Follow TV Tropes
(The "evil lesbian" thing could be dealt with by simply having at least one "non-evil" lesbian, at least; the idea of making that a female Human Torch amuses me.)
In this case, as I conceded above, specific obstacles have been raised.
I'll also add that I did give at least one "why": because the change might make for an interesting take on the character, as in fan-works that re-imagine a property under different conditions (Star Wars as a western, for example). In other words, change one element about Doom (gender, in this case) and see how that affects things.
 Gah, a page-topper; editing in quotes...
[edit 2] Done, and a little more added.
edited 5th Feb '14 3:30:16 PM by ArsThaumaturgis
The presence of a non-evil lesbian wouldn't change the fact that the villains plan is to steal a woman from a heterosexual relationship with the power of dark gay.
... I am so happy I just typed that sentence...
Also "Why not" is never a good reason to do anything. "Why not" is the kind of thinking that leads to you explaining to a Police Officer why his car got wrapped around a telephone pole on a Saturday night.
Though I guess that the "Female Doom" could kind of work if Lucia Von Bardas was used and turned out to be a Doombot who was trying to seduce Reed with an explanation near the end from Doom himself.
Richards: Why Victor? Why go through all this trouble?
Dr Doom: To ruin your marriage?
Richards: But why!?
Dr Doom: Because I hate you.
edited 5th Feb '14 3:33:26 PM by Canid117
The answer to, "Why not?" is because it's inaccurate to the source material. You need a corresponding, "Why?" answer to justify the change. For example, "Why is Heimdall black?" Because the actor was spectacular and perfect for the role. That's a good reason. "Because we felt like it," would be a bad reason.
Why not have Iron Man announce his identity to the world in a press conference? Because in the comics, he went under a secret identity as Tony Stark's bodyguard. Why have him do it? Because that concept, while true to the early comics, was done away with because it's silly and unworkable even by comic book standards, and a live-action film demands a higher degree of believability. Also, it made an amazing Wham Line to end the film on, unprecedented in the live-action superhero film genre.
edited 5th Feb '14 3:31:30 PM by TobiasDrake
It's being reported that Annihilus is the villain so the stuff about Doom might not even be accurate.
Or the theory about them not having Doom as the main villain so they don't avert Wouldn't Hit a Girl is accurate.
edited 5th Feb '14 3:38:01 PM by Kostya
(Grr, the speed at which people post here is frustrating sometimes; I've gone back to change the number of up arrows used twice (I think it was), and. I only spotted Tobias's post because I happened to go back to check on something in Canid's... My apologies if I miss something. ^^; )
Except that... it's not. As I understood it, stealing Sue was a side-plot, just one more manifestation of Doom's obsession with outdoing Reed in everything. The fact that Doom is gay in this scenario is an irrelevant detail of the plot.
Eh, agree to disagree on that point? It's not a major one for me, and is more a matter of my perhaps being somewhat relaxed about being "true to the source" in superhero movies.
To some degree I agree with you; I just don't think that this is something sufficiently important that "why not" isn't a good reason. As with Tobias, I'm happy to agree to disagree on this point.
Side plot or no its still a villainous plan involving evil gay.
And there you have it, folks; solid proof that Fox executives can't do a damn thing right. I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the Fantastic Four by any means, and even I know that this is a bad idea.
It's not a plot involving evil gay, but an evil plot that happens to involve being gay. (Unless you meant "involving an evil gay person", in which case I return to the idea of having more than one gay person in the movie.
edited 5th Feb '14 4:20:45 PM by ArsThaumaturgis
Seriously? How do you not see the Unfortunate Implications behind "Lesbian villain tries to steal a woman away from her heterosexual relationship just to spite the straight guy?"
Because it's irrelevant. If it were shown that the plot were evil because it's a lesbian relationship, then I'd likely agree with you.
 Especially irrelevant because it's part of a pattern of the villain trying to spite the guy in everything.
 Actually, better yet perhaps, why not make Reed (and by extension Susan) the "non-evil" lesbian in the scenario, rather than the Human Torch? That way the fact that Doom is a lesbian becomes irrelevant to the plot.
edited 5th Feb '14 4:24:53 PM by ArsThaumaturgis
So not only are we ejecting Dr Doom's penis but also the Richards-Storm marriage?
edited 5th Feb '14 4:25:12 PM by Canid117
... Pardon? There are states in America that allow gay marriage, aren't there? o_0
[edit the final(?)] However, I'm pretty tired at the moment, and so may not be thinking sufficiently clearly. I'll depart the thread until the new day, methinks.
For what it's worth, please don't take offence at any of what I've said; none has been intended, although I fear that the tone of the debate has become a little heated.
edited 5th Feb '14 4:25:03 PM by ArsThaumaturgis
So Sue is getting turned into a dude or is Reed getting turned into Reedis?
Hey lets turn Sue into a man! Make Reed and Stan Storm the premier gay couple of the Fox movieverse?
I mean why not?
What about Franklin?
Adopted Chinese baby?
What about his superpowers?
Lax Chinese nuclear safety?
The answer to, "Why not?" is because it's inaccurate to the source material. You need a corresponding, "Why?" answer to justify the change. For example, "Why is Heimdall black?" Because the actor was spectacular and perfect for the role. That's a good reason. "Because we felt like it, " would be a bad reason.
And the article said that Fox "wasn't ruling out" switching genders for the role, not that they had outright planned to do it, and that Fox wanted a big-name actor. So the implication is "if we get an actress who is a really good Doom, we'll go with her". Which is exactly the same principle as Idris Elba for Heimdall.
I'm still stuck on Reed and Stan Storm.
"Stan Storm" is making me think of Stan Lee as Sue. Does it count as a cameo if he's invisible the whole time?
We could just have Victoria Doom try to break up the Sue and Reed because Victoria just doesn't believe Reed should be happy? I mean, honest question here: How many villains are trying to break up Sue and Reed just to marry Sue anyway? Aside from Doom and Namor?
If they haven't even decided a key part like what freaking gender the characters are, I doubt they're anywhere close to actually making the movie. Hopefully they'll stall spinning into place until the rights revert back to Marvel.
I mean, remember what happened the last time a FF movie was done in a hurry against a deadline just so the makers wouldn't lose the rights?
edited 5th Feb '14 6:00:02 PM by NapoleonDeCheese
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?