Perhaps his family came to the US during the colonial period, moved to Ireland, then returned to the US?
Do Marvel's characters work better in movies than DC's?
- Thread starter Agenda
- Start date
Perhaps his family came to the US during the colonial period, moved to Ireland, then returned to the US?
Maybe he fought for the British. 
No, I suppose that's not what that link says.
No, I suppose that's not what that link says.
Of course he did. That's almost as bad as his being born on the Fourth of July.
Addressing the original question, Marvel has had a lot of flops. It is just that since X-Men and Spider-Man there have been a lot more successes. If you look at the movies that have been poor such as Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Electra, they fail for the same reason DC movies have failed. It all comes down to execution and a mis-portrayal of the spirit of the characters or an attempt by the studio to inject and element that just did not fit.
Spider-Man III would have been much better without Venom. Daredevil needed to be grittier and more realistic. The Fantastic Four was completely paced incorrectly (both movies) as was Green Lantern. Superman Returns just spat in the face of the character of Superman if not the mythos. These movies just felt off when one watched them.
On the other hand, movies like the X-Men I and II, Thor, Iron Man, and Batman made significant alterations to the comic versions while still being smart and remaining true, if not improving, the spirit/essence of the character they were based upon.
Green Lantern suffered from trying to include too much. The movie should have put the Guardians and the Corps on the sideline. It should have been about Hal on Earth and facing off against Hector Hammond. The Guardians and the space elements should have been saved for the second movie, the way the Joker was saved for TDK.
To make any Super-Hero movie work, you need to produce a smart, intelligent, and engaging movie that does not insult the audience by feeling like a Saturday morning cartoon; and you need to remain true to the spirit of the character.
Spider-Man III would have been much better without Venom. Daredevil needed to be grittier and more realistic. The Fantastic Four was completely paced incorrectly (both movies) as was Green Lantern. Superman Returns just spat in the face of the character of Superman if not the mythos. These movies just felt off when one watched them.
On the other hand, movies like the X-Men I and II, Thor, Iron Man, and Batman made significant alterations to the comic versions while still being smart and remaining true, if not improving, the spirit/essence of the character they were based upon.
Green Lantern suffered from trying to include too much. The movie should have put the Guardians and the Corps on the sideline. It should have been about Hal on Earth and facing off against Hector Hammond. The Guardians and the space elements should have been saved for the second movie, the way the Joker was saved for TDK.
To make any Super-Hero movie work, you need to produce a smart, intelligent, and engaging movie that does not insult the audience by feeling like a Saturday morning cartoon; and you need to remain true to the spirit of the character.
The first Fantastic Four did pretty well at the box office and that's what got it a sequel. The sequel didn't do as well but the films weren't financial flops. Creatively though...that's another story. It also killed the idea of a Silver Surfer movie.
Daredevil really did need to be darker. You have to make DD like Batman. That's when the character works the best. I thought they were remaking DD in the near future and that the guy wasn't going to go "gritty" with it. That would be a mistake.
I thought Venom was one of the best things about Spider-Man III. Raimi's insistence on using a one-dimensional character like The Sandman was a mistake. He had to give him a bunch of cliches (not evil, sick child) in order to make him interesting and when that didn't work, he decided to take a gigantic piss on the Spider-Man mythos with the "real killer" of Uncle Ben nonsense.
So adding another one-dimensional villain was a good idea (Venom).
Sam Raimi did the same for Green Goblin and Doc Ock and it worked. Personally I thought Sandman was working and Venom was just a stupid mistake (should have been saved for the 4th movie).
The only thing that could ruin the mythos is Peter Parker making a deal with the devil to end his marriage. Oops sorry, bringing back Uncle Ben alive.
I just straight-up liked Spider Man 3.
My only major sticking point with that movie was the unbelievable coincidence of the symbiote. I mean, I know Secret Wars is about thirty bridges too far, but there had to be a better way. You know, maybe like the biowarfare magnate that Peter's best friends/enemies with.
My only major sticking point with that movie was the unbelievable coincidence of the symbiote. I mean, I know Secret Wars is about thirty bridges too far, but there had to be a better way. You know, maybe like the biowarfare magnate that Peter's best friends/enemies with.
I remember reading a reproduction of Cap #1 and it definitely said he was from NY (not Brooklyn specifically) and didn't mention his parents were Irish (may have to check that).
Yeah i think they screwed it up. Obviously his parents were of Irish descent not recent immigrants and it's possible he had an ancestor who fought in the American Revolution (not with the British I hope). Like I said my position is heretical. I personally believe after reading the original origin story that Cap was meant to be Jewish not Irish (that's more Nick Fury ironically).
This is a point that could be played around with and still remain true to the character. Cap/Steve is supposed to have a love for American values and the country. As an Irish immigrant, he is part of a family who made sacrifices to be American despite discrimination. As a descendant of the revolution his ties are a little more historical. Both versions work. Having him be Jewish would also fit.
Agree. The whole point is that Cap is from a disenfranchised group (Jewish, Irish, Native America, French-Canadian whatever) and not a WASP like Mr Fantastic or Professor X.
Speaking as a complete outsider to the Green Lantern mythos, since i hadn't even glanced at an issue prior to seeing the film, i actually disagree. For me the Guardians and Corp. stuff was the most interesting part of the film, and set it apart from other superheroes out there.
Without it the plot would have been virtually identical to any other superhero movie: Guy is down on luck, guy gets powers, has fun helping people for a while, big bad turns up kicks his ass, hero learns valuable life lesson, hero kicks big bads ass, gets the girl, cue sequel.
If anything i'd have preferred the stuff on Earth was ditched and the movie focused more on the corps and taking out Parallax.
I too thought "Green Lantern" suffered from featuring too much. I called it "the most rushed superhero origin story film ever" which will be ironic if there is no sequel because the one impression I had from the film after seeing it (and after subsequent viewings) is that they really were excited to get to a sequel. Everything in the film felt rushed to me story wise and as I stated in the GL thread I think it was because they tried to mesh together two versions of the script. The original draft along with the latter Secret Origin versions and it just doesn't work very well. That being said I enjoyed the film despite the flaws.
I suspect that if they DO get to film a sequel that the story will flow a lot better than it did in this one.
I suspect that if they DO get to film a sequel that the story will flow a lot better than it did in this one.
Well, to be poor and from NY in media pretty much was to be from an "ethnic" group (and was to be from the lower east side -- Bowery Boys, anyone?).
That would be fine too. The animated First Flight movie was much better for example, and would probably have worked nicely as a live action movie.
I was thinking about focusing the story on Earth to simplify the story more than anything else. There was a time when the Corps and Guardians did not feature prominently in every GL story.
Or any Simon & Kirby "Kid Gang". Speaking of which, I'd say Brooklyn from the Boy Commandos and Scrapper from the Newsboy Legion read as Irish.
All three fit, but none fit together really. I like the Irish or Jewish heritage because it gives an immigrant's feel that I think works great for someone representing America. I'm not a fan of Old families as much. I prefer Jewish over Irish because of the Nazi angle, but I don't think it's a huge deal either way.
The only reason I hesitate is I thought the same about Fantastic Four. I felt getting bogged down in an origin story limited the amount of time for them as heroes. I also felt with Galactus and Silver Surfer, the movie would be very compelling. It just didn't work, though. I hope a GL sequel would do better, but I still hesitate.
In fairness, Rise of the Silver Surfer is better than the first one.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I actually liked both Fantastic Four movies. And I thought the first one was better than the second.
I set the bar really low, going in. The FF was my favorite series, growing up. The fact that the movies were merely "meh", and not total crap, make them seem pretty darn good by comparison....and they were sure as hell better than Elektra, Ghost Rider, Hulk I, etc......
^
Forgive me again, but I thought Elektra was okay. I don't see why people hated so much. As for Hulk, it didn't grab me though I liked the cast for the most part, especially Sam Elliot as Thunderbolt Ross. That was perfect casting. Nick Nolte was great as the scuzzy dad, though I wish they had gone with a better villain. And as for Ghost Rider, as much as I love Nick Cage, he sleep walked through the role. His acting was the biggest issue for me, followed by a lack of action. I liked the young Blaze in the flashbacks. If they had used him instead I would've enjoyed the movie a lot more.
Forgive me again, but I thought Elektra was okay. I don't see why people hated so much. As for Hulk, it didn't grab me though I liked the cast for the most part, especially Sam Elliot as Thunderbolt Ross. That was perfect casting. Nick Nolte was great as the scuzzy dad, though I wish they had gone with a better villain. And as for Ghost Rider, as much as I love Nick Cage, he sleep walked through the role. His acting was the biggest issue for me, followed by a lack of action. I liked the young Blaze in the flashbacks. If they had used him instead I would've enjoyed the movie a lot more.
Similar threads
