They made a point to say in AoU that the twins' parents died when their home collapsed. So it seems, at least for the time being, that Magneto's a goner in the MCU.
Avengers: Age of Ultron- Grading & Discussion (spoilerific)
- Thread starter Ethros
- Start date
I think Marvel publishing is on two minds about this. Its clear more then a few on the publishing side aren't happy with the retcon and are using the House of M in Secret Wars who are appearing throughout the various ongoings and have a mini series to show it.
So, yah I think this was a decision made by higher ups in regard to the studio wars and the publishing side of things is divided about it.
As for the 1969 retcon of Lorna's parentage I think the editors at the time were uneasy with the idea of a 'hero' having a villain for a father and forced the writers to backtrack. Though, the writers at the time I believe undermined the editorial edit by not actually proving anything. I mean reading the story the revel at the very end in no way matches were they were heading with the story (in fact it undermined the very story they were heading towards of Lorna of her own agency deciding to turn against her father) so it came off the writers were undermining the 'he isn't the father revel' by not actually proving it or have Magneto do a usual curses you foiled by evil plot response as usual for such a plot line.
Editors probably weren't happy and likely demanded a more clear retcon from the next set of writers hence the Magneto in the story line being really a robot.
That really screwed Lorna over in the 70s and 80s when there was only one main X-Men title and her previous position on the X-Men got filled by others. That left her as a foil character mainly kept around to show how much better Claremont's creations were then she was both as a symbol of the dis-empowered girlfriend and as a mind controlled villain.
At least if she kept her parentage she could have been and probably would have been a respectable foil in that period as the anti-Jean and philosophical female counterweight.
By the 90s writers were running out of ideas on what to do with Lorna as her relationship with Alex was played out. Hence they started going back to the beginning for ideas with the character.
From 1999 in the Mutant X universe which was 616 Havok's ongoing for several years where he got to show his chops as a leader and as a major side story had Lorna as Magneto's daughter and Havok having to deal with his feelings about it. The side story related to Lorna and Magneto was not a small part of the series.
In 2000 in the 616 she is brought to Genosha and basically is treated as part of the family in all, but name.
In 2002/2003 of course they make it official that she is part of the family. At least the return of Lorna's parentage was motivated by storytelling and not editorial edicts or corporate suits unlike the original retcon of her parentage and the current retcon of Wanda and Pietro's parentage.
The establishment of Wanda and Pietro as Magneto's children in the first place though not originally intended by Stan Lee was a natural progression of writers seeing what did and didn't work for the characters.
I have the feeling Magneto's family will be back to the way it was last year in time when MCU vs Fox passions cool and Marvel sees that Wanda's and Pietro's replacement sister and replacement dad/creator isn't all that popular a few years from now and its not hurting Fox nor helping Marvel.
MCU: Not here you don't... somebody fix that in the comics.
It won't, but Marvel is going to use Pietro for at most after X-Men Poccy maybe 1-2 more films. In the MCU they already said that he isn't coming back for future films. Obviously, Wanda will be, but her origins will be pretty irrelevant in the films going forward I suspect.
Basically any financial incentive for the publishing franchise for the retcon staying there isn't actually there as it doesn't effect Fox in any way for good or bad nor help the MCU in any way as Marvel will realize with time.
The only people it costs are the publishing franchise which is all Marvel owned. Right now they are having their cake and eating it too having the retcon in the 616 while getting money off of comic fans of the family via AU versions of them as one can see in Secret Wars.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/House of M/MODOKA2015002-int2-2-50223.jpg~original
I don't think it's the change itself that people are objecting to so much as the effect that change has on decades of stories. The Maximoff twins have been pretty clearly treated as Magneto's kids, with no question or ambiguity, so now suddenly saying they aren't means that those stories just don't really make sense anymore. If the change had been made to supporting characters who never really got a lot of focus before, rather than major characters who had whole storylines about them and their family and their status as mutants people probably wouldn't be as upset or annoyed.
Sure, but with the X-Men film rights remaining with Fox for the foreseeable future and this latest retcon probably being more or less a result of that—which by the way, I do of course recognize is what the meme in the post to which I initially responded was jokingly referencing—what is the likelihood that it'll be dropped anytime soon in favor of returning Wanda and and Pietro to their former mutant roots? I certainly wouldn't bet on it, and that's without trying to make any subjective judgment of how "bad" it is.
Yep. Comes with the territory. Along with people grumbling about it because, damnit, that's not how it was back in MY day! It was so much better back in MY day!
I just don't think ANY of it's holy scripture at all. I always keep in mind that NOTHING is set in stone and EVERYTHING is subject to change at any time at the whims of the writers. And I think expecting a "master plan" is, most of the time, expecting too much. We've certainly had some of those cooked up for us over the years, but I think far more often they just fly by the seat of their pants and it's we who connect the dots and refine it into a continuous, consistent story in our imaginations. A lot of the time, they want to subvert our expectations and preconceptions at least as much as they want to indulge them.
So it seems to me you've actually put too much stock in it. I for one don't mind finding out everything I know is wrong. It can be fun.
Well obviously they believed they were Magneto's kids and that they were mutants; surely that goes a long way toward those past stories still making sense in terms of the character's relationships and motivations. Doubtless there will be plenty of nagging details to niggle over, but then, aren't there always?
Yep. Comes with the territory. Along with people grumbling about it because, damnit, that's not how it was back in MY day! It was so much better back in MY day!
Well, it was...
And I'm not working off of half-remembered memories either. I recently re-read Frank Miller's Daredevil, Walt Simonson's Thor, most of John Byrne's FF, Roger Stern and Tom Defalco's Spider-Man and Stern's Avengers, and could only come to the conclusion that comics really did used to be better.
I won't argue with anyone's subjective assessment of what's better, of course. My point is just that in 20 or 30 years there will be people who were weaned on today's comics saying exactly the same thing, mark my words! 
You're welcome to explain your position...don't try to explain mine.
Well, it was...
And I'm not working off of half-remembered memories either. I recently re-read Frank Miller's Daredevil, Walt Simonson's Thor, most of John Byrne's FF, Roger Stern and Tom Defalco's Spider-Man and Stern's Avengers, and could only come to the conclusion that comics really did used to be better.
I'm giving this post two thumbs up, a plus one and a HARUMMPH!
And I'll add Mark Gruenwald's run on Captain America, too.
Well, it was...
And I'm not working off of half-remembered memories either. I recently re-read Frank Miller's Daredevil, Walt Simonson's Thor, most of John Byrne's FF, Roger Stern and Tom Defalco's Spider-Man and Stern's Avengers, and could only come to the conclusion that comics really did used to be better.
I'm giving this post two thumbs up, a plus one and a HARUMMPH!
And I'll add Mark Gruenwald's run on Captain America, too.
Gruenwald's Cap is on my "to re-read" list.
Imagine, while all of these classic runs were happening, Chris Claremont was in the middle of his X-Men run. Bill Mantlo and Peter David both had amazing runs on Incredible Hulk. Mantlo had Rom and Micronauts. What an era to be a Marvel fan.
DO we have anyone from Johannesburg here?
I'd like to know where they set that scene in the last screencap of this article:
http://www.awn.com/vfxworld/ilm-revs-avengers-action-hulk-v-hulkbuster
I'd like to know where they set that scene in the last screencap of this article:
http://www.awn.com/vfxworld/ilm-revs-avengers-action-hulk-v-hulkbuster
I'm going to now hold off on both AoU and Ant-Man, avoiding a double dip on those, and just get the MCU Phase 2 Collectors Set.
Based on them showing the Orb from GotG it looks like the discs are going to be stored in that much like Phase 1 was stored in the briefcase w/Tesseract.
Based on them showing the Orb from GotG it looks like the discs are going to be stored in that much like Phase 1 was stored in the briefcase w/Tesseract.
My father asked me what I thought of all these superhero movies. My brother asked me what I thought of the 2nd Avengers movie. It’s not surprising that I would be the one they would ask. I have read the first 500 issues of the Avengers. So I am something of an expert on them. I gave them a short answer. Now, with more thought, let me give you a longer answer. . . .
My problems with the current fad of Superhero movies started with the X-men, when they cast someone as Storm who doesn’t even slightly resemble the way Dave Cockrum drew her. (Unless you think all black women look alike) Wolverine was famous for being short. Yet they cast a tall man as him that doesn’t even slightly resemble “the little psycho” that I knew from the comics. When Hugh Jackman first appeared in the movie, I had no idea he he was supposed to be until some one called him “Wolverine”. Spiderman has the same problem. They cast two great actors as Peter and Mary Jane that didn’t at all look like the characters they were supposed to be. X-men 3, could have been great, but instead was awful! I came out of the theater saying: “It was great to see my favorite characters use their powers, but it would have been nice to see their personalities interact. Spiderman 3 had too many plots. Sandman and the son of the Goblin should have been two different movies. And Spiderman gets the black costume, Spiderman fights the black costume and Venom should have been three different movies.
With this track record, the Avengers is repeating those mistakes. Although there had been a Hulk movie before, the Avengers movies really started with Iron Man. When I saw the previews I was really surprised how easy it was to change Iron Man’s origin from Viet Nam to Afghanistan. And the first part of the movie, up until he escaped the cave and crashed the original suit was great! After that, the movie turned bad. In the comics, Obidiah Stane was a corporate raider that staged a hostile takeover of Stark’s company. And this was after years of slowly nibbling away at Stark, and sending minions to fight Iron Man. Trying to do that in one movie ruined the character and the second half of the movie.
Iron Man does not have that good of a Rogues Gallery. Far too many of this villains are people like him, who have powered suits of armor. One of the lamest villains who doesn’t fit that description is Whiplash. When Iron Man first fought him, Whiplash was only a threat because Iron Man’s armor was nearly out of juice. So naturally They not only used Whiplash, they also gave him powered armor!
Here some better ideas for Iron Man 2 villains: Doctor Spectrum, was originally created in the Avengers comic as a member of the Squadron Sinister so that Iron Man could fight an ersatz Green Lantern. Iron man has fought him several times since then. His powers are colourful and could look really good with modern special affects. And it would have scooped the Green Lantern movie that came out later that year. One might easily take this as proof of the Comics Trust.
Another good villain for Iron Man 2 is Hawkeye. He started as an Iron Man villain and later joined the Avengers as a recently reformed villain. Although Hawkeye can’t out muscle Iron Man, if he has time the prepare, he can certainly give Iron Man a tough fight, much the way Batman can give Superman a hard time. Hawkeye would also have been good prologue for the Avengers movie.
Iron Man 3 put him up against AIM. But it was AIM in name only. No MODOK, no Super Adaptoid, not even the iconic Bee-Keeper suits. (which look a lot like modern real-life Clean Room suits) This AIM was not an organization of mad scientist arms dealers. Instead it was the work of a lone crazy and his start-up company. And the Mandarin, Iron Man’s toughest nemesis, instead, turned out to be a fake. We didn’t get to see Iron Man fight his Kung Fu fighting/ power ring using equal. Instead, we got to see Ben Kingsley Grovel.
Captain America was a pretty good movie. My only quibble is that they made Bucky too old and that they compressed all of World War 2 into one movie. We didn’t get to see any of the other WW2 Cap Villains, like Baron Zemo.
Another problem I have with Captain America is that they cast Samuel L Jackson, a great actor, as Nick Fury, who he doesn’t even vaguely resemble. (unless everyone in an eye patch looks alike, irregardless of race) (I am perfectly aware that the idiots who started running the ruins of Marvel in the current Zombie Age, started drawing Nick Fury in the Ultimate ‘verse based on Samuel L Jackson)
Cap 2, gave us Bucky, back from the dead. This was a terrible idea! The death of Bucky was one of the defining traumas that shaped Cap’s character. It also gave us an Arim Zola that didn’t look anything like Jack Kirby drew him. A REALY CREEPY character was made ordinary looking. And the Falcon didn’t look or act anything like the character I remember.
The Thor Movie was pretty good. But I saw a kid running crying from the theater. I didn’t like the fact that they made the Norse gods multi-ethnic and multi-racial. The Norse gods should look Norse. But I hadn’t noticed how asian Jack Kirby drew Hogun until I saw an Asian actor playing him. I also didn’t like the fact that the medieval Norse gods were made into high tech aliens. I didn’t mind flying boats and powered swords. But I didn’t like the guns.
There were two Hulk Movies. Neither was very good. The Hulk works best when he get to interact with other characters and fight foes with personalities. The Hulk vs. the Army is never interesting. And we got to see it twice.
So after a bunch of Prologue movies, they finally made an Avengers movie. This movie, like the Defenders comics, showed what a mistake it was to write the Hulk out of the Avengers in the 3rd issue of the comics. He made for an interesting part of this movie. Much more so than he did in his own movies.
Having Cap, Thor and Iron Man in the movies was no surprise either.
But once again, they cast someone as Hawkeye who doesn’t look like him. Or act like him. It is his personality that makes Hawkeye a different character than Green Arrow. But if he spends the whole movie as Loki’s meat puppet, that is a huge waste of a great character. And without his personality, he is just an generic archer. Archery is NOT a superpower. It’s not even as good as a gun.
Black Widow was an odd choice for the line up. Except that she allowed the writers to tie the Avengers more to SHIELD than they otherwise would be. Also Black Widow was Hawkeye’s first love interest. But she’s a former RUSSIAN spy. Granted, as a super-spy she’s probably good at faking an American Accent. But when she’s relaxing and talking to friends, she should have a Russian accent, not an american one.
But the character I missed most in the Avengers was the Wasp. Her personality gave a lot of the colour to the original Avengers and she was one of their better chairpersons. I very much missed her. And when they finally made an Antman movie. They not only killed her off in one scene, They replaced her with a look alike daughter than acts nothing like the Wasp I know from the comics.
I was also disappointed that Loki recruited an army from an alien race I’d never heard of. The Marvel Universe Norse Mythology offers lots of factions capable of fielding an army. And even if Loki did have to bring in aliens, why not the Kree or the Skrulls or the Dire Wraiths or the Shi’ar?
Still, the end result was an exciting movie. But it could have been so much better.
And after the credits there was a hint that Thanos was coming with his army in the next movie. It that the Avengers movie formula? They fight an alien army?
A much better villain choice for Avengers 2 would have been a group of Villains: The Masters of Evil or the Gatherers or the Squadron Sinister. In case you don’t know who they are: The Squadron Sinister is Marvel’s evil version of the Justice League. The Gatherers are evil dopelgangers of the Avengers. And the Masters of Evil are a group of foes of individual Avengers that have banded together to fight the Avengers as a group.
After the Avengers movie, there was a second Thor Movie with the Dark Elves. I had hoped that SimOnson’s Ragnarok epic might eventually make it to the big screen. But this movie spoiled any chance of it. I would much rather they had gone with one of Thor’s earthly foes like Crusher Creel or the Wrecking Crew.
Avengers 2 featured Ultron. I wondered how they could do this without Hank Pym. But as it turned out, their version made much more sense than the comic canon. Hank Pym is a Biochemist. He never did anything with robotics before Ultron. It doesn’t make sense that he would go from nothing to creating a sentient robot. It is a lot more logical that Ultron would emerge accidentally from an AI computer program and that Stark would be the one to do it. Also, Vision’s origin seems a bit fishy, that Ultron 5 would alter the body of the original android Human Torch and program it with Wonder Man’s personality. It makes a lot more sense that Ultron 5 would create the Vision body for him self and that a friendly AI would get downloaded into it instead.
I hated that they made Ultron a Vibranium body. Adamantium was specifically created so that Ultron 6 could acquire a body made of it. (and all the other Ultrons from 8 on, had one too) Ultron 6 was Adamantium years before Wolverine was created. But because the lawyers sold the rights to Adamantium as part of the X-men, they couldn’t use Adamantium in the character it was created for. Adamantium made Ultron 6+ so tough that all the Avengers had to pounce on him at once in order to have even a chance of defeating him. And even then, they usually have to use team-work and trickery. But in the movie, instead of the Avengers teaming up to fight a powerful one, they have the Avengers fight an army of Ultrons. So, apparently, the Avengers movie formula IS that they fight an army.
And I still have issues with their character, Hawkeye, who doesn’t resemble or act like the character I know from the comics. And where the heck did this wife and family come from? A wife who is not even his type. His love interests from the comics: Black Widow, Mockingbird, and Moonstone were all reformed bad girls, who were not actually that reformed. That’s his type. I didn’t see any of that in this stay-at-home wife from the movie.
I was also disappointed in the hammer lifting scene. That Captain America was not worthy to lift the hammer. And the later scene where Vision was able to lift it, which said not that Vision was worthy, but that he was just a machine, and not a real sentient being.
I was looking forward to seeing the Scarlet Witch in the movie. I had hoped they would draw on her best writer, Englehart, for inspiration on how to portray her. Or like s
Shooter did, make her the Avenger who’s probability-altering powers make her the biggest threat to Ultron. Instead, we got a character I didn’t recognize with powers not seen in the comics. Why use that name if they weren’t going to make her anything like the Scarlet Witch?
I don’t like Quicksilver that much. He didn’t add much to the Avengers as a member in the comics. (though he made a great Avengers villain in the 1980’s, before that was retconned) And killing him off in the movie were he first appeared was lame. This is the same mistake the comics made with the Hulk, Wonder Man and the Swordsman. They really need to be a member longer for their exit to have meaning. Introducing an new Avenger and killing him off in the same movie has very little sense of loss something important. It was especially lame in the light that they intended to bring in new members at the ending.
After only two movies, they had most of the members quit and brought in a bunch of second stringers. This was done so that they can bring the Civil War storyline to an upcoming movie. But the Civil War crossover only worked because the characters had decades of continuity they were standing on. The movies don’t have that.
So to answer the original question. What do I think of all these superhero movies? Although I an trilled to see my favorite comics characters come to the silver screen, they are dumbing down the source material. Millions are being spent to make a product that is inferior to a $0.50 comic book. And the comic movies are pushing out other kinds of movies. It has become really hard to find movie targeted at adults. There used to be movies for every demographic.
My problems with the current fad of Superhero movies started with the X-men, when they cast someone as Storm who doesn’t even slightly resemble the way Dave Cockrum drew her. (Unless you think all black women look alike) Wolverine was famous for being short. Yet they cast a tall man as him that doesn’t even slightly resemble “the little psycho” that I knew from the comics. When Hugh Jackman first appeared in the movie, I had no idea he he was supposed to be until some one called him “Wolverine”. Spiderman has the same problem. They cast two great actors as Peter and Mary Jane that didn’t at all look like the characters they were supposed to be. X-men 3, could have been great, but instead was awful! I came out of the theater saying: “It was great to see my favorite characters use their powers, but it would have been nice to see their personalities interact. Spiderman 3 had too many plots. Sandman and the son of the Goblin should have been two different movies. And Spiderman gets the black costume, Spiderman fights the black costume and Venom should have been three different movies.
With this track record, the Avengers is repeating those mistakes. Although there had been a Hulk movie before, the Avengers movies really started with Iron Man. When I saw the previews I was really surprised how easy it was to change Iron Man’s origin from Viet Nam to Afghanistan. And the first part of the movie, up until he escaped the cave and crashed the original suit was great! After that, the movie turned bad. In the comics, Obidiah Stane was a corporate raider that staged a hostile takeover of Stark’s company. And this was after years of slowly nibbling away at Stark, and sending minions to fight Iron Man. Trying to do that in one movie ruined the character and the second half of the movie.
Iron Man does not have that good of a Rogues Gallery. Far too many of this villains are people like him, who have powered suits of armor. One of the lamest villains who doesn’t fit that description is Whiplash. When Iron Man first fought him, Whiplash was only a threat because Iron Man’s armor was nearly out of juice. So naturally They not only used Whiplash, they also gave him powered armor!
Here some better ideas for Iron Man 2 villains: Doctor Spectrum, was originally created in the Avengers comic as a member of the Squadron Sinister so that Iron Man could fight an ersatz Green Lantern. Iron man has fought him several times since then. His powers are colourful and could look really good with modern special affects. And it would have scooped the Green Lantern movie that came out later that year. One might easily take this as proof of the Comics Trust.
Another good villain for Iron Man 2 is Hawkeye. He started as an Iron Man villain and later joined the Avengers as a recently reformed villain. Although Hawkeye can’t out muscle Iron Man, if he has time the prepare, he can certainly give Iron Man a tough fight, much the way Batman can give Superman a hard time. Hawkeye would also have been good prologue for the Avengers movie.
Iron Man 3 put him up against AIM. But it was AIM in name only. No MODOK, no Super Adaptoid, not even the iconic Bee-Keeper suits. (which look a lot like modern real-life Clean Room suits) This AIM was not an organization of mad scientist arms dealers. Instead it was the work of a lone crazy and his start-up company. And the Mandarin, Iron Man’s toughest nemesis, instead, turned out to be a fake. We didn’t get to see Iron Man fight his Kung Fu fighting/ power ring using equal. Instead, we got to see Ben Kingsley Grovel.
Captain America was a pretty good movie. My only quibble is that they made Bucky too old and that they compressed all of World War 2 into one movie. We didn’t get to see any of the other WW2 Cap Villains, like Baron Zemo.
Another problem I have with Captain America is that they cast Samuel L Jackson, a great actor, as Nick Fury, who he doesn’t even vaguely resemble. (unless everyone in an eye patch looks alike, irregardless of race) (I am perfectly aware that the idiots who started running the ruins of Marvel in the current Zombie Age, started drawing Nick Fury in the Ultimate ‘verse based on Samuel L Jackson)
Cap 2, gave us Bucky, back from the dead. This was a terrible idea! The death of Bucky was one of the defining traumas that shaped Cap’s character. It also gave us an Arim Zola that didn’t look anything like Jack Kirby drew him. A REALY CREEPY character was made ordinary looking. And the Falcon didn’t look or act anything like the character I remember.
The Thor Movie was pretty good. But I saw a kid running crying from the theater. I didn’t like the fact that they made the Norse gods multi-ethnic and multi-racial. The Norse gods should look Norse. But I hadn’t noticed how asian Jack Kirby drew Hogun until I saw an Asian actor playing him. I also didn’t like the fact that the medieval Norse gods were made into high tech aliens. I didn’t mind flying boats and powered swords. But I didn’t like the guns.
There were two Hulk Movies. Neither was very good. The Hulk works best when he get to interact with other characters and fight foes with personalities. The Hulk vs. the Army is never interesting. And we got to see it twice.
So after a bunch of Prologue movies, they finally made an Avengers movie. This movie, like the Defenders comics, showed what a mistake it was to write the Hulk out of the Avengers in the 3rd issue of the comics. He made for an interesting part of this movie. Much more so than he did in his own movies.
Having Cap, Thor and Iron Man in the movies was no surprise either.
But once again, they cast someone as Hawkeye who doesn’t look like him. Or act like him. It is his personality that makes Hawkeye a different character than Green Arrow. But if he spends the whole movie as Loki’s meat puppet, that is a huge waste of a great character. And without his personality, he is just an generic archer. Archery is NOT a superpower. It’s not even as good as a gun.
Black Widow was an odd choice for the line up. Except that she allowed the writers to tie the Avengers more to SHIELD than they otherwise would be. Also Black Widow was Hawkeye’s first love interest. But she’s a former RUSSIAN spy. Granted, as a super-spy she’s probably good at faking an American Accent. But when she’s relaxing and talking to friends, she should have a Russian accent, not an american one.
But the character I missed most in the Avengers was the Wasp. Her personality gave a lot of the colour to the original Avengers and she was one of their better chairpersons. I very much missed her. And when they finally made an Antman movie. They not only killed her off in one scene, They replaced her with a look alike daughter than acts nothing like the Wasp I know from the comics.
I was also disappointed that Loki recruited an army from an alien race I’d never heard of. The Marvel Universe Norse Mythology offers lots of factions capable of fielding an army. And even if Loki did have to bring in aliens, why not the Kree or the Skrulls or the Dire Wraiths or the Shi’ar?
Still, the end result was an exciting movie. But it could have been so much better.
And after the credits there was a hint that Thanos was coming with his army in the next movie. It that the Avengers movie formula? They fight an alien army?
A much better villain choice for Avengers 2 would have been a group of Villains: The Masters of Evil or the Gatherers or the Squadron Sinister. In case you don’t know who they are: The Squadron Sinister is Marvel’s evil version of the Justice League. The Gatherers are evil dopelgangers of the Avengers. And the Masters of Evil are a group of foes of individual Avengers that have banded together to fight the Avengers as a group.
After the Avengers movie, there was a second Thor Movie with the Dark Elves. I had hoped that SimOnson’s Ragnarok epic might eventually make it to the big screen. But this movie spoiled any chance of it. I would much rather they had gone with one of Thor’s earthly foes like Crusher Creel or the Wrecking Crew.
Avengers 2 featured Ultron. I wondered how they could do this without Hank Pym. But as it turned out, their version made much more sense than the comic canon. Hank Pym is a Biochemist. He never did anything with robotics before Ultron. It doesn’t make sense that he would go from nothing to creating a sentient robot. It is a lot more logical that Ultron would emerge accidentally from an AI computer program and that Stark would be the one to do it. Also, Vision’s origin seems a bit fishy, that Ultron 5 would alter the body of the original android Human Torch and program it with Wonder Man’s personality. It makes a lot more sense that Ultron 5 would create the Vision body for him self and that a friendly AI would get downloaded into it instead.
I hated that they made Ultron a Vibranium body. Adamantium was specifically created so that Ultron 6 could acquire a body made of it. (and all the other Ultrons from 8 on, had one too) Ultron 6 was Adamantium years before Wolverine was created. But because the lawyers sold the rights to Adamantium as part of the X-men, they couldn’t use Adamantium in the character it was created for. Adamantium made Ultron 6+ so tough that all the Avengers had to pounce on him at once in order to have even a chance of defeating him. And even then, they usually have to use team-work and trickery. But in the movie, instead of the Avengers teaming up to fight a powerful one, they have the Avengers fight an army of Ultrons. So, apparently, the Avengers movie formula IS that they fight an army.
And I still have issues with their character, Hawkeye, who doesn’t resemble or act like the character I know from the comics. And where the heck did this wife and family come from? A wife who is not even his type. His love interests from the comics: Black Widow, Mockingbird, and Moonstone were all reformed bad girls, who were not actually that reformed. That’s his type. I didn’t see any of that in this stay-at-home wife from the movie.
I was also disappointed in the hammer lifting scene. That Captain America was not worthy to lift the hammer. And the later scene where Vision was able to lift it, which said not that Vision was worthy, but that he was just a machine, and not a real sentient being.
I was looking forward to seeing the Scarlet Witch in the movie. I had hoped they would draw on her best writer, Englehart, for inspiration on how to portray her. Or like s
Shooter did, make her the Avenger who’s probability-altering powers make her the biggest threat to Ultron. Instead, we got a character I didn’t recognize with powers not seen in the comics. Why use that name if they weren’t going to make her anything like the Scarlet Witch?
I don’t like Quicksilver that much. He didn’t add much to the Avengers as a member in the comics. (though he made a great Avengers villain in the 1980’s, before that was retconned) And killing him off in the movie were he first appeared was lame. This is the same mistake the comics made with the Hulk, Wonder Man and the Swordsman. They really need to be a member longer for their exit to have meaning. Introducing an new Avenger and killing him off in the same movie has very little sense of loss something important. It was especially lame in the light that they intended to bring in new members at the ending.
After only two movies, they had most of the members quit and brought in a bunch of second stringers. This was done so that they can bring the Civil War storyline to an upcoming movie. But the Civil War crossover only worked because the characters had decades of continuity they were standing on. The movies don’t have that.
So to answer the original question. What do I think of all these superhero movies? Although I an trilled to see my favorite comics characters come to the silver screen, they are dumbing down the source material. Millions are being spent to make a product that is inferior to a $0.50 comic book. And the comic movies are pushing out other kinds of movies. It has become really hard to find movie targeted at adults. There used to be movies for every demographic.
You put a lot of effort into that post, so I feel you deserve some response, but it's obviously a very long post so I can't respond to everything.
First, on resemblance to comic characters: When it comes to personality, I agree whole-heartedly. But when it comes to physical appearance, I disagree. I'd rather have someone who can embody a character than one who looks like them (particularly since comic artists themselves have a wide variety and the goal is to get a good actor more than one that looks like someone). Hugh Jackman is the perfect example. Halley Berry screwed up Storm all around, but I thought Jackman made for a good Wolverine in personality, regardless of height.
On Iron Man 2: I may be in the minority, but I never call the villain Whiplash. His character's name is Vanko, he's Russian, and, in the end, he's wearing a suit of armor. In my opinion, the character is Crimson Dynamo. Just because they incorporated elements of Whiplash into him doesn't change that. I think Vanko was severely underwritten anyway, but I thought there was potential for a unique take on that character that was true to the spirit of the comics (where he was one of two fairly generic Russian armored badguys).
On the aliens in Avengers: They're the Chitauri who are the Ultimates version of the Skrulls. Why not use the Skrulls? For one, the Skrulls are cool enough that you'd rather do them right, not as some generic baddies to fight. Second, it's not entirely clear that Marvel has the rights to use them. That's one thing you have to keep in mind throughout this. There are real world practicalities that affect creative freedom.
Anyway, my position is always that a different take isn't necessarily an inferior take. You can always read the comics. They don't magically disappear just because there's a movie. Although good luck getting a comic for 50 cents.
First, on resemblance to comic characters: When it comes to personality, I agree whole-heartedly. But when it comes to physical appearance, I disagree. I'd rather have someone who can embody a character than one who looks like them (particularly since comic artists themselves have a wide variety and the goal is to get a good actor more than one that looks like someone). Hugh Jackman is the perfect example. Halley Berry screwed up Storm all around, but I thought Jackman made for a good Wolverine in personality, regardless of height.
On Iron Man 2: I may be in the minority, but I never call the villain Whiplash. His character's name is Vanko, he's Russian, and, in the end, he's wearing a suit of armor. In my opinion, the character is Crimson Dynamo. Just because they incorporated elements of Whiplash into him doesn't change that. I think Vanko was severely underwritten anyway, but I thought there was potential for a unique take on that character that was true to the spirit of the comics (where he was one of two fairly generic Russian armored badguys).
On the aliens in Avengers: They're the Chitauri who are the Ultimates version of the Skrulls. Why not use the Skrulls? For one, the Skrulls are cool enough that you'd rather do them right, not as some generic baddies to fight. Second, it's not entirely clear that Marvel has the rights to use them. That's one thing you have to keep in mind throughout this. There are real world practicalities that affect creative freedom.
Anyway, my position is always that a different take isn't necessarily an inferior take. You can always read the comics. They don't magically disappear just because there's a movie. Although good luck getting a comic for 50 cents.
Popular opinion seems to be that they're currently tagged as Fox property courtesy of the FF license. Although they did get name-checked in Agents of SHIELD, so I dunno.
Well, you can see that I wrote exactly that in the next sentence so my question was more or less rhetorical. I don't recall them mentioned on Agents of SHIELD, do you have a cite? They used some of their script in a scene, but that doesn't seem indicative of much overall.
That being said, there are those who argue that Fox only has the Super Skrull, not all Skrulls.
That being said, there are those who argue that Fox only has the Super Skrull, not all Skrulls.
They tried combining Whiplash and the Crimson Dynamo and IMO it realyl didn't work, even the actors were disatisfied with the end result.
The actors were disatisfied for reasons entirely unrelated. Mickey Rourke felt his seasons were cut to add room for Black Widow and Nick Fury. He didn't care whether it his character was an amalgamation of various comic book characters.
