Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
How about "Spider-Man, Spider-Man: Radioactive Spider-Man?"
How about "Spider-Man, Spider-Man: Radioactive Spider-Man?"
AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2012
- Thread starter Captain Craig
- Start date
- Status
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
I do not wish to derail the thread any further but I must quickly respond to this. I disagree that arguments against political correctness are often nothing more than covers for bigotry. Going back to the Hobbit example I would not support changing some of the Dwarves to women not because I am bigoted and sexist, but because that is not what is in the text. This sort of change would alter the meaning of the story. On the other hand, casting a black actor as Heimdall in Thor did not alter the story in any way, and the actor did great with the role. Same thing with Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin in Daredevil. It really did not alter the story to change the character's skin color, and Duncan was awesome in the role. (Am I the only one who likes that movie, by the way?)
I think that complaints against excessive PC really stem from frustration over a perceived lack of respect for original materials. Rather than accusing such people of bigotry, racism, and sexism, you should see them in the same light as a Star Trek fan finding fault with the rebooted movie because of how it differs from the original series. (For the record, I liked both.)
I do not wish to derail the thread any further but I must quickly respond to this. I disagree that arguments against political correctness are often nothing more than covers for bigotry. Going back to the Hobbit example I would not support changing some of the Dwarves to women not because I am bigoted and sexist, but because that is not what is in the text. This sort of change would alter the meaning of the story. On the other hand, casting a black actor as Heimdall in Thor did not alter the story in any way, and the actor did great with the role. Same thing with Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin in Daredevil. It really did not alter the story to change the character's skin color, and Duncan was awesome in the role. (Am I the only one who likes that movie, by the way?)
I think that complaints against excessive PC really stem from frustration over a perceived lack of respect for original materials. Rather than accusing such people of bigotry, racism, and sexism, you should see them in the same light as a Star Trek fan finding fault with the rebooted movie because of how it differs from the original series. (For the record, I liked both.)
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Joss Whedon talks Avengers and Buffy at Comic-Con.
Joss Whedon talks Avengers and Buffy at Comic-Con.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
As his friends? That would be amazing!!!!!
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Fox would have a problem with Iceman
Firestar who knows if she belongs to anyone lol.
Fox would have a problem with Iceman
Firestar who knows if she belongs to anyone lol.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Firestar is a mutant right? Probably Fox then.
Firestar is a mutant right? Probably Fox then.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
^she's been a New Warrior and an Avenger, so ... complicated.
^she's been a New Warrior and an Avenger, so ... complicated.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
No.
The Hobbit is not an example - it's a distraction and a red herring.
Why? Simple - because no one did this.
Attempts to present these objections as something other than narrow-minded always rely upon these kinds of hypotheticals, because the case can't be made by actual examples. That's why it's invalid.
One more time:
Go look at on-line talkbacks and objections to replacing Peter Parker with a black character in Marvel's Ultimates line. Other than complaints about killing off Peter, direct complaints about the move come across as reactive, narrow-minded and/or bigoted. The only posters who think they're avoiding this are those who resort to what they consider to be ridiculous hypotheticals, ie "Geez, why don't they just replace Thor with a one-armed octogenarian lesbian?"
The case can't be made based on facts, hence the need to resort continually to "what if they...?" arguments.
On the other matter, "respect for source material" does not equal treating it as holy writ in every detail. Frankly, fans who want strangers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of their money on putting some comic, fifty year-old sf pulp novel or video game up on the big screen but won't allow any adaptation to popular taste, current attitudes or audience preference should just be satisfied with the source material itself and stop expecting studios to risk fortunes on their behalf.
No.
The Hobbit is not an example - it's a distraction and a red herring.
Why? Simple - because no one did this.
Attempts to present these objections as something other than narrow-minded always rely upon these kinds of hypotheticals, because the case can't be made by actual examples. That's why it's invalid.
One more time:
Go look at on-line talkbacks and objections to replacing Peter Parker with a black character in Marvel's Ultimates line. Other than complaints about killing off Peter, direct complaints about the move come across as reactive, narrow-minded and/or bigoted. The only posters who think they're avoiding this are those who resort to what they consider to be ridiculous hypotheticals, ie "Geez, why don't they just replace Thor with a one-armed octogenarian lesbian?"
The case can't be made based on facts, hence the need to resort continually to "what if they...?" arguments.
On the other matter, "respect for source material" does not equal treating it as holy writ in every detail. Frankly, fans who want strangers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of their money on putting some comic, fifty year-old sf pulp novel or video game up on the big screen but won't allow any adaptation to popular taste, current attitudes or audience preference should just be satisfied with the source material itself and stop expecting studios to risk fortunes on their behalf.
Last edited:
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
...who gets taken down with one punch.
I could see Joss Whedon screwing with the fans by writing a scene where all the dudes are taken down and then in walks Black Widow...
...who gets taken down with one punch.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
If Whedon wants to improve a character or make her more interesting, then more power to him. It'll make for a better movie and give Johannson a better role to play.
Or are we talking hypotheticals again rather than addressing facts?
If Whedon wants to improve a character or make her more interesting, then more power to him. It'll make for a better movie and give Johannson a better role to play.
Or are we talking hypotheticals again rather than addressing facts?
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Right but she's still a mutant. I was under the impression Fox laid claim to all of them.
Right but she's still a mutant. I was under the impression Fox laid claim to all of them.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
don't think so. i think they solely have rights to the X-titles, which given Angelica's been a Hellion in New Mutants, a New Warrior and an Avenger ... like I said; complicated.
don't think so. i think they solely have rights to the X-titles, which given Angelica's been a Hellion in New Mutants, a New Warrior and an Avenger ... like I said; complicated.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Well I guess the real test would be to see if Scarlett Witch ever makes it to Marvel Studios in an Avengers sequel.
Well I guess the real test would be to see if Scarlett Witch ever makes it to Marvel Studios in an Avengers sequel.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Her comic debut was in Uncanny X-Men and she was on the Hellions with Emma Frost as an adversarial group to The New Mutants IIRC.
I want to say that she had some guest appearances in some of the X-Books as it looked like her microwave powers had given her cancer. It was thought she was going to die, then didn't. I don't recall how. I want to say this was around the Utopia storylines? Now she's in the Allies book which I've not been keeping up with.
So, yeah is she then as a mutant under Fox's contract or as an Avenger is she fair game with Marvel Studios or do the ties to animated Spidey legit as an expanded supporting character?
Re: Firestar
Her comic debut was in Uncanny X-Men and she was on the Hellions with Emma Frost as an adversarial group to The New Mutants IIRC.
I want to say that she had some guest appearances in some of the X-Books as it looked like her microwave powers had given her cancer. It was thought she was going to die, then didn't. I don't recall how. I want to say this was around the Utopia storylines? Now she's in the Allies book which I've not been keeping up with.
So, yeah is she then as a mutant under Fox's contract or as an Avenger is she fair game with Marvel Studios or do the ties to animated Spidey legit as an expanded supporting character?
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
All mutants are owned by Fox so Marvel Studios can't use them in their films. Wanda and Pietro's name are clearly seen on the computer in "X2" and we know they are Magneto's children so "Avengers" sequels could never use them which sucks.
All mutants are owned by Fox so Marvel Studios can't use them in their films. Wanda and Pietro's name are clearly seen on the computer in "X2" and we know they are Magneto's children so "Avengers" sequels could never use them which sucks.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
^^^
I thought so.
I'd be curious to see that contract with FOX.
"ALL MUTANTS", I mean dang, covers a large portion of the Marvel catalog that doesn't necessarily interact with the X-Men sometimes....like a Firestar.
I could see Cloak & Dagger in a Spider-man movie but that would be out also.
^^^
I thought so.
I'd be curious to see that contract with FOX.
"ALL MUTANTS", I mean dang, covers a large portion of the Marvel catalog that doesn't necessarily interact with the X-Men sometimes....like a Firestar.
I could see Cloak & Dagger in a Spider-man movie but that would be out also.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
"Cloak and Dagger" is currently being developed as a television series. It's been long known that Fox has the rights to mutants, Fantastic Four, and Daredevil. Don't think they have anything else. I really want Marvel/Disney to buy FF. Doubt it would happen.
"Cloak and Dagger" is currently being developed as a television series. It's been long known that Fox has the rights to mutants, Fantastic Four, and Daredevil. Don't think they have anything else. I really want Marvel/Disney to buy FF. Doubt it would happen.
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
Remember the MUTANT X lawsuit? Fox was not happy when Marvel let somebody else do a tv series featuring some of their "other" mutants . . . .
Remember the MUTANT X lawsuit? Fox was not happy when Marvel let somebody else do a tv series featuring some of their "other" mutants . . . .
Re: AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2
I thought Mutant X got in just under the wire. Not sure I knew there was a lawsuit on that.
- Status