a position as one of the highest grossing films of all time, outstripping both of its predecessors.
high grossing film? Yes. Freshness? Sure, if you considering ripping off a pixar movie fresh.
Sorry, still having a hard time getting over that damn twist^^
edited 21st Mar '16 11:12:49 AM by Theokal3
He's just talking about the overall critical reception.
I don't like IM 3 either, but the critical reception and box office gross would seem to indicate that it is more well-liked than ASM 2, and that not being 100% faithful to the comics isn't a dealbreaker.
edited 21st Mar '16 11:23:47 AM by wehrmacht
![]()
![]()
That I generally agree with.
Overall, I think it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of the moviegoing public might nominally have opinions on how works should be adapted and what's an acceptable change to make, but if the finished product is a good movie then it's all forgiven.
edited 21st Mar '16 11:35:03 AM by Falrinn
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
That's not what Freshness means. And Disproportionate Retribution was a trope way before the Incredibles.
Yes, they wanted to do a female team-up movie where one of the leads would have been Emma Stone playing a Spider-Gwen type character.
One of the leaked emails also had talk of someone proposing bringing her back as Carnage like in the Ultimate comics.
People forget that the vast majority of the folks seeing these movies have never touched a comic book. Case in point, Avengers fans were fucking livid when it was announced that Black Widow and Hawkeye were replacing Hank Pym and the Wasp, and we know how that turned out.
edited 21st Mar '16 11:38:11 AM by comicwriter
I believe Gwenom is the result of a surge in Gwen's popularity recently; I think the ASM movies were part of it (they generally have a lukewarm/mixed reception but Emma Stone is considered one of its better parts), but there was Spider-Gwen and after that there were a bunch of [1]
◊ covers
◊ with Gwen
◊ being basically every Marvel character ever. Deadpool Gwen (Gwen Poole) and Gwenom actually became legit series. By the creators' own admittance they're literally creating stories/series out of puns they made at bars :'p
edited 21st Mar '16 12:32:58 PM by wehrmacht
And Disproportionate Retribution was a trope way before the Incredibles.
Actually, I didn't mean the Disproportionate Retribution aspect, but more the "nerd and former fan out for revenge because he was disappointed by his idol" (don't think we have a trope for that... yet). Granted, it has been done before (Batman Forever) and after (Amazing Spider-Man 2 ironically), but that doesn't make it any less of a silly cliché. I personally feel this kind of villain origin always make the antagonist somewhat pathetic and tend to decredibilize them. Even putting aside the lack of rings of chinese origins, you just CAN'T take Iron Man's Arch-Enemy seriously when he has the same origin than Jim Carrey's Riddler. (and before you ask: yes, that criticism does apply to ASM 2 Electro)
edited 21st Mar '16 12:40:44 PM by Theokal3
I never really cared for the Mandarin as a character, so all that means very little to me. People keep trying to sway me with "He's Iron Man's Arch-Nemesis" and my response is just "...And?"
Anyway, I shan't be going down that road again.
Dunnae. Using your own example, I could take Syndrome seriously.
I couldn't... not completely. But I always perceived the Incredibles as a more comedic movie (even more so than the MCU), so I give him a free pass. Don't get me wrong, Syndrome has some really nasty moments that make him genuinely frightening, but he also has plenty of funny moments showing he is not meant to be taken completely seriously. Killian meanwhile plays these clichés completely straight with no real self-awareness, or at least none that I noticed.
I never really cared for the Mandarin as a character, so all that means very little to me. People keep trying to sway me with "He's Iron Man's Arch-Nemesis" and my response is just "...And?"
And you wouldn't even dare give that kind of response if it was about the Joker, or Lex Luthor. Also, Iron Man, more than any MCU movie series, has a strong lack of truly compelling villains (Stane was fine as a starter villain but little more and Vanko had potential but died too fast), so many people were hoping the Mandarin would change that. Instead, we got a Syndrome Expy.
Iron Man's real archenemy is himself.
Very true, at least for the movie. He really has caused more problem to himself than any supervillain ever did in the whole MCU.
So did I, actually. In my crappy Spider-MJ fanfic, I was going to introduce Gwen as a supporting character in Peter/Venom's spinoff and have her wear the symbiote from time to time.
I even called her Gwenom when she had the symbiote because, c'mon, the pun is too obvious not to use.
edited 21st Mar '16 1:06:27 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I was thinking about this, and I honestly feel like this represented a pretty big problem in both IM 2 and 3 in the way it was handled.
In Iron Man 1, Tony's conflict was good, but what really made it work relative to the rest of the film was that it fit well with with the villain. Tony realized he couldn't be a huge manbaby who didn't give a shit about the weapons he sold indiscriminately anymore, so he vowed to use his genius for good and not to be as big a dick anymore. This puts him in direct opposition with Obadiah Stane, who is completely amoral and only cares about accruing money and power, and has a vested interest in continuing to sell weapons. He is also someone that actually means something to the main character in that he was a reliable uncle-like figure, so the betrayal has at least some weight (I don't know how obvious it was to people watching the movie who weren't familiar with the comics, but at the time I wasn't Genre Savvy enough to know he was secretly the bad guy). He wasn't some super complex and amazing villain, but he was implemented well-enough in the narrative and was carried sufficiently by Jeff Bridges' great performance.
In Iron Man 2 Tony's conflict is even more important, but Ivan Vanko and Justin Hammer are both completely superfluous to that conflict and only involved in it indirectly, with Vanko being related to Tony's father's partner, but this isn't something that really means that much to him personally, and Vanko himself doesn't get that much screentime anyways . There is a major disconnect between the two and it severely weakens the movie.
Iron Man 3 we've gone over a bunch of times already so I won't bother to go over it again. If we're gonna compare Killian to Syndrome though, I much prefer the latter.
Besides Iron Man 1, the villains are just disconnected from the actually interesting and compelling parts of the movie (Tony's self-destruction/dying in IM 2 and his PTSD in IM 3).
edited 21st Mar '16 1:49:05 PM by wehrmacht
![]()
![]()
No, that's because they are the well-established Nemesises of two superheroes who were much more famous and iconic than Iron Man was at the time. Iron Man only recently got that level of popularity, so his rogues gallery isn't quite as well-known as their. Weither a comic book villain is a good character depends not only on people's opinions, but also on which incarnation/time period you are picking. The Mandarin started out as a racist caricature, but he had some better versions in modern comics.
Honestly none of the Iron Man movies did a poor job at making Iron Man rogues iconic; the third just was the worst at that. Not that it's necessarly a bad thing, mind you, seeing how this is mainly because Iron Man himself steals the spotlight (and better this than the reverse), but still, it's kinda annoying.
edited 21st Mar '16 1:50:03 PM by Theokal3
Iron Man's rouges have the problem of being really dated. They were all created during the Cold War, and represent that era to an embarrassing degree. I liked Iron Monger both because he felt relevant to the conflict with Tony, like wehrmach said, and because he was a successfully modernized concept. Whiplash, Justin Hammer, Fake Mandarin, and REAL Mandarin are superfluous punching bags disconnected from Iron Man's own arcs in the sequel films, and out of those 4 only Fake Mandarin was modernized into something usable for a good piece of story.

I came up with the idea, like, fifteen years ago when I wrote fanfiction about Mary Jane getting the spider bite instead of Peter - who went on to become Venom and was going to get his own spinoff.
Clearly, Marvel owes me royalties for stealing ideas from my shitty teenage fanfics.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.