Long ago the original comic book companies were absorbed by corporations who perverted the comics. As of mid-1976 they had lost aesthetic credibility as art and I ceased to bother with them. The debacle of greedy oversaturation and other ills speaks for itself. More recently, these worsely-mutating corporations have been cobbling movies of so-called Silver Age characters and their stories, again, as far as the corporations are concerned, strictly for money and everything else be damned. Don't think I've followed this in detail, which would be akin to inviting miscreants to spit in one's face. Nevertheless, it had come to my attention that the latest spate of Marvel films ("Marvel Cinematic Universe") was trying to be true to the original stories. However, now I've learned a colossal blunder has been committed. In watching the end of "Captain America: the First Avenger" I suffered the stomach punch of hearing a supposed Nick Fury tell Cap that he's awoken after 70 years (???) whereas it should be more like 20. This means that all those MCU movies are set in exact present day and have no aesthetic value. They distort the literary imagined reality. discredit those working on the films. and reinforce the notion that graphic art may serve only as a cash-producer in the clutches of hucksters and need never be recognized as legitimately on a par with all other art. They comfort creeps like Steve Allen who mocked comics as nonsense.
______I predict history will ultimately find comic books up until 1976 the greatest art of the twentieth century, their covers and insides, their art and literary compendia, and all these movies will be forgotten as an afterthought regardless of how many millions they garner or don't. I don't blame folks like Josh Whedon, who surely are doing their best within the parameters foisted upon them as pawns. They might not realize that by disregarding the time period you are disrespecting all those who bought the comics all this time and made possible the jump from Silver Age to silver screen, in quest of a quicker buck, presumably, from those who allegedly predominate at theaters and/or to make filming easier. I ran across an MCU timeline, and they've got Tony Stark born in 1967. Absurd! Now I don't care about cars and wouldn't mind if you passed off 2010 models in 1963-65 (you couldn't get away with that in the 30's and 40's Golden Age), but don't shove the accoutrements of today, cellphones, the internet, etc. and current references to what should be almost 50 years ago. This should be an easy call. Let me note that years ago when I was catching the first 1980's Batman flick the moment they mentioned "Cosmopolitan" as contemporaneously constituted I flipped off the tv. However, I will concede that most comics were written to be timeless and their temporal setting was a chance feature. But then you would get to stories of social relevance in , e.g., "Daredevil" a la the so-called 60's, and you'll be stuck. No one would ever stand for forcing the Beatles into present day, e.g.. You mess with my art and I'll step on you like a cockroach. Moreover, theatrical film is the wrong form for comics, which should be adapted to television series (I'd say the same about the long, detailed books of Charles Dickens), preferably animated, and that would reduce the cost on the front end; then you could still film the grandest stories of each comic book if profitable.
_______Unfortunately, by current antisocial US law corporations may only take into account profit as a motivating factor or they can be sued by shareholders, which is why art and corporations don't mix. Even before the advent of corporate ownership things were awry within comics since other perverse US law allowed companies to deprive creators of the rights to their work and people like Joe Shuster and later Jack Kirby and Stan Lee had to sue for proper royalties, let alone control of what they should have been able to control under any fair social contract and public policy.
_______Therefore, considering all of the above my viewing if at all of "big" pictures like the Avengers must await free access on a small screen. "The Avengers" was never that great anyway, relatively. I read all issues 1 to an issue in at least 1974 though I never bought any because I would swap books with someone who did and who elected different choices than I, and I didn't read them always in order as he might not have had #1 to start. But I'm sure I focused on that issue when I did because it was the first. The only thing I recall about the early Avengers is liking Scarlet Witch's costume (and to a lesser extent, her brother, even though he was an unapologetic copy of Flash). The Avengers mostly comprised characters who didn't or couldn't make it in their own books unlike the JLA whom they me-tooed though never had their pizzazz. Furthermore, as far as the ridiculous choice of stories I never enjoyed Loki. Finally, I am reviewing many of the issues on Comic Book Database, and Cap doesn't arrive until #4 as for being the "first" Avenger.
_______This is a serious piece, on a subject about which I care much. If you are going to take issue with me and present your position, go for roughly five lines or more or keep your own counsel, or be treated as a sniping troll. Also, if you wish to recommend other boards where I may post this and be welcomed, that would be appreciated.
Read that and weep, Christopher baby. But I know you at least can manage five lines and represent your misguided stance as well as can be expected. Truly, though, I don't hate you but merely think you've transmogrified into more of a pro than a fan and pros and fans don't always see eye-to-eye. Yet, I do honestly sometimes enjoy your posts and have divulged such publicly. At least you are genuine. Someday I hope to visit your site and maybe read some of your work.
