Marvel Studios may be planning more MCU for the small screen

^Normally I never do this but....fixed!

Yeah my initial reaction was "how can they do Kamala Khan before Carol Danvers?" but then it occurred to me that they've had Daisy Johnson for getting onto two years (whether we knew it or not), have only *just* begun to reveal her powers and still have yet to call her Quake. It's the character that's important, not the code names. The MCU needs more female protagonists and entertainment in general needs more positive Muslim characters, so count me in...if it's true that is.

 

I'd rather see Cloak and Dagger.

 

She seems to be a well liked character, and would add a nice bit of diversity to the MCU, but there have been rumors they want bring her into the MCU going around for a while, so I'm not putting a lot of stock in this right now.

 

^^^^
While I've not really read any of Khan's Ms.Marvel exploits my peripheral understanding that is you need two things to be firmly established first.

1-That Carol Danvers has been operating as Ms.Marvel before becoming Captain Marvel so that Kamala has someone to idolizes and look up to.
2-That the Inhumans become more fully entrenched and the Terrigan Bomb(or however they choose to adapt that aspect) can happen to her in a very public setting.

Without the above two in place I think it's just fan boy speculation fueling the Khan rumors for a TV project.

 

Not really - they can take the basic power-set and character and remove a lot of the rest. There is nothing in 1 or 2 the general public needs if the story is well told.

 

^^^
Except Marvel Studio productions, to date, has shown a high degree of faithfulness to the source material. They aren't concerning themselves with what the general audience may or may not know going in on a property. They are just concerned with presenting the property as it is, in the manner that made it viable in the first place.

If this were a Fox or Sony adaptation, sure.

 

No not always - unless I miss the bit where it turned out that Drax the Destroyer was actually the reincarnated spirit of a guy called Arthur?

 

That's actually not true, and we know that because Joss Whedon himself told us.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/apr/18/joss-whedon-avengers-age-of-ultron

After all, a successful comic will typically have tens of thousands of readers, maybe a hundred thousand or so at most. That's maybe a tenth of a percent of the audience size of a blockbuster movie. The hardcore comics audience is statistically irrelevant to the success or failure of these movies. The comics are not an inviolable gospel, they're just the source material.

And really, if you read the source comics, they're generally a lot more cluttered and a lot less cohesive than the movies. Because the movies are cherrypicking the best bits from decades' worth of comics storytelling and distilling them down into new stories.

And there's tons of stuff in the MCU that isn't faithful to the source material. Iron Man going public with his identity. Cap doing the same in the '40s and being an actual captain rather than a private. Iron Man and Cap using lethal force. The Howling Commandos working with Cap instead of a WWII-era Nick Fury. Peggy Carter being with the SSR from the beginning instead of being a resistance fighter Steve had a brief fling with. Bucky being Steve Rogers's contemporary and childhood friend. The Cosmic Cube being called the Tesseract and being Asgardian tech and/or an Infinity Gem rather than an AIM invention. Jane Foster being an astrophysicist instead of a nurse. Star-Lord having a different father. The Kree being at war with the Xandarians instead of the Skrull. HYDRA infiltrating SHIELD. You name it. They've changed tons of stuff.

 

I feel like you could do Kamala by turning her into a generalized Avengers fangirl pretty easily.

 

Lots of things Marvel Studios have done hadn't been done before, until they did them. They'll do whatever works best for the stories they're creating. Their priority is not to be faithful to the way things were done in the comics, because the comics were a different entity with a different structure and different needs. Their priority is to make things work as movies and TV shows, and they will change whatever has to be changed to serve that goal. That's always, always the case with adaptations. It's the whole reason it's called adaptation rather than copying -- because it's about changing things to fit new circumstances.

Personally, I think it would be odd to have Ms. Marvel debut before Captain Marvel, but if that's what they think they need to do to serve the needs of the films and TV shows, then that is what they will do. Back in the '90s, the FOX Spider-Man animated series was required by some toy-company deal or something to introduce the Hobgoblin a couple of seasons before they brought in the Green Goblin, which completely reversed the characters' relationship from the comics. But that was what they had to do, so they found a way to make it work.

 

According to Deadline, the reported AoS spinoff will feature Bobbi and Hunter.

 

Jimmy Cricket a few of you sure got pedantic on me.
I allowed some wiggle room in my comment and what do you do, JUMP at the exceptions where Marvel Studios wasn't fully faithful. Holy Cow!!

Doing Kamala Khan makes no sense. The article said to reinvent a character, it hardly makes sense to reinvent a character barely 5yrs old.

 

Sure, but looking at it from a purely pragmatic POV: the MCU really needs some more diverse heroes sooner rather than later and with the CM movies still some years off, you're looking at something like 5-6 years before you could do the more faithful interpretation.

 

So that Mockingbird series that was in development a few years ago is finally happening, more or less. I'd rather she was partnered with Mack than Hunter, but it makes sense to spin her off.

Between this and Agent Carter, not to mention the rumored Ms. Marvel project, Marvel seems to find it easier to get female-led productions on TV than on the big screen.

 

No, I'm not arguing at all, I'm discussing. And please don't take portions of my statement out of context, because it twists my meaning. My whole point was that, regardless of my personal preferences, I can look at the matter objectively and understand the kinds of changes that are often necessary in the process of adaptation. I'm humble enough to recognize that just because I can't immediately see how something might work, that doesn't make it impossible or wrong. Another creator may have a brilliant idea for it that I just haven't thought of. Which is why it's odd to treat this as an "argument" between our own personal positions. This isn't about us, it's about the ideas that other people have, ideas that we can't predict or judge in advance.

Again, though, the thing to keep in mind is that these are not being made strictly for comics fans -- that probably 99% or more of the audience will be seeing these stories for the first time. So it doesn't matter whether a comics fan thinks it works as well as the original story. All that matters is whether the TV or movie audience thinks it works as a TV show or a movie.

For me, the '90s Spidey series was my first real exposure to the Hobgoblin, Green Goblin, Norman Osborn, and the like. I had nothing to compare it to. And it worked well enough from my perspective. I rather liked the idea that Osborn/Goblin resented the Hobgoblin for relying on Osborn's inventions, and thinking that he could do it better, that he deserved the identity more. Also, by having Osborn as a recurring character for so long, it had more of an impact when he finally became the Goblin. Certainly better than the comics story where Norman Osborn never really existed as a clearly defined character until the issue where the Green Goblin's identity was revealed.