Sounds like Jeff Nichols’ Aquaman would have been rather different from the version we got https://variety.com/2023/film/news/...wYCQHDbKjCKZ-TXx3qUxo1nRGDDfagGCYAEwShlWtOZFU
DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
Indeed.
It all just soared over your head. At the time of his debut in the film series, MCU Spider-Man was new to his career (instead of being older, married, or drawing from plots / arcs decades after his core development), and if that character is a representation of JD's indefensible, erroneous claim that the MCU is "knowing and embracing what they are"--then it would have been true to the early character development of Spider-Man being a loner (as his early creators intended), instead of a boy sidekick wannabe, which he had not been in the comics. Always the point.
Then, you brought up MTU and...cartoons...as some "evidence" of Spider-Man not being a loner character, which was a claim swept away by the fact Lee and Company launched MTU only as a marketing cash grab, never intended to change the character's behavior or status, as proven--once again--in the reference to the parent title's 106 monthlies and 8 annuals published up to that month in 1972, and how said behavior and status did not change in the parent title in the years to follow.
Cartoons--as demonstrated in my previous post--had no bearing on the comic character published during the same time. Denying the historical record does not help whatever argument you're attempting to make here.
If certain people believed that, then they would not be so close-minded and constantly scream in favor of Superman adaptations being locked into the Weisinger/Swan/Salkind interpretation of the character, not needing to incessantly whine when Superman draws inspiration from other characterizations not from the Weisinger/Swan/Salkind interpretations.
It works both ways.
Last edited:
Who said "The characters in their debut of the MCU are embracing exactly how they were written as they debuted in their comic series"?
Nobody said or suggested that, if I'm incorrect, I ask you to point me to where that was said.
From what I'm reading, it was said the characters embraced what they are. "Are" means as currently depicted. Not as they were. Meaning, Parker has evolved into a team player from a loner in the comics. It's now part of his current character to draw upon for other adaptations (not that there's a rule they have to do that anyways, but this is the debate we're in). His MCU doesn't have to make that same character arc to lose what makes Parker who he is, then or now.
The world has moved on from the 60s. Join us or not, that's up to you.
Again, missing the point. We don't live in 1972. We live now. The cartoon example was just used to illustrate how team-friendly Spider-Man is and has become. It doesn't matter what people said in 1972. Now is different. Go into a comic shop and it's pretty obvious.
The point of history isn't to hold things there. It's a point to grow from.
I suspect a fundamental difference in basic values is at least in part at play in why people assess the films' qualities so differently, and I think this particular value is part of that.
I saw Blue Beetle
That is the key question!!! And i think that is what Zaslav said when he decided to get rid of Henry Cavill (which i think is unfair... Snyder and his writers set up Clark and the Kents poorly....hence much o the negativity, and lack of enthusiasm.Yikes.
Also, it was fun, but how the hell did Aquaman make so much?
I would saw that is for sure TWO major reasons for the success.... lots of people like Momoa for various reasons.. one think is because he can connect with so many kinds of people. Obviously Asians/Pacific Islanders, but i have heard zero backlash on him playing a Latino character in the latest Fast and Furious (as opposed to say Emma Stone, who doesn't even look half Asian in that movie she was in). Also, he has been a part of things such as Game of Thrones, so they like him.
And FOR SURE, he was a 180 from the Supefriends joke that Aquaman was.
I added the US Domestic Box Office, maybe we should ask the Europeans and others (EDIT: China was almost $300M of Aquaman's take!) why some films work better than others? Mind you, I was freehanding this, instead of using a chart generator, but the squares should be in the ballpark.
(Ignore that errant square to the left...)
Definitely CHina was a huge help...but truly, the overall International Market came through.
I appreciate your effort @Mr. Adventure , and understand that it is free hand.
My understanding is that WOnder WOman was actually the one with the biggest Domestic (US) take among all the DCFU,over 400 million.. B v. S, Aquaman and the first Suicide Squad all did around $330 million
You are absolutely correct on that.
YEAH, WELL...i guess that is the nature of it. I am really bad at remembering most users, and i guess everyone else is, so we forget who doesn't like being talked down to and such.
But i appreciate your thoughts
Sorry, disagree on the B v S part. While there were certainly great moments (you should have heard our theater when the WOnder WOman theme played) , just like Man of Steel, some big moments , like SUperman's death was NOT built up to. And his death didn't have the impact the deaths did in Infinity War. i know for BOTH we were expecting ALL those characters to be resurrected.... but the emotion just wasnt there for me and many others for Superman.when he died.
I ain't defending Aquaman's "quality"... i saw it, but surprised it was sooooo successful (especially the TOP of the DCFU). But B v S wasn't that superior. Any hype would be B v S minus the V
AGain, definitely ONE reason, for sure.
So definitely one source of big income... we would need to do research to see how it did in other countries, but i am guessing, as I said above, there are a great many people who might see their own countrymen with Jason Momoa.
hmm, looks like my BvS domestic take is off on my graph...
Updated, should anyone care...
Last edited:
That info is all on box office mojo. You can get it with some typing and 15 clicks or less.
The usual outcome for films with Saturday morning plotting, sold as "epic" when its not mature in the least.
"Are" has never had Spider-Man begging to be a boy sidekick. Once again, you are incorrect in the extreme.
No, you introduced MTU (yes, it launched in '72) and that ridiculous cartoon reference--the implication being that marketing schemes & silly cartoon adaptations had any bearing on the comic book character's presentation by making him "team-up friendly" as a counter to criticism of his MCU version. When the nonsense was called out, you now attempt to revise your position. Not working.
That's something you should direct toward the those (a few in this thread) who shake themselves to their core, crying in favor of Superman adaptations being locked into the Wiesinger/Swan/Salkind interpretation of the character. I'm guessing you do not need a calendar to confirm the following, but yeah, the Wiesinger/Swan/Salkind versions are several generations old, yet the defenders who want that to be THE representation of Superman are not--as you say, growing from history, but reject Superman adaptations that have moved on from that Golden/Silver Age interpretation.
Start there.
Last edited:
Besides your obvious disdain of the medium, those older cartoons influence the creators who are now working in the industry.
There is a current Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends cartoon for a reason. He continues to team up with other heroes in the comics for a reason. I stand by my position that even in 1972, showing the character with amazing friends illustrated how he can easily be shown to not be such a loner to a larger audience than the comic readers of the time. The comics eventually came around to this. As a kid, I literally purchased an Ice-Man and Spider-Man team up BECAUSE of the "ridiculous" cartoon you dismiss. They made this comic for a reason, and it wasn't to highlight that Spider-Man was a loner.
Why don't you like Spider-Man having friends and hanging out with others? What are the deeper issues at hand here?
I try not to respond to "whataboutism" because of how empty the tactic is.
Don’t you know, M’rk, son of Mogh, that comic book characters are serious business and only for adults and telling adult stories. How dare they be fun or even, gasp, for all ages! 
No evidence for that crap, but yeah, pointing out the low end of cartoons must mean absolute hatred of the medium. Yours is the wild equivalent of saying "Person A does not like lettuce and green beans, so he must hate ALL vegetables!!!" Yes, your statement is that riddled with desperate, clawing illogic.
The point you deliberately miss is that the cartoons you referenced had no bearing on the characterization of Spider-Man in is comic at the time the cartoons were first run, as much as that might pain you to realize.
You are so enormously triggered over the opinion of one person, as if the cartoon will be damned for all eternity, or lead to all physical copies destroyed due to that opinion. Everyone does not have to like Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends, and yeah, it was not universally accepted by Spider-Man fans when it made its debut. Get over it.
Do you even read what you're posting? In 1972, MTU was created as a marketing scheme for existing comic readers, but his status as a troubled figure, and the years-long serious themes of his title you seem to be unaware of (murders, drug addiction / dealing, PTSD, etc.) is what defined Spider-Man in that early 70s era. Lee, Thomas, Romita, Conway, et al., were not thinking about the main title being some means to make the character a version of that which was seen in a cartoon still nearly a decade away. If MTU sank or was able to swim, it still did not alter the characterization of Spider-Man.
Spider-Man was Marvel's most "real" character, a fact innumerable high school and college students interviewed across the mid 60s - early 70s print media repeatedly claimed as the reason Spider-Man appealed to them when a good number of other mainstream superhero comics were thought to be "silly". You are arguing against that which made the Spider-Man Marvel's unrivaled flagship character all for some desperate need to make the historically disproven claim that he was as light as your cartoon reference.
Ah, in comes the time-worn tactic of one who cannot form a rational reply (seen in this thread time and time again): the ad hominem BS. Considering what you've posted, it would be rather easy for me to turn that on you, but I will let the fact that you took that route serve as an example of your failed position.
Translation: you are a hypocrite, as you do not apply your beliefs and thin standards across the board. Thanks for clarifying it, guy.
Last edited:
OK, I hadn't seen Homecoming since it came out in theaters, so I'd forgotten just how much of the movie focused on his attempts to impress "Mr. Stark", until I finished literally half an hour ago on Disney+. But setting that aside, I'd still say that what we got with that was a hell of a lot closer to the tone, and characterization of Peter in the comics than anything we've ever got from Snyder in his DC movies.
And to clarify my comment about knowing and embracing what they are, I didn't mean they're exact recreations of the comic, I just meant that the tone and style of the movies is a lot closer to the comics than anything we got from Snyder in his movies.
Ah, ok.
I read just around 30 years' worth of Spider-Man comics starting with his debut (not to mention the character in endless TPBs, tabloids, daily strips, novels, etc.), and none had Parker acting anything like the MCU version. The last live action Spider-Man actor who drew much from the source to create his on-screen Parker was Tobey Maguire.
Snyder (and others in the development of the DCEU) obviously took much from various DC storylines, but unlike so many filmmakers who helmed superhero films, he effectively merged the fantastic of the source into a realistic world setting, with the people around them reacting as anyone would to costumed and/or superpowered beings. That was one of the most appealing points of the DCEU at its best.
Last edited:
I will simply end with this: I was only trying to debate the merits of Spider-Man not being a loner character any longer. The quality of the cartoons was never a debate. The history of the evolution of the character and business decisions driving them was not the debate. It was simply that Spider-Man, for decades now, across multiple mediums including the comics, is not the loner he used to be depicted as.
There is no triggering going on. I'm not upset or angry, I actually found the debate fairly lively, but the debate is dragging baffling elements into it that weren't part of the original intent.
I don't believe Spider-Man is a loner based on what's shown about the character. I tried offered differing examples of this. And that was it.
No sale, kid. You made it a part of the debate, first by overreacting to my critical opinion on the cartoons in relation to the issue of their having no bearing on the comic characterization, then leaping to the false conclusion that it must mean I "hate" the entire medium of animation, which is an accusation naturally involving quality. Yes, you did that.
Still having no bearing on the original point: comic-book Spider-Man's trait--being a struggling loner--has defined his character from the start, setting him apart from the majority of Marvel characters. Team ups and guest appearances does not mean--nor have you demonstrated to support your claim--that Marvel was trying to change him to appeal to some larger audience, when Spider-Man--by 1972--had already become the top-selling comic book both at Marvel and in the industry (outselling Superman), and jumped to being Marvel's most successful IP where marketing was concerned. Spider-Man was already appealing to larger audiences based on years of interest in that troubled loner you appear to dislike.
Yes, you were triggered by my describing a certain cartoon as "ridiculous". If I--or anyone else--believe Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends was ridiculous, sub-par, and/or glad it had no bearing on the comic....and? The series was not threatened by criticism in 1981-83, and it is not now.
Your posts illustrate that it was not "it", as you left trying to have an honest debate and posted ad hominem BS, which is the last resort of those who cannot support an position. All too common around here.
Physician, heal thyself.
Take your own advice.
