Wonder Woman 2 Anticipation Thread

[JD]

There are numerous examples of Marvel not being above that.

Yeah, I was amazed when I started checking out more of the Marvel comics and realized how many pretty big changes the movies and shows made to the characters. Overall I think they do a pretty good job of capturing the feel of the most of the characters, but they have pretty drastically changed a lot of the details.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

It tried to have its cake and eat it too. It made Arthur out to be some anti-hero of the masses who only killed people who "deserved it" rather than show a real descent to madness wherein he killed innocent people, the way Joker actually would. And he tried to make excuses for himself about how he's the victim of society and all that. Self-pityingly noxious.

At least Falling Down showed the protagonist gradually getting worse to the point he laughed at a helpless old man dying from a heart attack and the whole "How did I become the bad guy?" ending. Joker didn't have that courage.

So, MCU Thanos is in love with Lady Death, right?

 

[Anwar]

So, MCU Thanos is in love with Lady Death, right?

He still tried to destroy life on a Universal scale. Either by going 50% or 100%. And the "Balance" thing was from one of his appearances in the comics too.

At no point has Joker ever been portrayed as some Hero of the Poor.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

You sure about that? I mean, the Thanos Balance thing was a ruse in one single comic book. You sure that in his near-80 years of Joker appearances in comics, TV, animation, movies, books, that there has never been precedent of the Joker presenting himself as a Hero of the Poor to somebody, even as a ruse?

And if I could point out such a precedent, would it change your mind?

 

[JD]

Aren't the personalities of Iron Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy totally different in the comics?

 

[Anwar]

You sure that in his near-80 years of Joker appearances in comics, TV, animation, movies, books, that there has never been precedent of the Joker presenting himself as a Hero of the Poor to somebody, even as a ruse?

Yes. And Thanos' thing wasn't a ruse, it was tied to his love of Death but it was a justification he added to it.

And if I could point out such a precedent, would it change your mind?

Only if it had Joker only kill those who "deserved it" and be portrayed as a hero the whole way through.

Aren't the personalities of Iron Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy totally different in the comics?

Iron Man, not so much. And out of the Guardians, Star-Lord was the one most changed. But in truth, they'd already been changing him since 2008 to less of a Space Cop.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Aren't the personalities of Iron Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy totally different in the comics?

Iron Man for sure. Quill seems very different than I remember. And of course Drax is a human whose consciousness was transferred into a new (artificial?) body and doesn't view everything literally. Mantis is a Eurasian bad ass martial artist not a soft spoken timid alien ( also the Celestial Maddona).

 

[Thestral]

Sounds like they're Guardians In Name Only then? Also, Killmonger's a totally different guy with his intentions. And Hawkeye's personality is totally different (that is to say.... lacking) in the movies than the comics. Hope Van Dyne isn't Hope Pym, supervillain.

The movie tries to say that Ares had nothing to do with anything and men won't stop fighting if he dies. Then he DOES show up, reveal that he influenced the humans into wars and gave them the know-how to develop the weapons to continue the wars and as soon as he dies we see the soldiers give up fighting and embrace one another like they've been freed from his influence.

Ah yes, the constant excuse of the pretentious. If the message was about Diana being wrong on her ideas of the nature of man, they should've left Ares out of it entirely. Keeping him screws with that.

Man, you really don't get subtext and themes do you? Ares specifically says he influenced and whispered but he didn't have to force people to fight. And Diana was wrong... but the message was that so was Ares. There's a reason it was all set in World War 1.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Yes.

So you've read each and every appearance of the Joker in the comics? Because I'm pretty sure you've missed at least one.

And Thanos' thing wasn't a ruse, it was tied to his love of Death but it was a justification he added to it.

Well, to be honest, I haven't read that particular comic, but I do remember Jim Starlin talking about it in an interview when Infinity War (the movie, not the comic) came out, and he called it a ruse. So I was willing to believe the creator of the character who also wrote the story in question. So, was MCU Thanos in love with Death?

Only if it had Joker only kill those who "deserved it" and be portrayed as a hero the whole way through.

So, just to recap, if I could point you to a comic told from the Joker's perspective in which he is portrayed as the hero and was not killing a single person who didn't "deserved it", you will actually change your opinion of the movie?

Why? Why is precedent even necessary? Isn't it enough that it's an alternate take? Does it have to have happened in a comic book first?

Iron Man, not so much. And out of the Guardians, Star-Lord was the one most changed. But in truth, they'd already been changing him since 2008 to less of a Space Cop.

Hold on, are you telling us that there was a Marvel character who was changed from how he was originally presented?

 

[Turtletrekker]

You sure about that? I mean, the Thanos Balance thing was a ruse in one single comic book. You sure that in his near-80 years of Joker appearances in comics, TV, animation, movies, books, that there has never been precedent of the Joker presenting himself as a Hero of the Poor to somebody, even as a ruse?

And if I could point out such a precedent, would it change your mind?

Here's one….

https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Jack_Napier_(White_Knight)

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Dude, don't give it away, I was building up to that.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Dude, don't give it away, I was building up to that.

Oops.

 

[Ovation]

It tried to have its cake and eat it too. It made Arthur out to be some anti-hero of the masses who only killed people who "deserved it" rather than show a real descent to madness wherein he killed innocent people, the way Joker actually would. And he tried to make excuses for himself about how he's the victim of society and all that. Self-pityingly noxious.

At least Falling Down showed the protagonist gradually getting worse to the point he laughed at a helpless old man dying from a heart attack and the whole "How did I become the bad guy?" ending. Joker didn't have that courage.

Yawn.

 

[Anwar]

Man, you really don't get subtext and themes do you?

Standing around explaining everything isn't subtext. And the theme ruined itself.

Ares specifically says he influenced and whispered but he didn't have to force people to fight. And Diana was wrong... but the message was that so was Ares. There's a reason it was all set in World War 1.

His influence is what led to the War becoming as bad as it was, as well as any other influence he had throughout history. And then we have the bit where the soldiers all stop fighting and embracing one another IMMEDIATELY after Ares is dead. How's THAT for your subtext?

So you've read each and every appearance of the Joker in the comics? Because I'm pretty sure you've missed at least one.

In White Knight he's not some "Hero of the Poor Masses". He still did illegal stuff, brainwashed villains into going on a rampage and ended up a psychotic villain in the end and it turns out the whole time he was being manipulated by Harley.

Well, to be honest, I haven't read that particular comic, but I do remember Jim Starlin talking about it in an interview when Infinity War (the movie, not the comic) came out, and he called it a ruse. So I was willing to believe the creator of the character who also wrote the story in question. So, was MCU Thanos in love with Death?

No, but he still committed Universe level death and destruction. Which is the same thing in the end.

So, just to recap, if I could point you to a comic told from the Joker's perspective in which he is portrayed as the hero and was not killing a single person who didn't "deserved it", you will actually change your opinion of the movie

White Knight isn't that. And I wouldn't be irritated over this if the Joker movie hadn't tried to have its cake and eat it too.

Why? Why is precedent even necessary? Isn't it enough that it's an alternate take? Does it have to have happened in a comic book first?

Because without precedent it's just further proof that Phillips and Phoenix had no interest in the source material and just wanted to tell their own original story and co-opted Joker and DC in general to get a built-in audience.

Hold on, are you telling us that there was a Marvel character who was changed from how he was originally presented?

The creator of that character said Star-Lord wasn't meant to stay the way he'd originally written him in his first story (where is he was practically deranged), but he'd left the series before he could change him himself. So it's in line with the original vision of Star-Lord changing from how he was originally presented.

That, and Gunn didn't say stuff like "Well, I wanted to tell an original story about some space characters so I thought I'd use the Guardians name to do it."

 

[Alan Roi]

Standing around explaining everything isn't subtext. And the theme ruined itself.



His influence is what led to the War becoming as bad as it was, as well as any other influence he had throughout history. And then we have the bit where the soldiers all stop fighting and embracing one another IMMEDIATELY after Ares is dead. How's THAT for your subtext?



In White Knight he's not some "Hero of the Poor Masses". He still did illegal stuff, brainwashed villains into going on a rampage and ended up a psychotic villain in the end and it turns out the whole time he was being manipulated by Harley.



No, but he still committed Universe level death and destruction. Which is the same thing in the end.



White Knight isn't that. And I wouldn't be irritated over this if the Joker movie hadn't tried to have its cake and eat it too.



Because without precedent it's just further proof that Phillips and Phoenix had no interest in the source material and just wanted to tell their own original story and co-opted Joker and DC in general to get a built-in audience.



The creator of that character said Star-Lord wasn't meant to stay the way he'd originally written him in his first story (where is he was practically deranged), but he'd left the series before he could change him himself. So it's in line with the original vision of Star-Lord changing from how he was originally presented.

That, and Gunn didn't say stuff like "Well, I wanted to tell an original story about some space characters so I thought I'd use the Guardians name to do it."

LOL. Lot's of comic book writers do exactly what you are accusing DC of doing and their creations become source material. The revered Alan Moore is famous for this. And what people do is more important than what they say, as what they say is all marketing anyways. What Philips did and what Gunn has done are not a whole lot different. They take characters and then make them whatever their interpretation and story requires, again, as do many comic book writers. What Philips and Phoenix have done is nothing especially new. Regardless of what Gunn said, what he did was take a bunch of space characters and made his own story with them, ignoring source material regarding who these characters were in the comics in order to mold them into his 'Avengers in space' film.

Also, what I see from your statement about Thanos, and continuing complaints about Wonder Woman, that you appear unable to perceive the value of metaphor in art entirely. Interesting, but not unexpected for someone who makes up their own interpretation for the 'has his cake and eat it too' phrase as well.

 

[Mudd]

Is there a reason anyone should care how "faithful" these movies are to the source material?

Anyone?

 

[Anwar]

LOL. Lot's of comic book writers do exactly what you are accusing DC of doing

And most of the time, it doesn't work out.

The revered Alan Moore is famous for this.

He did it only really successfully to Swamp Thing.

What Philips did and what Gunn has done are not a whole lot different.

Gunn didn't say "Well, I don't like comic book movies but I need an audience and an easy way to market this idea I had. I'll just co-opt a desperate studio for a character and make him my own character rather than honor the source material."

Regardless of what Gunn said, what he did was take a bunch of space characters and made his own story with them,

He didn't fundamentally alter the characters he changed, like Star-Lord and Drax. Yes he made Drax an alien instead of an augmented human but the core was still there.

that you appear unable to perceive the value of metaphor in art entirely.

Characters standing around monologuing isn't being metaphorical or subtle or "having a theme."

Is there a reason anyone should care how "faithful" these movies are to the source material?

Anyone?

By your logic, the Lord of the Rings movies should've been set in a Mad Max post-apocalyptic world and have no magic but use science for everything.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That's one helluva leap.

 

[Masiral]

Is there a reason anyone should care how "faithful" these movies are to the source material?

Anyone?

No.

 

[JD]

I prefer there to be some recognizable elements of the characters, but I don't need them to be an exact duplicate of the comic version.
I think Marvel has done a great job of that so far, and DC hasn't been quite as good as Marvel, but I'm still pretty happy with what they've done.