You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 02:15:48 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen  (Read 4307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Top Cat

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #75 on: August 22, 2014, 02:04:50 AM »
You didn't read the blog did you?  Nevermind, I'm done with this topic.
I did read the blog. Did you?

Spoilering to save everyone else from this off-topic response.
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
Let's go over the facts, only as explained in the blog. I'll leave out any other details until I'm done listing the sequence of events for that issue, Avengers #213 (more than 30 years ago!).

  • Jim Shooter was the lead writer for that issue. He'd been planning this for months, getting feedback from psychologists, etc. to make sure that it felt real to the readers, and the subscription rate was up because of it.
  • The script he wrote for that page didn't have Hank hitting Janet; it was supposed to be more of a "go away" gesture, not an impact. Note that your attitude on the subject makes it seem like you stopped reading at this point.
  • Bob Hall, the artist for that issue, liked having "extreme" actions, and drew the backhanded punch that I linked above.
  • There wasn't enough time to redraw it (implies that Shooter actually argued against it, and got overruled by the Editors).
  • Shooter was too busy to write the last 1/3 of the issue, so Roger Stern did; he's the one who wrote the scene of Janet lowering her glasses and showing the black eye.
  • The scene was published as Bob Hall drew it. This is now canon.

Note, especially, that Jim Shooter isn't even the copyright holder for the character; he doesn't have the final say on what a given character can or can't (or will or won't) do. He had an idea; with an artist's misunderstanding and an editor's decision, the idea ended up being different from what he intended it to be. This is far from the only time that's happened in comics, although you don't generally get to hear about those.

Now, I suggest you go back and read my posts. At no point have I used the term "wife beater" - that's been solely you. Hank hit Janet hard enough to give her a black eye. This is canon. From that issue forward, that's the fact of that day, and has been mentioned in quite a few other comics over the years, usually from Hank himself talking about it with other characters. However, to me "wife beater" means someone who repeatedly goes and abuses his wife. I don't even think that, as the canon event happened, he intended to hurt Janet. But whether he wanted to or not, he did. And then spent the next 20 real-life years of Marvel Comics trying to be a better man than he had been. If the Avengers had considered him an angry, violent individual (a description usually applied to "wife beaters"), they never would have made him the head of Avengers Academy.

I think you're far too emotionally invested in this, and need to step back and look at it again. Reread the blog or not; reread the comics or not. But this lapse of control/judgement/whatever is an integral part of Hank Pym's history, and Marvel has explicitly chosen not to retcon that at all, despite having several mega-arcs that could have absolved him of it.

See the part below for my explanation of why that one incident doesn't make Hank Pym a terrible person - it makes him a realistic person. I'll let this drop now, and won't continue this argument without some especially significant data.


In the past, when talking about comics with friends, and especially talking about the differences between Marvel and DC, one of the key points that I make, right up front, is the overall feel of the comics. DC's heroes can, for the most part, be described as gods among men (not literally, of course). Marvel's heroes, on the other hand, is normal, everyday people with super-powers. They have their strengths, their weaknesses, their foibles, their flaws. It's hard to find a Superman story where the story is about Superman making a huge mistake (physically, socially, emotionally, whatever), and having to scramble to fix the problem - it's almost always someone else doing things that Superman has to prevent, repair, or undo. The same can be said for Batman - outside of non-con stories like DKR, it's very hard to find examples of Batman simply making a dreadful mistake and suffering or repairing the consequences. His biggest failures are the result of being out-manipulated by Joker, or Hush, or Bane.

In contrast, Marvel characters practically live in their mistakes. There are tons of stories where two hero groups start fighting because they misread what the other's doing. There are lots of issues where the heroes argue over less-important things (and not just the contrarian hero, like DC's Guy Gardner), or have doubts about what they're doing. There are lots of examples of heroes going into the moral grey zone - and I'm not just talking about Punisher or Wolverine, here.

And this, I think, is part of why DC's having a hard time doing the movies. Black-and-white morality works fine for half-hour mini-stories; it's a lot harder to do over a 2-hour movie. In contrast, Marvel's "shades of grey" morality is much harder to do in half-hour non-sequential  TV episodes, but shines in full-length movies.

On an entirely different matter: If anyone wants a really, really good DC Elseworlds story set in the 1980's character-era, featuring many, many characters, go pick up The Nail. If you liked that era, when it had lost the idealistic flair of the 1970's comics, but hadn't yet been tipped over into the grim-dark aspects of the 1990's, then you'll love this book. It is my favorite Elseworlds book, ever.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #76 on: August 22, 2014, 04:46:33 PM »
Well, the shows based on DC comics tend to involve a lot of flawed heroes.  So I think whoever is producing Arrow, for instance, is definitely taking that problem into account.  Oliver Queen in the television show is pretty much wrestling with his own mistakes throughout the series, while also dealing with what others are doing.  I do understand the God among men statement though, as even there the character comes off as superhuman even though we are told he is perfectly normal, just well conditioned and trained.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #77 on: August 23, 2014, 12:33:35 PM »
I would actually like to see the version of Hank Pym who did lose control in one instance and did something he regrets to Janet, and even if she never forgives him personally, I'd want to see Hank finding redemption throughout the rest of the movie. Tony Stark had to face the regret of enabling terrorists to murder untold numbers of people and the blood was on his hands, and even with all his alcohol-fueled antics, he is still most everyone's favorite. This kind of ethical detachment people seem to have is the very reason why they should take a risk and go with something so controversial, just to expand people's consciousness. The Ultimates version actually went way beyond a simple bitch-slap and black eye, but I'm not sure how that affected fans compared to the original incident this was based on, but it's hard to say anything good about it when they decided to dig that up and ravage the corpse, as it were.

Anyway, while I would have preferred to see the Flash on the big screen, it looks like his Arrow spin-off show is all we're going to be getting since he apparently won't be appearing in BvS (as of yet). Him being my favorite DC hero, this news disappoints me a bit but considering we're going to be seeing both the X-Men version of Quicksilver and the Avengers version of him before any Hollywood-generated Flash, he'll probably end up being nothing special even when the actual full-fledged Justice League movie does come out.

Since the Marvel Cinematic Universe has already branched out to television, I was wondering what people thought of the Daredevil series that's coming out at some point. They apparently are going to be just going straight in with 13 episodes without even waiting to see what people think of the pilot episode, to 'encourage binge watching'. I mean, I'm all about binge watching, but is that really a good idea? Is this presumption unwarranted (unlike the Guardians of the Galaxy sequel being announced even before they knew how much the first movie was going to make) or do you think it looks good enough that most viewers (and a significant enough amount of them to make up that population) will actually enjoy it?
« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 12:34:51 PM by Mathim »

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #78 on: August 23, 2014, 02:07:46 PM »
The Ultimates version actually went way beyond a simple bitch-slap and black eye, but I'm not sure how that affected fans compared to the original incident this was based on, but it's hard to say anything good about it when they decided to dig that up and ravage the corpse, as it were.

There were lots of knowing nods, as their mistaken belief was vindicated.

In 616, Hank Pym hit Janet ONCE.  Just A SINGLE TIME, and yet, he's labeled a wife beater, despite the fact that they weren't even married at the time, nor did he do it anymore.  In fact, Reed Richards has hit Susan several more times, and it's not even mentioned ever, or no one ever bats an eye.

A wife beater is someone who does it repeatedly, and uses pity tactics to keep their wives in check.  Hank in the 616 never did, in fact, when he snapped out, I believe he was horrified, and even when he had mentally snapped, became delusional, renamed himself to Yellowjacket, and had Wasp conned him into marrying her, Hank Pym never struck her in anger, deliberately.  And he never begged her to stay with him.  She was the one who pursued him.

But everyone assumes that because THEY BELIEVE, it's canon.

Since the Marvel Cinematic Universe has already branched out to television, I was wondering what people thought of the Daredevil series that's coming out at some point. They apparently are going to be just going straight in with 13 episodes without even waiting to see what people think of the pilot episode, to 'encourage binge watching'. I mean, I'm all about binge watching, but is that really a good idea? Is this presumption unwarranted.
The issue I have with the Daredevil series is that the main actor is Charlie Cox, a man whose done Romantic Comedy movies.  I'm hoping he had some body building exercising.  But it's an iffy for me, as DD is one of my favourite Marvel characters.  As for binge watching, I'm...  I actually rather like doing it.  I HATE waiting for the next episode.  But again, I have ADHD tendencies so binging is rather common for me.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 04:56:04 PM by Chris Brady »

Offline Top Cat

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #79 on: August 23, 2014, 02:53:06 PM »
Daredevil's one of those heroes that seems to be a love-him-or-hate-him situation, and as such, any movie, TV show, or whatever that they make with him as the protagonist is going to be hit-or-miss... they either need to have a fantastic writer/group or writers and a very good director, or it's just not going to be very good. See the Daredevil movie. ::) I don't think that they did a good job of giving the viewers a good feel of who Matt Murdock was, or why he became a part-time vigilante.

And, sadly, he's not a very deep, complex character*, although he's had plenty of interesting stories and character development over the years. While I think he'd make a great choice for a hero team, ironically his personality is far enough on the "loner" scale that he wouldn't be willing to join a group. I can't think of any team-ups that Darerdevil has been a part of that wasn't more than a couple of issues... I can't recall him ever joining the Avengers or Defenders...

That's not to say that Daredevil is in any way a bad hero (he's not, and at least two of my friends consider him one of their favorites), but he's not an easy hero to translate from one media to another.

* Rather, I should say, "not always presented as a complex character." He's certainly had his moments that were every bit as good as Spider-Man's ongoing life-of-comedy-and-tragedy.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #80 on: August 23, 2014, 05:05:33 PM »
Daredevil is a complex character, that's the real issue.  Like Batman, there's a lot of depth that's been built up over the years.  But unlike Batman, he's never been that popular for the writers to fully focus on.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #81 on: August 25, 2014, 02:36:36 PM »
Daredevil's one of those heroes that seems to be a love-him-or-hate-him situation, and as such, any movie, TV show, or whatever that they make with him as the protagonist is going to be hit-or-miss... they either need to have a fantastic writer/group or writers and a very good director, or it's just not going to be very good. See the Daredevil movie. ::) I don't think that they did a good job of giving the viewers a good feel of who Matt Murdock was, or why he became a part-time vigilante.

And, sadly, he's not a very deep, complex character*, although he's had plenty of interesting stories and character development over the years. While I think he'd make a great choice for a hero team, ironically his personality is far enough on the "loner" scale that he wouldn't be willing to join a group. I can't think of any team-ups that Darerdevil has been a part of that wasn't more than a couple of issues... I can't recall him ever joining the Avengers or Defenders...

That's not to say that Daredevil is in any way a bad hero (he's not, and at least two of my friends consider him one of their favorites), but he's not an easy hero to translate from one media to another.

* Rather, I should say, "not always presented as a complex character." He's certainly had his moments that were every bit as good as Spider-Man's ongoing life-of-comedy-and-tragedy.

I liked the Daredevil movie (hated Elektra's movie, though) so that's always been plenty for me. I never thought doing anything more with him, unless it included Stick and Elektra as part of it, would be a good idea but here he is getting a whole multi-episode series. Hopefully it being given a place within the wider MCU will help it, cameos always help even if it is pandering at its core. And I remember him being the ringleader of a team in the Ultimate Comics Spiderman stories, though it did only last a short while.

I'd like to see him being played in a darker way, sort of the MCU's version of Batman, except I want him to be the kind of hero who won't be squeamish about killing his enemies like in the movie at the beginning with that dude in the subway tunnel. None of the other MCU top-line heroes so far are quite that sinister or vindictive so Daredevil is their opportunity to do something like that without resorting to using the Punisher. Not that I would object to an episode where the two of those bad boys team up!

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #82 on: August 26, 2014, 12:53:00 AM »
I too liked the DD movie.  And DD is complex, in a way that you can't focus into a 2 hour movie.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #83 on: August 26, 2014, 02:43:28 PM »
I too liked the DD movie.  And DD is complex, in a way that you can't focus into a 2 hour movie.

I thought it was plenty, but if they want to add more complexity to the series, I'm all for it. I just hated how Spiderman was such a crybaby sad sack in the movies while Daredevil was the real one who deserved to be the tragic hero of Marvel.

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #84 on: August 26, 2014, 06:55:42 PM »
I thought it was plenty, but if they want to add more complexity to the series, I'm all for it. I just hated how Spiderman was such a crybaby sad sack in the movies while Daredevil was the real one who deserved to be the tragic hero of Marvel.

You might want to check out the new  Amazing Spider-Man movies. Andrew Garfield plays a much better Spider-Man than Toby, and while his Peter Parker isn't half as overtly nerdy and awkward, he's also not nearly as much of a cry baby.

Offline Top Cat

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #85 on: August 26, 2014, 08:47:05 PM »
You might want to check out the new  Amazing Spider-Man movies. Andrew Garfield plays a much better Spider-Man than Toby, and while his Peter Parker isn't half as overtly nerdy and awkward, he's also not nearly as much of a cry baby.
I'll second that. Both Stella and I much prefer Andrew Garfield to Toby McQuire for both Spider-Man and Peter Parker roles.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #86 on: August 27, 2014, 08:31:44 AM »
I agree, this Spider-Man is much better than the previous.  There is definitely a touch of the comedic there mixed with a very dark sense of the world.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #87 on: August 27, 2014, 02:22:54 PM »
I felt that Andrew Garfield's performance was in fact much weaker than Maguire's. In fact I don't think Garfield is any sort of capable actor and this shortcoming heavily damaged the film. Even if they had written Peter Parker's character to be more in line with the comics I don't think he could have pulled it off. He's got this weird thing where he comes across as so insincere on screen, it really reminds me of Owen Wilson whom I hate for that very same reason. So no, the Amazing Spiderman is not a remedy for the lackluster original trilogy.

Offline Vorian

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #88 on: August 27, 2014, 07:21:20 PM »
I felt that Andrew Garfield's performance was in fact much weaker than Maguire's. In fact I don't think Garfield is any sort of capable actor and this shortcoming heavily damaged the film. Even if they had written Peter Parker's character to be more in line with the comics I don't think he could have pulled it off. He's got this weird thing where he comes across as so insincere on screen, it really reminds me of Owen Wilson whom I hate for that very same reason. So no, the Amazing Spiderman is not a remedy for the lackluster original trilogy.

+1

Amazing Spiderman felt more like they were trying to be Batman Begins and failing at it than a Spiderman movie.

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #89 on: August 27, 2014, 11:26:25 PM »
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I just found this article on IGN that Ben Kingsley *MIGHT* come back to play the real Mandarin.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/27/sir-ben-kingsley-trevor-slattery-could-be-the-mandarin-after-all

My two cents? I would absolutely love to see the real Mandarin brought to life, and now that my ignorance of Kingsley's heritage has been fixed, I'd be more than open to him returning. They would just need to offer a REALLY good in-story explanation for it.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #90 on: August 28, 2014, 02:22:21 PM »
I'm afraid it's too late. I've been burned more badly than a victim of an Extremis soldier attack by Iron Man 3. Even if Kingsley did return to play a dead ringer for Trevor Slattery, I'm no longer interested. I'm still trying to remove Shane Black's middle finger from my anus.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #91 on: August 28, 2014, 02:28:17 PM »
Eh, one more opening night seat for the rest of us.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #92 on: August 28, 2014, 02:45:38 PM »
I never go opening night. I actually went to IM3 on the Sunday after it started and the theater was pleasantly empty for the first showing. I did the same thing when Captain America: The Winter Soldier came out, and had to resist the urge to strangle a 6-year-old and his dipshit mother (who had no business bringing a kid that young to a PG-13 movie in the first place) because they wouldn't shut the fuck up, and the theater was packed so there was nowhere better to move to. I'll always wait 2 weeks from now on to attend big blockbusters.

I don't even know what they could possibly be planning for Iron Man 4 that would be any good. You'd have a huge pissed off audience from the last film so even if they did bring back the Mandarin for real, a lot of the appeal would be lost. They didn't introduce Ezekiel Stane which could have been a good way to bring in Technovore or something. It'd probably be best if they just stopped making sequel once they hit 3 and just have Iron Man be part of the Guardians of the Galaxy later on like in the comics.

Offline Neysha

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #93 on: August 28, 2014, 02:53:22 PM »
They got RDJ to sign to a fourth Ironman? I am happy and will likely watch it regardless in theaters since Marvel Studios worse MCU movies are still pretty good. . :)

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #94 on: August 28, 2014, 02:59:16 PM »
They got RDJ to sign to a fourth Ironman? I am happy and will likely watch it regardless in theaters since Marvel Studios worse MCU movies are still pretty good. . :)

Not as of 1 day ago, at least.

http://airherald.com/iron-man-4-robert-downey-jr-and-gwyneth-paltrow-consider-leaving-fans-pick-their-options/7468/

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #95 on: August 28, 2014, 03:41:12 PM »
They got RDJ to sign to a fourth Ironman? I am happy and will likely watch it regardless in theaters since Marvel Studios worse MCU movies are still pretty good. . :)

I liked all the MCU movies, with that one exception; I really don't think of them in terms of 'worst' or best either since so far, every Phase 2 film has greatly exceeded my expectations in terms of engaging and entertaining me. I thought Iron Man 2 which has a pretty negative reputation as well is still leaps and bounds better than 3.

DC has regretfully done nothing to entice me to see any of their stuff in 3D (did it for Green Lantern, regretted it; not convinced it'll be worth it for anything else from DC) and I think Nolan failing to do that probably hasn't helped people warm up to doing 3D for DC comics movies the way it seems to be working for Marvel. Man of Steel, which I only saw on the small screen, still didn't strike me as something I would have liked any better in 3D, either.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 03:42:26 PM by Mathim »

Offline Slywyn

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #96 on: August 29, 2014, 01:02:02 AM »
It's probably already been pointed out:

Trevor Slattery was not playing the actual Mandarin, nor was he portrayed as such. He was an actor using an image and name for a purpose. This is even covered in one of the Marvel shorts.

Slattery is broken out of prison by the actual Mandarin's men because the Mandarin is not very happy that someone would use his name. So the real Mandarin has yet to make an appearance, but might do so.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #97 on: August 29, 2014, 02:24:48 PM »
It's probably already been pointed out:

Trevor Slattery was not playing the actual Mandarin, nor was he portrayed as such. He was an actor using an image and name for a purpose. This is even covered in one of the Marvel shorts.

Slattery is broken out of prison by the actual Mandarin's men because the Mandarin is not very happy that someone would use his name. So the real Mandarin has yet to make an appearance, but might do so.

Yup. We know. The chief complaint is that the trailer prepped us for something that never happened. If Kingsley is going to play the 'real' Mandarin on the second outing, I'm saying that's not a good enough apology for the first slight.

Offline Slywyn

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #98 on: August 29, 2014, 03:15:18 PM »
Yup. We know. The chief complaint is that the trailer prepped us for something that never happened. If Kingsley is going to play the 'real' Mandarin on the second outing, I'm saying that's not a good enough apology for the first slight.

What slight though? You should have known as soon as you saw him that it wasn't the real Mandarin. And now the actual Mandarin is going to take back his name.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #99 on: August 29, 2014, 03:21:04 PM »
What slight though? You should have known as soon as you saw him that it wasn't the real Mandarin. And now the actual Mandarin is going to take back his name.

You mean from the trailers way before the actual movie came out, when we first saw him? How the hell were we supposed to know that far ahead that he was just a figurehead? He's still even on the posters and DVD cover. The fact that they faked us out just to play about the weakest joke and put a completely inferior villain in his place was, in essence, the slight. Them asking for a 'second chance' to cover up this embarrassing mistake they ought to have known better to make in the first place is just asking too much. I know I'm beating a dead horse by now, so...yeah.