Freedom Reborn

There we are, Marvel Cinematic discussion thread. Go nuts.

Just give me a sec.  I need to begin my arcane rituals to summon Spade so he can say something that will make everyone else so mad that it sparks an entire argument about something completely different.  Okay, he should be coming along any moment now.

Well I can summon his words in any case.

Quote from: Spade on May 26, 2014, 02:54:20 PM
Edward Norton was the better Bruce Banner.They should have payed him,no matter the cost.

The issue wasn't pay.  The issue was that he insists on having his own way with the script, the directing, everything.  With the Hulk, for example, he re-wrote most of the script himself.  This was probably a good thing in this case.  With the Avengers, however, that would not have worked.  It was a team movie and one single actor from one part of the franchise could not be allowed to dominate everything and have his own way, not if they wanted to steer the entire franchise in a single direction.  For that, they needed a clear leader, and Whedon was they choice.  He was the right choice, as the Avengers proves.  One of the two had to go and they were right to dismiss Norton.

Yeah... I said at the time, as much as I miss his influence, Norton and Downey being together in the same film would have been a nightmare. their egos are bad enough alone, but competing with one another? it would have been a disaster. Mark Ruffalo did a very good job, much better than I expected, and I loved his little bromance with Downey.

Agreed, Ruffalo was fantastic.  I actually liked him better than Norton, although that's mostly a matter of preference.

I think both brough different things to the role, but I'm a huge fan of what both actors brought to the table. Norton was much more the geeky nerd, but there was also an edge to his performance where you still believed this was a dude who had been on the run for a long time (that scene where he's like "I only need this... but could I also get that... and maybe this as well" to betty is the sort of thing I've encountered with homeless people and those who have had to beg for help.) Ruffalo is very much the opposite... he's not really the geeky nerd, but you get the impression that there's a real genius that's being hidden behind the unassuming fascade he puts up. The way he responds to Tony and Cap's discussion... it's clear he's smart enough to know that Tony's right, but he also is going out of his way to stay out of this situation as much as he can.

Quote from: Tomato on May 27, 2014, 01:33:48 AM
I think both brough different things to the role, but I'm a huge fan of what both actors brought to the table. Norton was much more the geeky nerd, but there was also an edge to his performance where you still believed this was a dude who had been on the run for a long time (that scene where he's like "I only need this... but could I also get that... and maybe this as well" to betty is the sort of thing I've encountered with homeless people and those who have had to beg for help.) Ruffalo is very much the opposite... he's not really the geeky nerd, but you get the impression that there's a real genius that's being hidden behind the unassuming fascade he puts up. The way he responds to Tony and Cap's discussion... it's clear he's smart enough to know that Tony's right, but he also is going out of his way to stay out of this situation as much as he can.

He also had a simmering rage that I never felt Norton had.  I could believe Ruffalo having rage issues.  Norton, not as much.

Now I'll try to quote Spade from the other thread, to leave that one in peace:

Quote from: Spade on May 26, 2014, 05:29:27 PM
-Because that happens in the last 10 min of movie and armors get smashed like there paper.Seriously why did he bother.
-Hurting some fans is still preferable to hurting all,right?Fan backslash was so enourmous that they quickly tried to patch it up with All hail the king.
-Your just making some straw arguments.Mandarin is insulting to you,but Whiplash isnt because your not Russian.So?Im not Chineese either.
I see i will have to provide visual aid so you will understand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3r4FklA4gI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3r4FklA4gI)
WHEN A TERRORIST MASTERMIND KIDNAPS THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA THERE IS ONLY ONE MARVEL FRANCHISE DISNEY CAN AFFORD TO CALL
PREPARE FOR AN IRON MAN MOVIE WITH HARDLY ANY IRONMAN IN IT.ALSO NO AC/DC.

-Because there were dozens of Extremis soldiers, and the movie had already established that one of them is a challenge to Tony in his armour.  Then, using the tons of armours, he kicks their collective butt.  That's why he bothered.
- You accuse people of not reading what you post, only to do the same things to others.  Here's what I said earlier, condensed: the Mandarin is a racist caricature.  He's not racist just because he's Chinese and also evil.  I thought you got it when you posted that hilariously racist image, and admitted he could use changing for the present day.  The Iron Man 2 villain (who I assume you mean when you say Whiplash, because the comics Whiplash wasn't even Russian) was evil, but wasn't racist/stereotypical of Russians.  You asked if the character was offensive to Russians, which I can't answer.  But is he a racist stereotype of Russians?  No.  The Mandarin is, but of China. 

The Crimson Dynamo, who the Iron Man 2 villain is equally based on to Whiplash, is more stereotypical of Russia, or the Soviet Union really.  But even then, most versions of the Crimson Dynamo were more critical of the USSR's government, rather than its people, and none of that is present in the film version.

Honest Trailers bash every movie they do - it's a humour website.  And who the &$#@ cares if there's any AC/DC in the film?  What does AC/DC actually have to do with Iron Man? 

An actual complaint, that there's hardly any Iron Man in Iron Man 3 I just don't understand.  There are 6 action set pieces in Iron Man 3, he uses no armour at all in 2 of them - when he gets attacked in the town in Tennessee by Extremis soldiers, and when he infiltrates the Mandarin compound with makeshift weapons.  When he escapes from the Mandarin compound he's using parts of his armour, and the other 3 action set pieces use suits of armour. 

Let's compare that to Iron Man 1: it has 4 action set pieces, 3 of which take place in armour.  Iron Man 2 has 3 action set pieces, all in armour - though one doesn't start that way.  By percentages, okay, the 3rd movie is lower.  But in total Iron Man action, it has just as much as the two previous films, plus scenes of Tony using ingenuity and homemade weapons to take down bad guys.  How is that a bad thing?  Right, it's not - butt hurt fanboys just make terrible critics.

Quote from: Talavar on May 27, 2014, 03:11:13 AM

Quote from: Tomato on May 27, 2014, 01:33:48 AM
I think both brough different things to the role, but I'm a huge fan of what both actors brought to the table. Norton was much more the geeky nerd, but there was also an edge to his performance where you still believed this was a dude who had been on the run for a long time (that scene where he's like "I only need this... but could I also get that... and maybe this as well" to betty is the sort of thing I've encountered with homeless people and those who have had to beg for help.) Ruffalo is very much the opposite... he's not really the geeky nerd, but you get the impression that there's a real genius that's being hidden behind the unassuming fascade he puts up. The way he responds to Tony and Cap's discussion... it's clear he's smart enough to know that Tony's right, but he also is going out of his way to stay out of this situation as much as he can.

He also had a simmering rage that I never felt Norton had.  I could believe Ruffalo having rage issues.  Norton, not as much.

I'd agree with that as well. Honestly, I feel like if I HAD to choose a favorite Bruce Banner, Ruffalo just barely edges out Norton. Basically, I feel Norton is much more reminiscent of the Bruce Banner of the original comics (a brilliant man who would transform into a monster), whereas Ruffalo is more the type of person the Hulk would actually be. They both have very great takes on the character, I just feel like Ruffalo's performance is a touch more layered.

Being a huge fan of the Incredible Hulk (movie) I was very displeased with Edward Norton's ego getting in the way of him doing the Avengers. I did not like that they moved on without him, and I was not overly excited when it was announced that Mark Ruffalo would be playing Banner.

All that changed when I saw the Avengers. I can not picture Norton in that movie, at all. And Ruffalo was great. I think he accomplished everything he needed to in the film to make me forget about Norton; he came off as awkward, I believed he had rage issues, he pulled off the funny lines that were supposed to be serious, his scenes opposite Tony/RDJr were awesome, and his CGI made for a very classic looking Hulk.

As much as I liked Norton in IH, I don't miss him.

Changing Topic....

I am one of those rare fans who enjoyed Ironman 3. I realize this is probably because the extent of my knowledge of Ironman before the Marvel Cinematic Universe (I so want to abbreviate that to MCU.... but I can't....) was cameos in other comics because... I never liked Ironman before the movies, and I still don't read the comics....

The issues that I had with Ironman 3 have nothing to do with the storyline, the use of villains (sorry guys, I loved the Mandarin reveal), or even lack of Ironman. It was the story telling that bothered me. As a stand alone movie it is great, but when packaged with the previous two I feel like I3 is just too big of a departure in storytelling from the first two. The change was very distracting to me. I really wish John Favreau had stayed on board at least to complete the trilogy. But he says he was done, and I respect that he didn't do it half heartedly (and his Happy Hogan was great!).

I also loved both Thors.... so there!

@Talavar: Whiplash(IM2 one) was just an analogy,so no need to be hung up on that.And like I said Mandarin is one of those charachters that need rework.But it could have been done,right?Or left of the movie?Because it really serves no purpouse,here.I mean thats not ignoring the comics,thats wiping your *** with it.

@Topic: Since Im accused of hating MCU,let me count the things I liked in the movies:
-Edward Nortons Hulk
-Tim Roth as Abomination
-Antony Hopkins as Odin
-Loki
-Nick Fury
-Malekith passes as a decent villan
-Hugo Weaving as Red Skull
-Action in The Avengers
-Ultron,God I hope they dont mess it up
-Guardians of the Galaxy.Casting choices and all.
-Possibility of Ghost Rider and Punisher entering the fray

I never had any issue with the Mandarin thing either... in a way, I'm actually glad that it happened the way it did. The director said, from the very start that Mandarin wasn't going to be in it. He said he had no intention of using him. And then people complained non-stop, because ZOMG you HAVE to use Mandarin, he's totally like, Iron Man's version of the Joker.

Umm... No. I've NEVER associated Mandarin with Iron Man that way in the comics. The only place where I really ever saw that (and admittedly, I didn't read too many Iron Man books) was in the 90s cartoon. In the comics? The most notable stories involved other corporations stealing his designs, him being in fights against other armored enemies, or That one time he went against Doctor Doom. Heck, in my mind, Doctor Doom is a FAR better "archenemy" than Mandarin... he's as intelligent as Tony, his armor designs are easily in the same league, AND he has ties to the mystical forces that everyone credits Mandarin with.

So... yeah, when the Mandarin debacle happened, I found it hilarious. Because, again, the director said FROM THE VERY START that he didn't have any intention of using Mandarin, and HE DIDN'T. They left a hundred different ways for "the Mandarin" thing to change (there's the canon explanation that the Mandarin was being impersonated by AIM, but they could have also had it that he was really Mandarin all along, but playing dumb to get into AIM) but everyone was in ZOMG OUTRAGE mode so they were too busy complaining to notice. Hell, my dad came out of the theater pointing out two or three different things they purposely left hanging with regards to the Mandarin stuff.

Doom is THE Enemy of Fantastic Four so its hard to imagine him in MCU,let alone going up against Iron Man.

There was some armor action in IM3 but it was sucky armor action. The one halfway decent scene with the falling folks out of the plane, he wasn't even in the suit and then it got busted up by a truck. The armor was all such junk one wonders why they even bother. There are no armor scenes I liked other than the above mentioned one.

War machine got disabled by a superheated handshake and got no decent action of his own

The last fight scene  ( which my son loved) where he is going through suits like  MacDonald's goes through roast beef I couldn't stand. Everyone in my crowd agrees you should turn off the movie once he blows the suit with killian in it.

The best thing I can say for IM3 is it replaced TDK as the movie I hate most that many  people like. Its the only Marvel produced movie so far I will not get for home viewing. It made me appreciate IM2 a lot more also

I ma now terrified what Shane Black is going to do to my beloved Doc Savage. :(


I 've loved pretty much everything else from Marvel though.  Avengers is my favorite superhero movie period  ( followed by MOS then Winter Soldier)

Somebody is objective for a change.Killian,an ex nerd who wants revenge on Tony because he missed an appointment once,gets defeted by Gwyneth Paltrow in yoga pants.Talk about anti-climatic.

Quote from: Spade on May 27, 2014, 08:36:28 AM
Doom is THE Enemy of Fantastic Four so its hard to imagine him in MCU,let alone going up against Iron Man.

I have to disagree with that.  Sure Doom and Reed still have some issues from their time in Uni, but Doom has not been exclusive to the FF. 

As relating to this thread I am very happy with most recent Marvel films....maybe all, except X-Men 3.  I'm a Hulk fan and like Xstream i didn't mind at all that Edward Norton was switched out for the Avengers movie.  In fact I was more upset that the franchise was rebooted after the first Hulk film.  I don't see Marvel making anymore Hulk movies in the future as the character may be too hard translate to his own pics.  Everything that works for Godzilla doesn't seem to translate well for Jade Jaws.  I would like to see cameos of Ruffalo in other Marvel movies for as long as he is Hulk. 

Doom and Tony have fought each other on several occasions, both in Tony's capacity as an Avenger, and during his solo adventures. Doom in the comics is a big time player... yes, he's had a plethora of run ins with the fantastic four, but he's also got his hands in practically every worldwide villain scheme in one capacity or another.

Quote from: Spade on May 27, 2014, 03:04:56 PM
Somebody is objective for a change.Killian,an ex nerd who wants revenge on Tony because he missed an appointment once,gets defeted by Gwyneth Paltrow in yoga pants.Talk about anti-climatic.

This is called story-telling.  A villain is much more interesting if they have personal ties to the hero, and a reason to oppose them specifically.  Killian is a villain because he wants to manufacture super soldiers for sale to the US government, super soldiers that occasionally blow up.  He cleverly uses these accidental explosions as a fake terror threat, creating more demand for the very thing he's selling.  But he also wants everything Tony Stark has.  Wealth, power, looks - the whole Tony Stark lifestyle. 

The fact that Pepper, who Killian reduced to a status symbol for himself, is the one who finally beats him is hardly a weak point of the movie.  Tony had already defeated his plan - the president is saved, his army of super soldiers destroyed, his villainy revealed - but it's Pepper who defeats him personally.

Quote from: steamteck on May 27, 2014, 02:39:23 PM
There was some armor action in IM3 but it was sucky armor action. The one halfway decent scene with the falling folks out of the plane, he wasn't even in the suit and then it got busted up by a truck. The armor was all such junk one wonders why they even bother. There are no armor scenes I liked other than the above mentioned one.

War machine got disabled by a superheated handshake and got no decent action of his own

The last fight scene  ( which my son loved) where he is going through suits like  MacDonald's goes through roast beef I couldn't stand. Everyone in my crowd agrees you should turn off the movie once he blows the suit with killian in it.

The best thing I can say for IM3 is it replaced TDK as the movie I hate most that many  people like. Its the only Marvel produced movie so far I will not get for home viewing. It made me appreciate IM2 a lot more also

I ma now terrified what Shane Black is going to do to my beloved Doc Savage. :(


I 've loved pretty much everything else from Marvel though.  Avengers is my favorite superhero movie period  ( followed by MOS then Winter Soldier)

I personally think Tony saving the people falling from the plane is a great action scene.  It's something we've seen very little of in all the recent superhero movies - that superheros don't just fight bad guys, they save innocent people.  Maybe if Man of Steel had shown Superman actually saving more people during its climactic scene, it wouldn't have received so many complaints.  I don't see how Tony  piloting the suit by remote diminishes that scene in the slightest.

War Machine/Iron Patriot gets taken out by a superheated handshake - and the fact that his suit's system was compromised by AIM during its upgrade/makeover to allow that to happen in the first place.  Rhodey does get some nice action scenes at the end - he saves the president himself after all - but you're right that it's not in armour.

I agree that Tony's suits get taken out too easily at the end, and that Killian probably shouldn't have walked off the exploding armour (a great and clever use of the modular armour bit used throughout the film).  But I can also get behind the reason they did it: giving Pepper some agency of her own.  After all, what Killian's done to her is worse than what he's done to Tony (kidnapped, painfully experimented on, reduced to bargaining chip/status symbol vs. Tony having his house blown up). 

However, given your thoughts on the relative merits of the Dark Knight and Man of Steel, I doubt we're going to have the same opinions here.

I also do not understand why Tony's remote control over the suit causes so many complaints. It is set up from the very beginning of the movie, and I would totally expect Tony to create such a feature. Imagine the end of the New York battle if he had the option, don't you think Tony would have piloted the nuke from a safe distance?

It would have been much different if this had happened in the first movie. But by the fourth (obviously including Avengers) movie something different is welcomed in my book. I liked Tony taking on the villains without his armor.

In fact, I thought it was am excellent story device. Tony has been busy pushing the envelope with his experimental armor, and this new armor was still being developed when Happy was injured and Tony's home was destroyed. So it was the suit he was working with at the time... Although in the last sequence he calls multiple suits to his location to take out the bad guys... Wasn't there am explaination for this plot hole...?

I think the difference was that the mark 42 was designed to respond directly to Tony's thoughts, whereas the other armors were more or less using pre-programed AI.

Quote from: XStream on May 28, 2014, 02:39:48 AM
I also do not understand why Tony's remote control over the suit causes so many complaints. It is set up from the very beginning of the movie, and I would totally expect Tony to create such a feature. Imagine the end of the New York battle if he had the option, don't you think Tony would have piloted the nuke from a safe distance?

It would have been much different if this had happened in the first movie. But by the fourth (obviously including Avengers) movie something different is welcomed in my book. I liked Tony taking on the villains without his armor.

In fact, I thought it was am excellent story device. Tony has been busy pushing the envelope with his experimental armor, and this new armor was still being developed when Happy was injured and Tony's home was destroyed. So it was the suit he was working with at the time... Although in the last sequence he calls multiple suits to his location to take out the bad guys... Wasn't there am explaination for this plot hole...?

Jarvis mentions that the workmen have cleared the debris away, or something to that effect.  The vault that opens up with all the armours was buried up until that point.  He couldn't have called them sooner.  I've seen this often cited as a plot hole in Iron Man 3, but the explanation is right in the film.

Why are you treating Iron Man 3 like some holy grail?Movie was mediocre at best.

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 05:39:13 AM
Why are you treating Iron Man 3 like some holy grail?Movie was mediocre at best.

Differing opinions, I guess :P

I thought it was ok, but I'm not that much of a fan of the Iron Man films.  I'd say in order of how much I liked the movies, it would go:

Iron Man -> Iron Man 3 -------> Iron Man 2

Quote from: spydermann93 on May 28, 2014, 05:42:39 AM

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 05:39:13 AM
Why are you treating Iron Man 3 like some holy grail?Movie was mediocre at best.

Differing opinions, I guess :P

I thought it was ok, but I'm not that much of a fan of the Iron Man films.  I'd say in order of how much I liked the movies, it would go:

Iron Man -> Iron Man 3 -------> Iron Man 2

My problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 05:48:12 AMMy problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

Spoiler

I really didn't mind the inclusion of the Destroyer armor, but I really don't think that Thor should have beaten it so easily.

Maybe the Movie-verse Destroyer Armor isn't on the level of the comic Destroyer Armor, but he "destroyed" it way too easily.  Same thing with Kurse in Thor 2.

EDIT: Also, to be fair, the Destroyer Armor is not a villain, per say. The armor was created by all of the Skyfathers in Marvel's 616 universe (the mainstream universe) to defend Earth against the Celestials (Space Gods, basically).  The issue with it is that others (such as Loki) have taken over the armor by putting their spirit inside of it.  It's more of a tool for destruction than it is a villain since it has no motive.

I guess the movie Destroyer is different in that it just defends Asgard and follows the ruler's orders ever-so obediently :P

Quote from: spydermann93 on May 28, 2014, 05:55:00 AM

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 05:48:12 AMMy problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

Spoiler

I really didn't mind the inclusion of the Destroyer armor, but I really don't think that Thor should have beaten it so easily.

Maybe the Movie-verse Destroyer Armor isn't on the level of the comic Destroyer Armor, but he "destroyed" it way too easily.  Same thing with Kurse in Thor 2.

EDIT: Also, to be fair, the Destroyer Armor is not a villain, per say. The armor was created by all of the Skyfathers in Marvel's 616 universe (the mainstream universe) to defend Earth against the Celestials (Space Gods, basically).  The issue with it is that others (such as Loki) have taken over the armor by putting their spirit inside of it.  It's more of a tool for destruction than it is a villain since it has no motive.

I guess the movie Destroyer is different in that it just defends Asgard and follows the ruler's orders ever-so obediently :P

What Im saying its an animated suit of armor,not a very compeling charachter.They should have included Wrecking Crew in Thor movies  :thumbup:

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 06:22:04 AM

Quote from: spydermann93 on May 28, 2014, 05:55:00 AM

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 05:48:12 AMMy problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

Spoiler

I really didn't mind the inclusion of the Destroyer armor, but I really don't think that Thor should have beaten it so easily.

Maybe the Movie-verse Destroyer Armor isn't on the level of the comic Destroyer Armor, but he "destroyed" it way too easily.  Same thing with Kurse in Thor 2.

EDIT: Also, to be fair, the Destroyer Armor is not a villain, per say. The armor was created by all of the Skyfathers in Marvel's 616 universe (the mainstream universe) to defend Earth against the Celestials (Space Gods, basically).  The issue with it is that others (such as Loki) have taken over the armor by putting their spirit inside of it.  It's more of a tool for destruction than it is a villain since it has no motive.

I guess the movie Destroyer is different in that it just defends Asgard and follows the ruler's orders ever-so obediently :P

What Im saying its an animated suit of armor,not a very compeling charachter.They should have included Wrecking Crew in Thor movies  :thumbup:

That would've been really fun to see ^_^

Quote from: spydermann93 on May 28, 2014, 06:28:14 AM

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 06:22:04 AM

Quote from: spydermann93 on May 28, 2014, 05:55:00 AM

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 05:48:12 AMMy problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

Spoiler

I really didn't mind the inclusion of the Destroyer armor, but I really don't think that Thor should have beaten it so easily.

Maybe the Movie-verse Destroyer Armor isn't on the level of the comic Destroyer Armor, but he "destroyed" it way too easily.  Same thing with Kurse in Thor 2.

EDIT: Also, to be fair, the Destroyer Armor is not a villain, per say. The armor was created by all of the Skyfathers in Marvel's 616 universe (the mainstream universe) to defend Earth against the Celestials (Space Gods, basically).  The issue with it is that others (such as Loki) have taken over the armor by putting their spirit inside of it.  It's more of a tool for destruction than it is a villain since it has no motive.

I guess the movie Destroyer is different in that it just defends Asgard and follows the ruler's orders ever-so obediently :P

What Im saying its an animated suit of armor,not a very compeling charachter.They should have included Wrecking Crew in Thor movies  :thumbup:

That would've been really fun to see ^_^

Thors charachter arc is basicly over,but there are more movies to come.I mean they got Batroc,for freak sake.Not to mention that Whiplash got a whole movie,so IMO Wrecking Crew is a possibility.

Thor has a squillion years of material that could be adapted for a third film. Donald Blake, king of Asgard, etc.

The Wrecking Crew, whose leader is a guy wearing a purple sock on his head and uses a magic crowbar, would be really difficult to bring to the screen without looking really silly. Alternately, if they played the characters "straight" (like they downplayed Batroc), they'd be pretty boring.

In regards to Thor, I've never been the biggest fan, I missed the second movie, and not really knowing the mythos, I really can't say what I would like to see in a third.

In regards to Iron Man, I went in to each movie placing it as its own title, not as part of a whole, and in all honesty, I really wasn't disappointed. That's not saying that improvements could have been made here or there, but what I saw, I enjoyed. If a fourth was to be made, personally, I would absolutely love to see something based more heavily on the "Armor Wars" storyline.

In regards to Captain America, I haven't gotten to see "The Winter Soldier" yet, I really want to, but it just hasn't been in the cards. Now if a third Cap movie is made, I would seriously love to see how the Serpent Society would be brought to the big screen, they were major Cap villains when I was younger, and I would be blown away to see them properly utilized in the Cinematic Universe.

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 05:39:13 AM
Why are you treating Iron Man 3 like some holy grail?Movie was mediocre at best.

Well clearly,  I don't think it was mediocre at best.  I think it's one of the better MCU films.  It's definitely not perfect, but a lot of the objections to it on the internet are simply ridiculous.

Overall rankings of the MCU films, I'd definitely put Iron Man 3 near the top.  My list would probably go something like this (best to worst): Avengers, Captain America 2, Iron Man/Iron Man 3, Captain America, Thor 2, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Iron Man 2.

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 05:48:12 AM
My problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

This viewpoint I don't get at all.  I don't think any of the movies are filler to bide time to the next Avengers, but especially not the Iron Man series.  You've got a charismatic lead actor, a great main character, and the launching point for the entire MCU.  I think the first Thor comes closest to being made largely for the sake of the Avengers (needing to expand the scope of the film universe), but none of the sequels are obligatory.  After all, not all of the films got a sequel.

Quote from: Starman on May 28, 2014, 11:37:13 AM
Thor has a squillion years of material that could be adapted for a third film. Donald Blake, king of Asgard, etc.

The Wrecking Crew, whose leader is a guy wearing a purple sock on his head and uses a magic crowbar, would be really difficult to bring to the screen without looking really silly. Alternately, if they played the characters "straight" (like they downplayed Batroc), they'd be pretty boring.

Hero is an Alien considered a god of thunder,doesnt get weirder than that.Wrecking Crew was just an example of charachters I wanted to see.

Quote from: Talavar on May 28, 2014, 02:29:51 PM

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 05:39:13 AM
Why are you treating Iron Man 3 like some holy grail?Movie was mediocre at best.

Well clearly,  I don't think it was mediocre at best.  I think it's one of the better MCU films.  It's definitely not perfect, but a lot of the objections to it on the internet are simply ridiculous.

Overall rankings of the MCU films, I'd definitely put Iron Man 3 near the top.  My list would probably go something like this (best to worst): Avengers, Captain America 2, Iron Man/Iron Man 3, Captain America, Thor 2, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Iron Man 2.

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 05:48:12 AM
My problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

This viewpoint I don't get at all.  I don't think any of the movies are filler to bide time to the next Avengers, but especially not the Iron Man series.  You've got a charismatic lead actor, a great main character, and the launching point for the entire MCU.  I think the first Thor comes closest to being made largely for the sake of the Avengers (needing to expand the scope of the film universe), but none of the sequels are obligatory.  After all, not all of the films got a sequel.

All you said stands but IM2 and 3 could have been a lot better.Like almost all movies here they suffer from generic and uninteresting villans.
Thor 1 IS the one I called obligatory for THE AVENGERS so each hero would have its own movie,well except Black Widow and Hawkeye.Dark World was much better than the first movie.

Dark World was okay, but I actually thought the first one was far better.  I do appreciate both the Dark Elves and the setup for the Infinity Gauntlet though.

Quote from: Spade on May 28, 2014, 03:07:53 PM
Thor 1 IS the one I called obligatory for THE AVENGERS so each hero would have its own movie,well except Black Widow and Hawkeye. Dark World was much better than the first movie.

That's something we're agreed on then.

Ohh Cat, you've got to be kidding me!  Dark World was FANTASTIC!  It was one of the best of the Marvel films!  I enjoyed Thor I, and it was a great adaptation of a character who is very difficult to adapt...but Dark World just brought it to the next level.  :)

So, this thread has exploded while I've been busy, apparently.  I've read most of the previous page, but I'm coming in so late to the game that the conversation has evolved a bit.  Let me offer just a few thoughts on the topics already discussed:

I don't understand all the hatred for Iron Man 2.  It had some flaws, but it is still one of the better Marvel movies, and that is an impressive pile to be at the top of.  The plot holes surrounding Tony's chest piece and his father's secret element were odd (I wonder if the director's commentary explains any of that), but the villain was interesting, and the final showdown was fantastic.  The central story of Tony struggling to come to grips with his mortality and his responsibilities was really excellent.  I'll take Iron Man 2 over Iron Man 3 any day of the week.

Speaking of which, any defense of the stupid switcheroo in IM 3 strikes me as ultimately futile.  It was a weak-sauce attempt to shock the fans, and it didn't add anything particularly worthwhile to the story.  All it did was waste Iron Man's greatest enemy.  Even the non-fans I saw the movie with found the concept extremely lame.  Kilian and his generic thugs were a fairly uninspiring foe for a comic film, and the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.

Tal, I would hardly hold IM 3 up as an example of good storytelling.  It has its moments, but it's too uneven and ham-handed to be particularly powerful or subtle.  Kilian's motivation was really weak, and the confusing grab-bag of powers he and his henchmen had made no narrative sense.  The interplay between Tony and Pepper was the only really strong point in the flim, other than the special effects, obviously.

Let's face it.  People don't go to see an Iron Man movie to NOT see Iron Man.  Just like people don't go to see a Superman movie to NOT see Superman, hence two common complaints about both films.  While I liked seeing Tony be clever and prove he's more than the suit, the whole thing just got tired, and, as someone pointed out, the treatment of his armor, in previous films, amazing pieces of unstoppable technology, just made it seem disposable and weak.

I didn't hate Iron Man 3, but it was certainly the weakest of the IM films.  It was still very entertaining, and it was not at all a bad movie.  It left me frustrated, though, because it should have been a great movie.

We've talked before about the Mandarin, but I see many of the same erroneous points being made about the character in this discussion. 

First, a character is more than its beginnings.  Because an idea has its origins in an unsavory setting, that doesn't stain it forevermore.  Look at Luke Cage, Black Lightning, The Falcon, and dozens more.  They started out, to one degree or another, as pretty racist characters.  Heck, The Falcon was retconned early on into being a pimp and gangster from the ghetto.  Yet, they've all risen above their humble beginnings to turn into worthwhile concepts.  The same is true of the Mandarin.  Yes, originally he was just another Fu-Manchu 'Yellow Menace' type character, but he's evolved into something better and more interesting over the decades since his introduction.  There was always a kernel of something more interesting in his concept, and it eventually grew into a character that deserves his spot as Iron Man's nemesis.  In fact....

Second, yes, the Mandarin IS Iron Man's nemesis, or at least, as close as Iron Man has to one.  In pure numbers, the Mandarin out-appears pretty much every other IM villain, both in Tony's book and in the Marvel U.  In the latter, he's roughly 100 above the nearest contender.  In the Iron Man book itself, he's usually double the other foes in number of appearances.  He's also the character that inevitably makes his way into every incarnation of Iron Man.  Even this movie, in its own backhanded way, owned this fact.  He's part of the Iron Man mythos, and hes' part of the Marvel U.  Outside of Batman, Spider-Man, and the Flash, most characters don't have fantastic rogue's galleries, but at the top of the list for IM is the Mandarin.  To ignore the character would be like adapting Aquaman and ignoring Black Manta.

On the topic of the Hulk and his actors:  I LOVED Norton as Banner.  He was fantastic, and The Incredible Hulk is still one of the best of the Marvel movies.  A lot of that awesomeness is thanks to Norton.  Like a lot of us, I was hugely disappointed when Marvel didn't bring him back for more movies.  To be fair, Marvel said it wasn't about money, Norton said it was about money, so I don't think it's quite as clear-cut a matter as some folks indicated. 

That being said, I agree, Ruffalo did a good job.  Yet, perhaps the best I can honestly say about him is that he didn't hurt the movie.  I still think it would have been better with Norton, but I really can't complain.  The Avengers was just about a perfect film, and Ruffalo did a good job with the part.  It's hard to imagine it being otherwise at this point, and if the worst thing you can say about a film is that it cast an actor who did a really good job rather than one who might have done a great job, you're being too picky. ;)

Eh, my only issue with Norton is and was that I feel like his ego would have hurt Avengers. You could tell in interviews that Downey wasn't thrilled with how his part had been scaled back(and as one of my coworkers says, Avengers was still basically IM 2.5 even with those changes), can you imagine how much worse it would have been if he and Norton had been feeding off each other? Putting aside the fact that I don't think Norton and Downey would have gotten along well enough to make the Stark/Banner bromance work, Avengers had to balance so many different elements that I feel like having Norton in there would have done nothing but throw everything off.

Not going to quote you Benton, because it was a long post.  I think Iron Man 3 is head and shoulders above Iron Man 2 for a few reasons, mainly to do with storytelling.  Killian has more than one motivation - he wants to make boatloads of money, have the power of directly influencing the new president of the US, AND get back at Tony Stark.  Anton Vanko has one motivation - revenge on Tony for what Tony's father supposedly did to his father.  It's weak - not only is it one dimensional, it's not even about Tony personally. 

Iron Man 2 has the palladium poisoning sub-plot, something that showed off some of Tony's self-destructive tendencies, but then gets solved out of left field by Nick Fury and Tony's dad.  The first Captain America film did a bit to soften the blow by developing Howard Stark and giving some insight into unusual energy sources, but it's still a pretty lazy deus ex machina.

In Iron Man 2, the climactic scene involving the massive fight between War Machine, Iron Man and an army of drones is quite entertaining, but it all goes downhill once Vanko himself joins the fight.  The first Iron Man had already done the power armour vs. power armour battle finale battle, and we'd had some more in Iron Man 2 with Stark vs. Rhodey, and both are more entertaining.  Vanko whips them both a bit, then entangles them.  Instead of taking that opportunity to both shoot him in the face now that he can no longer block with his whips, they shoot each other's beams for the explosion effect that is in no way more effective than just shooting him. 

I quite liked the change in Iron Man 3 of not fighting another guy in an armoured suit.  The extremis soldiers were strong, fast, regenerating and fiery, which is admittedly, a bit of a grab bag.  But the fights with them were more interesting than watching Tony fight yet another metal doppelganger.

Overall, I think Iron Man 2 is probably the weakest Marvel film.  The resolution for Tony's personal character arc largely comes out of nowhere, the villain lacks motivation or much of an interesting story arc of his own, and in a lot of the smaller details it felt like what it was - rushed.  The time between Iron Man and Iron Man 2 is the shortest of any of the Marvel films and their sequels, and I think it shows.

Quote from: Tomato on May 29, 2014, 01:03:03 AM
Eh, my only issue with Norton is and was that I feel like his ego would have hurt Avengers. You could tell in interviews that Downey wasn't thrilled with how his part had been scaled back(and as one of my coworkers says, Avengers was still basically IM 2.5 even with those changes), can you imagine how much worse it would have been if he and Norton had been feeding off each other? Putting aside the fact that I don't think Norton and Downey would have gotten along well enough to make the Stark/Banner bromance work, Avengers had to balance so many different elements that I feel like having Norton in there would have done nothing but throw everything off.

Like I said, I can't really complain about the finished product.  I don't know that much about the actors themselves, so I can't comment on egos or interaction.  Still, I can't imagine a better Bruce Banner than Norton. :)

Tal, ehh, I don't think you can really hold Killian up as being more fleshed out than Vanko.  His motivation was pretty weak, and his plan was more than a little murky.  He wants to make money, but that's the only thing that really comes through clearly, that and the fact that he can't take a joke!  At the end of the film, we sat around and tried to figure out what he was actually trying to do.  It took a while to hash it out.  I didn't find him a terribly interesting or compelling character, despite the fact that Guy Pearce chewed up every inch of the scenery every time he was on screen.  Vanko, on the other hand, had fixated on Tony as a symbol of everything that had gone wrong in his own life.  That makes sense.  His father was ruined by Stark, which in turn led to the son's own ruin.  He gets out of prison, and what does he see?  The young prince, living the life that Vanko felt was his.  It should have been developed better, but it was there in the film. 

Neither of them was a terribly compelling villain.  It wasn't like we had Loki to carry the film, after all. 

Yeah, like I said, the deus ex machina of IM 2 is its biggest weakness. 

Ehh, yeah, Vanko's time in the suit was woefully lacking.  He should have had a better showing, but I can forgive it since his role was a matter of degrees.  He had the first fight with Tony on the track, he sicced the drones on him, and then finally met him armor-to-armor.  As for it being the same as the first one, that's true, but that's more of a function of IM's rogue's gallery than anything else, methinks.  Upon watching the scene again just now, it seems like Vanko is trying to burn through their armor with the whips when he holds them.  He doesn't seem to have any guns on his suit, relying on the whips instead.  As for the repulsor thing, if Vanko didn't have his helmet open, that would have made more sense.  None of their weapons were denting his armor, but yeah, if he had his helmet open, they really could have just shot him in the face.  It does seem as if the repulsor explosion is more powerful than just a straight repulsor beam, though.  As I've said before, though, if you have to no-prize an explanation, the film failed in some way, and I certainly won't deny that IM 2 has plenty of flaws.

The Extremis soldiers made for some okay fights, but I'd have liked something more coherent in terms of theme from them.  Plus, the fact that Iron Man effectively slaughters tons of people who may very well have been coerced into fighting for Killian is sorta' glossed over in the asinine fireworks show at the end.  I'd have liked to see some magic vs. technology fights, personally.

That's funny, Tal, pretty much everything you say in your final thought there could be applied to IM3.  Tony's arc is resolved without any rhyme or reason.  He's got panic attacks, and then he doesn't.  The villain has shaky motivations and a murky plan.  ;) 

I thought Killian's plan was pretty clear in IM3, Benton: he's got a method to produce super-humans.  They're strong, fast and regenerate, but they sometimes also go to hot and explode.  The formula is essentially flawed, but he uses those explosions (and the Fake Mandarin) to create a terror plot, driving up demand for the very super-soldiers he's making.  He also intends to get the vice-president (come president after he carries out his plan) in his pocket.  Revenge on Tony is just a sideline, along with some desire to blackmail him into fixing the extremis formula. 

The extremis soldiers all getting killed is something that was touched on - the first soldier that detonated wouldn't go along with AIM's plan.  I think it was suggested he was given a deliberate overdose.  The others seem to have been pretty on board with the plan to kill the US president, so I don't think we can feel too badly about them.

Tony's PTSD in Iron Man 3 doesn't just go away though, or get resolved by a random Nick Fury delivery - he starts freaking out for the last time in the film when he realizes his armour isn't ready, and in discussion with the kid (whose name I forget) he realizes it's not the suit that saves him, it's his ability to create.  He ad libs a bunch of weapons and storms the compound.  The panic attacks are about a loss of control, and Tony manages to retake it even without his armour.  It culminates in him getting surgery to no longer need the arc reactor in his chest.  Where he goes from there remains to be seen, but his final line is about still being Iron Man, but no longer needing the crutch.

Killian wants revenge on Tony because he stood him up ONE time.thats kinda petty.

@T:
How do you think they will work Guardians of Galaxy into this universe?Are they the ones who will bring Thanos down or what?
IMO This would have been WAY cooler if they opted for Galactus instead.

1.  I'm pretty sure Galactus got licensed away with the Fantastic 4.

2.  Galactus has been done to death in adaptations.  I'd rather see the Infinity Guantlet.  Besides, once you beat an almighty space god, there's not that much more you can do with it.  An alien conqueror who wants to control all of the cosmos has much more future potential.

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on May 29, 2014, 07:01:21 AM
1.  I'm pretty sure Galactus got licensed away with the Fantastic 4.

2.  Galactus has been done to death in adaptations.  I'd rather see the Infinity Guantlet.  Besides, once you beat an almighty space god, there's not that much more you can do with it.  An alien conqueror who wants to control all of the cosmos has much more future potential.

Since Marvel apparently sold everything that was worth,we are left with Star Trek rejects.

The Thanos reveal was pretty awesome.  However, I think it would be cramming too much to try to put Infinity Gauntlet into a 90 minute movie and still tell a story.  The entire movie would have to focused on that gauntlet and taking Thanos out.  Would there be time to introduce Adam Warlock?  I hope they come up with a better way to take down Thanos than that actually. 

I would rather see Avengers vs. X-men which was one of my favorite stories when I was a boy.  It's a shame that won't happen for a long long time.

While I didn't hate IM3, it's imo the weakest of the 3 Iron Man films.

Didn't like the main villain or the Mandarin plot twist. Had some cool Tony Stark moments though. As for the Mandarin, I definitely dislike how they handled him. While I agree that some aspects of Mandarin would have to be changed in order for him to work on the big screen, not a fan of how they chose to do it. Iron Man doesn't have a rich rogues gallery, I think his most reccuring foe, at least, deserves a better adaptation.
I did like Norton in Incredible Hulk. Would've been cool to have him on avengers as well, but what can you do. Ruffalo was a good replacement.
Thanos reveal at the end of Avengers was awesome, he's one the first foes that comes to mind when thinking of Avengers' villains.

Iron Man 2 and 3 just had uninspiring villains and too much corny, backslapping humour and pacing problems. The Mandarin twist in IM3 tried way too hard to be clever and hinged on some extremely blunt exposition from Killian. Both films overestimate the popularity of Gwyneth Paltrow. Comic book fans don't necessarily read Goop.

Thor: The Dark World suffered from too many corny moments when compared to the first Thor and had a strangely televisual style at times. Anthony Hopkins was also on autopilot without Kenneth Branagh to impress.

The Incredible Hulk simply wasn't that incredible. Once again, fairly boring villains (nasty government guy, bad version of Hulk).

The Avengers was ok, but once again corny humour and Loki as the chief villain was a misfire for me. He should be a manipulative baddie, not a guy who dukes it out with everyone. Plenty of other Marvel villains could have played the "tough guy", but they just used Loki to bring Thor into the fray. Also, Captain America, Black Widow and Hawkeye really got short-changed ... the character balance felt off.

Captain America has been quite good so far, with two really tonally different films so far, and I'm looking forward to the third film.

I'm also looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy because I'm a fan of James Gunn and I was looking forward to Ant-Man because of Edgar Wright. Without him on board or a director of a similar calibre, I have zero interest in the film.

I think the Netflix series are part of the MCU ... Daredevil with Steven DeKnight of "Spartacus" fame should be great.

Quote from: Spade on May 29, 2014, 08:16:57 AM

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on May 29, 2014, 07:01:21 AM
1.  I'm pretty sure Galactus got licensed away with the Fantastic 4.

2.  Galactus has been done to death in adaptations.  I'd rather see the Infinity Guantlet.  Besides, once you beat an almighty space god, there's not that much more you can do with it.  An alien conqueror who wants to control all of the cosmos has much more future potential.

Since Marvel apparently sold everything that was worth,we are left with Star Trek rejects.

Galactus isn't worth much.  He's in what - one good storyline?  He can't be fought, he can't be reasoned with, his only motivation is his hunger.  Having the Avengers actually fight Avenger villains is a lot more satisfying.

Also, no one like Thanos has ever been on Star Trek.  Super-powers are in pretty short supply there.

Quote from: Talavar on May 29, 2014, 03:03:23 PM

Quote from: Spade on May 29, 2014, 08:16:57 AM

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on May 29, 2014, 07:01:21 AM
1.  I'm pretty sure Galactus got licensed away with the Fantastic 4.

2.  Galactus has been done to death in adaptations.  I'd rather see the Infinity Guantlet.  Besides, once you beat an almighty space god, there's not that much more you can do with it.  An alien conqueror who wants to control all of the cosmos has much more future potential.

Since Marvel apparently sold everything that was worth,we are left with Star Trek rejects.

Galactus isn't worth much.  He's in what - one good storyline?  He can't be fought, he can't be reasoned with, his only motivation is his hunger.  Having the Avengers actually fight Avenger villains is a lot more satisfying.

Also, no one like Thanos has ever been on Star Trek.  Super-powers are in pretty short supply there.

His rubber face alien look would fit right in.

Thanks Tal for clearing that up. I knew there was some reason he was running around without a gold suit, but IM3 is one of the few Marvel movies that I do not own yet. And at this point it has been a while since I have watched it.

I also hated Fury swooping in to solve the problem in IM2. I also hated Rhodey stealing the Mark II suit. I didn't have any problems with Vanko until he pulled a Stane and suited up. In my opinion IM2 is the weakest Marvel movie, still good, but the weakest.

IM3 suffered from a drastic change in storytelling that I feel Cap2 accomplished well. I liked that there was not another villain in a suit. I liked that we didn't have an invincible Ironman. Sure the extremis soldiers were kind of out there but that is the type of villain it takes to dent Ironman.

One thing I loved about Incredible Hulk was watching that first battle on the college campus and thinking, "That is totally what Captain America would look like fighting on film." I did enjoy that movie, and there were no Hulk dogs or abusive fathers masquerading as janitors.

Never read a Thor comic mad thought it would never work on screen, so I didn't see Thor in theaters. When I did finally see it on DVD I was blown away. I might have watched it as much as Avengers.

(http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7301403_f260.jpg)

This article sumes pretty accuratly why Marvels movies suck http://ryandanielsmith.hubpages.com/hub/DC-vs-Marvel-The-Dark-Knight-Rises-vs-The-Avengers (http://ryandanielsmith.hubpages.com/hub/DC-vs-Marvel-The-Dark-Knight-Rises-vs-The-Avengers)

But let me just quote some parts:
The Punisher movies, which have been "re-booted" three times and never get off the ground, the incredibly corny Tobey Macguire Spidermans, and don't forget the horribly cheesy Fantastic four movies, highlighted only by the waning beauty of Jessica Alba, ya know, when she wasn't turning invisible.
And then there's the casting.
But no, its cool we'll just put a bunch of so-so actors into one CGI machine and see what we can churn out, that'll show em! We've got Robert Downey Jr, who can't play anything other than the sarcastic jackass that we all know and love, Mark Ruffalo, who... is Mark Ruffalo, Samuel Jackson, who would probably sign up for Batman (If they were that desperate), and the mildly talented Chris Evans. That's fantastic, the movie relied on special effects and quirky one liners so bad, I'm surprised it wasn't directed by Michael Bay.
Since 1951, DC movies have been nominated for 19 oscars, winning 3.
How many Oscars have Marvel Movies won in 70 years?
Zero. Nada boys and girls. Never even nominated, never even nominated for a special effects award.

Quote from: Spade on May 31, 2014, 04:57:50 PM
[img]Since 1951, DC movies have been nominated for 19 oscars, winning 3.
How many Oscars have Marvel Movies won in 70 years?
Zero. Nada boys and girls. Never even nominated, never even nominated for a special effects award.

While DC movies have won more Oscars than Marvel movies, it still won't change the fact that I enjoy Marvel movies more (especially Marvel Studios).

If I were to rank all of the Superhero movies that I've watched based on how much I enjoyed the movie upon my first viewing (Movies higher on the list are the ones that I enjoyed more), it would be this:

Spoiler

~Amazing Movies~
Avengers
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Spider-Man 2
Thor 2

~Pretty Good~
Captain America
Batman: The Dark Knight
X-Men: First Class
Batman Begins
Spider-Man

~Good~
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Thor
Man of Steel
X-Men
Iron Man

~Meh~
Iron Man 3
Batman: The Dark Knight Rises
Iron Man 2
Batman
Batman Returns
X2
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man 3

~Bad, but not hated~
Hulk (2002)
X-Men 3: The Last Stand
Superman Returns
Ghost Rider

~Don't Watch~
Daredevil
Batman and Robin
Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance

Quote from: spydermann93 on May 31, 2014, 05:36:01 PM

Quote from: Spade on May 31, 2014, 04:57:50 PM
[img]Since 1951, DC movies have been nominated for 19 oscars, winning 3.
How many Oscars have Marvel Movies won in 70 years?
Zero. Nada boys and girls. Never even nominated, never even nominated for a special effects award.

While DC movies have won more Oscars than Marvel movies, it still won't change the fact that I enjoy Marvel movies more (especially Marvel Studios).

If I were to rank all of the Superhero movies that I've watched based on how much I enjoyed the movie upon my first viewing (Movies higher on the list are the ones that I enjoyed more), it would be this:

Spoiler

~Amazing Movies~
Avengers
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Spider-Man 2
Thor 2

~Pretty Good~
Captain America
Batman: The Dark Knight
X-Men: First Class
Batman Begins
Spider-Man

~Good~
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Thor
Man of Steel
X-Men
Iron Man

~Meh~
Iron Man 3
Batman: The Dark Knight Rises
Iron Man 2
Batman
Batman Returns
X2
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man 3

~Bad, but not hated~
Hulk (2002)
X-Men 3: The Last Stand
Superman Returns
Ghost Rider

~Don't Watch~
Daredevil
Batman and Robin
Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance

This describes you pretty good.As somebody with no taste.  :wacko:

Yeah... First, the Oscars haven't meant anything for close to a decade now. They've shown time after time after time that the people who vote on the oscars don't even bother to WATCH the movies they're voting on. So... don't bring up the oscars again, k thx.

Second, when it comes to TDK trilogy... Yes, the trilogy is a solid trilogy, with a cookie cutter three act story (first movie introduces Batman, second puts him in worst possible circumstances, third gives you the happy ending) that amateur film critics love to see over and over again. However, the universe Nolan built is so isolated that Batman himself barely fits within it. It tries so hard to be "realistic" that a good half of Batman's rogues gallery (IE: The best part of the Batman cartoons and comics) would have had to be entirely reworked to even fit in the universe. I LOVED The Dark Knight, but by the time we got to TDKR, I was ready for the Nolanverse to die.

The article you posted goes to great lengths to talk about how the DC movies are "better" because they're more realistic and more thought provoking. I counter that A. Captain America was AT LEAST as politically charged as The Dark Knight, and B. Just because something is "realistic" does NOT make it better. Lord of the Ring, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Star Trek... these are brands that rely wholesale on the fantastic, many of which will still be considered classics decades from now. TDK was a great film, but by the time TDKR came out, I think audiences started to realize that it really didn't live up to the hype it had built up around it.

Yeah, the Marvel movies are more "fantastic," but that's what comic book movies are SUPPOSED to be. You can have the deeper, more charged stories (like Captain America 2) but at the end of the day, the reason people read comics is to see heroes saving people and stopping bad guys. Saying something isn't good because it's simple and to the point is stupid... much like saying because something can't be enjoyed by adults because it appeals to children.

Captain...IN AMERICA is too much politicly charged.HE WEARS A FLAG ON HIS HEAD.
This isnt about last years Oscars but FROM 1950 TILL TODAY.
As much as we like Marvel comics,the movies sucked.The sooner you all admit that the better.
DC movie maybe arent all masterpieces but they have a way better cast,always.

Quote from: Spade on May 31, 2014, 05:51:14 PMThis describes you pretty good.As somebody with no taste.  :wacko:

Opinions are opinions.

No need to antagonize. :P

Sorry.But seeing somebody liked Thor over Dark Knight is just unbelivable.

Quote from: Spade on May 31, 2014, 07:07:08 PM
Sorry.But seeing somebody liked Thor over Dark Knight is just unbelivable.

I tend to like the more "comic-y" movies than those grounded in "reality".

To me, it's not so weird.  Don't get me wrong: the Batman movies were pretty good (better than most cape movies), but they weren't exactly in my taste.

Much like how Captain America isn't in your taste, Batman isn't exactly in my taste.

Now, if only they made a really good Superman movie.  Man of Steel was getting close to the Superman film that I want to see, but it wasn't quite there.

Man of Steel was kinda too dark for my idea of Superman movie.
@T
DK had some story and stuff.Avengers had just a generica alien invasion.Thats far too much for my tastes.From so many cool villans they made up lame aliens and use a bad copy of Darkseid

When I think of the Dark Knight, I always think of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc)

Umm... actually, it DOES matter that the Oscars have been garbage for the last decade or so, because Marvel Studios didn't start making movies until 2008's Iron Man. Prior to that, Marvel's movies were all licensed out to other studios, and even those really didn't start until 2001's X-men. It doesn't matter if you go all the way back to 50 years ago when Marvel hasn't even been in the running until the last decade and a half.

I'm a huge Batman fan, prolly my favorite fictional character ever (Spidey being second). I liked Nolan's trilogy a lot. It was a different take on the mythos and all 3 movies have memorable scenes and characters. That being said I'd like the next big screen Batman to have more of a comic-y feel to it. Man of Steel was way too bleak for a Superman movie. Not a bad movie but not something I expect to see when I watch Superman.

Marvel overall, IMO ofc, did a better job of adapting their characters. They are very close to their comic book versions (except for Mandarin lol). I don't think any of the movies "sucked". But I definitely think IM3 and Thor 2 were their weakest entries so far. Loved The Avengers, it was beyond cool seeing all these characters together after all that build up.

Quote from: Spade on May 31, 2014, 04:57:50 PM
This article sumes pretty accuratly why Marvels movies suck http://ryandanielsmith.hubpages.com/hub/DC-vs-Marvel-The-Dark-Knight-Rises-vs-The-Avengers (http://ryandanielsmith.hubpages.com/hub/DC-vs-Marvel-The-Dark-Knight-Rises-vs-The-Avengers)

But let me just quote some parts:
The Punisher movies, which have been "re-booted" three times and never get off the ground, the incredibly corny Tobey Macguire Spidermans, and don't forget the horribly cheesy Fantastic four movies, highlighted only by the waning beauty of Jessica Alba, ya know, when she wasn't turning invisible.
And then there's the casting.
But no, its cool we'll just put a bunch of so-so actors into one CGI machine and see what we can churn out, that'll show em! We've got Robert Downey Jr, who can't play anything other than the sarcastic jackass that we all know and love, Mark Ruffalo, who... is Mark Ruffalo, Samuel Jackson, who would probably sign up for Batman (If they were that desperate), and the mildly talented Chris Evans. That's fantastic, the movie relied on special effects and quirky one liners so bad, I'm surprised it wasn't directed by Michael Bay.
Since 1951, DC movies have been nominated for 19 oscars, winning 3.
How many Oscars have Marvel Movies won in 70 years?
Zero. Nada boys and girls. Never even nominated, never even nominated for a special effects award.

Let's have a dose of reality here: the first Spider-man was nominated for 2 Oscars: FX and sound.  Spider-man 2 was nominated for 3, and won for FX.  Iron Man was nominated for 2.  Iron Man 2 was nominated for 1.  Iron Man 3 was nominated for 1.  Avengers was nominated for 1.  That's 10 nominations, and 1 win, and a lot more than "never even nominated."  DC has an edge there, granted, which they should considering DC has had movies coming out since the 70s, but you're just flat out wrong.  Troll better next time.

Then there's your critique itself: does Avengers even have any one-liners?  I can't think of a single one.  Either you don't know what one liners are (think Arnold: "I'll be back."  "Stick around."  "See you at the party, Rictor!"  "Ice to see you."), or you're repeating the criticism of someone who doesn't know what they are.  Like it or not, it's nothing like a Michael Bay film.  Your shifting goal posts are also fun - whatever one thinks of the Sam Raimi Spider-man films, they were financial megahits, and if they're cheesy, let me introduce you to the cheddar of the original Superman films.  You argue against the quality of one Marvel film series, but against the financial success of another.  But let's compare all of DC's film output with Marvel's: DC has made 6 Superman films, 7 Batman films and 1 Green Lantern film.  Is anyone going to argue that Superman 2, 3, 4, or Superman Returns aren't greatly flawed films?  And a lot of people have complaints about Superman and the Man of Steel.  Superman 4 flopped; Superman 3, Returns and arguable Man of Steel all underperformed financially.  Half of the 6 Superman movies are rated 'rotten' on Rotten Tomatoes.  Batman fares a little better: only Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are rated as 'rotten,' but Batman Returns is no prize pig, and the '89 Batman has lost a lot of its lustre since then.  Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are both very strong films, but the Dark Knight Rises dropped the ball significantly, with poor scripting and poor use of characters.  So once again, about half the films are actually good.  Batman & Robin flopped, but the rest of the 2 Batman series have done well financially.  Green Lantern was a flop and critical failure.  The less said about it, the better.

Marvel on the other hand, has made 2 Captain America films, 3 Iron Man films, 2 Thor films, an Incredible Hulk, and an Avengers film.  All are critical and financial successes, with the lowest aggregate rating actually being Thor 2 (which surprised me).  Marvel's batting a thousand so far, to about .500 for DC.  If you include films based on all of Marvel's characters, you add 3 Blade films, 5 Spider-man films, and 2 Punisher films (the first Punisher was never released theatrically), the picture's not quite as rosy, but still critically and financially a stronger group of films, with 7 more financial successes, and a bunch more critical successes.  Overall, Marvel has had a far more successful run at the movies than DC.

But you know Spider-man, the Punisher and the Fantastic Four aren't made by Marvel, they just have Marvel characters - because you've complained about it at length.  The movies actually made by Marvel have all been financial and critical hits (though to varying degrees), and most people have praised them on how well cast they are.  Maybe you just missed the great casting from DC, like George Clooney or Val Kilmer as Batman, or Chris O'Donnel (remember him?) as Robin, Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze, Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy, or Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor.  If only the Marvel films had been cast that well, we might have a few flops like the ones from DC to complain about.

The Avengers was only nominated for one Oscar?  That's a crime.  :)

Yeah, Spade, I love how in a thread about the Marvel Movie Universe to prove how bad Marvel is at making movies you bring up all the movies that aren't part of the Marvel Movie Universe and weren't made by Marvel.

As for the actual MU cast you don't like--I love every one of those choices.  They were perfect for the roles they played.

@Talavar:
Theatrical sucess is NOT a messure of quality.Transformers and Twilight were financial sucesses.
You named DC cast,but you couldnt name any big name in Marvel? XD
About Oscars,do you have a source or your making it up?
And read the article you quoted.
P.S. Green Lantern did Deadpool too,which was waaaay worst.

Quote from: Spade on June 01, 2014, 05:01:53 AM
@Talavar:
Theatrical success is NOT a measure of quality. Transformers and Twilight were financial successes.
You named DC cast, but you couldn't name any big name in Marvel? XD
About Oscars, do you have a source or are you making it up?
And read the article you quoted.
P.S. Green Lantern did Deadpool too, which was waaaay worse.

1. Scarlett Johansson, Samuel Jackson, Robert Redford, Anthony Hopkins.
2. Avengers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_Marvel's_The_Avengers), Spiderman films (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_the_Spider-Man_film_series), Iron Man 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man_(2008_film)#Accolades) and Iron Man 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man_2#Accolades).
3. Did you read the article you quoted? because that's not some grand journal of film criticism, that's just some dude blogging his opinion on the internet. Here's his blog profile:

QuoteI'm just a kid from a small town you've never heard of who loves to write. I love to write about life, I love to write about sports, I love to write about movies. I can be funny, I can be angry, I can touch you, and I can push you away. And I wanna get to know each and every one of you because you're reading this and I already love you.

Hardly Roger Ebert, that one.
P.S. Ryan was far better cast as the wise cracking Deadpool than the straightlaced, cookie cutter Hal Jordan. It's not his fault the team working on XMO didn't know what they heck they were doing with the character.

Ryan Reynolds was Wade Wilson. They had a completely different person play "Deadpool". I still believe Ryan as an awesome Wade Wilson.

@Tomato
Get of my case men.Are you freaking stalking me?
Did you watch Origins:Wolverine even?
They kinda messed up Deadpool.They glued his mouth and gave him every possible mutant power.And your saying that was original and faithful?

Quote from: Spade on June 01, 2014, 06:59:53 AM
@Tomato
Get of my case men.Are you freaking stalking me?
Did you watch Origins:Wolverine even?
They kinda messed up Deadpool.They glued his mouth and gave him every possible mutant power.And your saying that was original and faithful?

Maybe not but Ryan Reynolds as just Wade Wilson when they were Team X was spot on.

Quote from: Spade on June 01, 2014, 06:49:46 AM
Its not my statement,its a quote.

A quote that you didn't bother to check for accuracy. You then want to question someone else's source of information when they dispute what you quoted. If you decide to post a quote and stand by it, you might want to mention where it came from, so that the source with the incorrect information looks foolish instead of you.

Quote from: hoss20 on June 01, 2014, 07:02:44 AM

Quote from: Spade on June 01, 2014, 06:49:46 AM
Its not my statement,its a quote.

A quote that you didn't bother to check for accuracy. You then want to question someone else's source of information when they dispute what you quoted. If you decide to post a quote and stand by it, you might want to mention where it came from, so that the source with the incorrect information looks foolish instead of you.

Oh,execuse me.YOUR sources are always correct.Now,how did I forget that.  :thumbdown:

Guys, guys, guys,

First off, thank you for starting another thread  :thumbup:

Second, one of the rules here is no flame wars.  I know we can get a little Fanboy-ish when it comes to our favorite heroes, but please, let do it respectfully.  If it gets out of hand or people start complaining, then the thread will be close.  Thank you.  Carry on and have fun!

(http://www.emuglx.org/assets/uploads/2013/10/Gurren_Lagann_Union_Jack_SVG_by_ChaosData.png)

If the Americans have superheroes,what do the British have?

Quote from: Spade on June 01, 2014, 11:02:50 AM
(http://www.emuglx.org/assets/uploads/2013/10/Gurren_Lagann_Union_Jack_SVG_by_ChaosData.png)

If the Americans have superheroes,what do the British have?

Dr. Who

^Somebody probably wrote a crossover.

A friend and I have discussed Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool a few times. I have alway ignored Origins: Wolverine as part of the X-Men movies, but I thought Ryan Reynolds did an excellent job as Wade Wilson. What the movie did with the character was... one of the worst character interpretation of any Marvel character on film. I am hoping Sony has seen the potential of a good comic franchise if they become a little more serious about the material.

But those characters are not part of the Cinematic Universe...

I am very pleased with where the movie universe is going. So far the movies have been accessible by movie goers who do not know the source material, and have included characters and plot lines for those of us who grew up reading about the characters.

My wife was very surprised to find out about Sharon Carter's aunt and her eventual relationship with Steven Rogers. I wish they had given her a little bigger role to the story. She was just a teaser of things to come. I am surprised they did not go ahead and make the connection this film. Fanboys got it but I was surprised they didn't explain it in the end.

I am with the group that believes that "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" completely trashed the "Deadpool" character. What was it that everyone was calling him..."Barakapool"?

On the other hand, I admit that Ryan Reynolds was probably not the best casting choice for "Green Lantern/Hal Jordan", but he really nailed it as "Wade Wilson", no doubt about it.

^To bad somebody pressed the MUTE button.And gave him a bunch of random powers he never had.But JUST Wade Wilson is passable.Same can be said for Green Lantern,hes passable.

"Don't feed the trolls" is good advice, and some I'm going to try and follow, but one last post on the topic for clarification.

Quote from: Spade on June 01, 2014, 05:01:35 AM
@Talavar:
Theatrical sucess is NOT a messure of quality.Transformers and Twilight were financial sucesses.
You named DC cast,but you couldnt name any big name in Marvel? XD
About Oscars,do you have a source or your making it up?
And read the article you quoted.
P.S. Green Lantern did Deadpool too,which was waaaay worst.

Theatrical success is not a measure of quality, I agree, but it is a measure of one form of success.  I notice you don't mention the critical appraisal of Marvel vs. DC films, because any way you slice it, Marvel has been far more successful with their superhero properties than DC has with theirs.  However, since your only criteria for a good superhero movie seems to be a character you think is "kewl" already, and a big name actor which you happen to like (ignoring, as you did, all of the very famous people I listed in Marvel films, and the terrible castings that DC has done in the past), I'm rapidly losing any interest in your opinion.  As to the Oscar nominations, it's easily available information all over the internet.  Try actually researching your claims before accusing people of making things up.  I've got a link to help you: www.google.com (http://www.google.com)

The article you posted is pretty much drivel that you repeated verbatim, that sums up as: "Marvel sucks because the Dark Knight is awesome."  You know what?  The Dark Knight is pretty awesome.  It's one of the best superhero films yet, and though not my favourite, it's up there.  But the 2 and a half good Batman films Chris Nolan made don't put DC on some sort of untouchable plateau, nor do they do anything to hurt all the good and great movies that Marvel's made.  Plus that article is just factually incorrect.  A commenter called the writer out on that, as I did here.

"Green Lantern did Deadpool too, which was way worst," is not the most easily understood sentence.  If I'm deciphering it correctly, you're saying that the first Wolverine movie (a film we both know Marvel didn't make themselves, so pointless to bring up as an argument against the Marvel Cinematic Universe) is much worse than Green Lantern because of Ryan Reynolds.  This helps prove the argument that no one is making, that Fox doesn't make better superhero movies than DC.  If you think casting Ryan Reynolds was the worst decision made for either of those movies however, you're dreaming.  Both were trainwrecks in countless ways.

^you just claimed Im wrong without providing any arguments.And you say Im trolling?Your crazy,bro. :D

Quote from: Spade on June 02, 2014, 06:16:11 AM
^you just claimed Im wrong without providing any arguments.And you say Im trolling?Your crazy,bro. :D

If English isn't your first language, I apologize, but do you know how debating works?  You posted a nonsensical, factually wrong article, I rebutted it.  You accused me of making up facts about the Oscar wins of Marvel movies, I rebutted that.  Now I don't have any arguments? 

I say you're trolling, because no matter what anyone else says on the subject, you post again and again bashing Marvel movies in comparison with DC, despite every measure you used to bash Marvel applying equally or more so to DC's films.  When people do counter all of your "arguments," you ignore those posts, or sections of posts, and accuse others of not reading yours, often with insulting language.

This is the last I'll say on the matter, because, at this point, I really think you are trolling.  Enjoy.

He needs to be banned. His prolific discussion style has taken over this whole forum and he's totally aggro and nothing he says makes a lick of sense. What a nightmare.

Apparently Mickey Rourke created a much more 3 dimensional villain in Iron Man 2, but it ended up on the cutting room floor.  Check out this interview with him.  It's mostly about Immortals, and be warned, there is a bit of language in it:
http://www.craveonline.com/film/interviews/177591-mickey-rourke-talks-immortals
I'd really love to see a director's cut of that film.

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 07, 2014, 03:28:00 PM
Apparently Mickey Rourke created a much more 3 dimensional villain in Iron Man 2, but it ended up on the cutting room floor.  Check out this interview with him.  It's mostly about Immortals, and be warned, there is a bit of language in it:
http://www.craveonline.com/film/interviews/177591-mickey-rourke-talks-immortals
I'd really love to see a director's cut of that film.

I'd be very interested to see these cut scenes, but don't entirely trust Mickey Rourke's take on things.  At best, he's a bit different in his views and choices, and Marvel's gone on to make a series of great sequels.  What he describes as a 3 dimensional villain may have equally been a jumbled mess.  But I'd still love to see the scenes, and wonder if Iron Man 2 could have turned out stronger.

If I got some articles right,Avengers 2 is happening in Serbia(or an imaginary stand-in)?

Quote from: Talavar on June 08, 2014, 02:55:53 AM
I'd be very interested to see these cut scenes, but don't entirely trust Mickey Rourke's take on things.  At best, he's a bit different in his views and choices, and Marvel's gone on to make a series of great sequels.  What he describes as a 3 dimensional villain may have equally been a jumbled mess.  But I'd still love to see the scenes, and wonder if Iron Man 2 could have turned out stronger.

My thoughts exactly.

I hadn't heard that, Spade.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=96605 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=96605)

So this is the only article I could find in english but you get the idea.

Interesting.  I bet this has to do with Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch.

What do you mean?

Quote from: Spade on June 08, 2014, 05:18:03 PM
What do you mean?

In this universe, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch might be form Serbia.

Indeed.  They were originally from Eastern Europe, right?  It doesn't seem like it would be much of a stretch?  They were from Transia, which is a fictional nation, similar to the real world Serbia.  I think it would work rather well.

That would be kinda cool.but I doubt it.
I checked Marvel wiki the other day and apparently they had some comics set in Serbia.
Thunderbolts fought Crimson Dynamos there.
Wolverine fought Winter soldier there.
Can anyone who read those comics confirm it,actually?

Well, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were born on Wundagore Mountain, located in Transia. Transia is supposed to be located in-between Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria. Being that Marvel Studios can't use the mutant angle due to licensing rights, it would be nice if they were able to keep some part of their comic origins intact.

Well like I said Marvel has a history of using Serbia as a battleground.So IMO it will just be a setting for a showdown.
Or a scene where Avengers save people from earthquake to establish them as worldwide heroes.

Quote from: Talavar on May 27, 2014, 06:01:58 PM
However, given your thoughts on the relative merits of the Dark Knight and Man of Steel, I doubt we're going to have the same opinions here.

True that but an interesting conversation nonetheless. I now have a perspective how an intelligent superhero fan could enjoy IM3

This Scarlet Witch,Quicksilver thing makes me wonder:
If people(in Marvel universe) like superheroes like Avengers why do they hate mutants like X-men?

You're assuming people like the other heroes of the Marvel universe... the reality is, the citizens of the Marvel Universe have always had much more of a love/hate relationship with all their heroes. Look at characters like Spider-man, who busts his butt saving people, only for his own boss to constantly bash him on the news. The Avengers have, on more than one occasion, been required to have liaisons assigned to them by the US Government in order to build up trust with the populace.

That being said, there has always been more of a stigma on mutants than with heroes like Captain America or Iron Man. A good chunk of that is just that the core message of the X-men books is about combating intolerance, so writers tend to focus most of their attention on the antagonism on both sides of the fence. Plus, I think there's more of a fear when it comes to Mutants... if you get your powers through a suit of high tech armor, or through a chemical compound, or whatever, then A. it's entirely possible everyone could get the same powers, and B. you feel like whoever does have those powers somehow earned them, and at least has some measure of control over them. But if you can get a mutation from just random chance... who's to say that the creepy stalker kid won't wake up with the ability to go invisible and watch girls in the shower, or whatever. And even with good mutants, just because you're born with an ability doesn't mean you can control it. There are legitimate fears with that, and it's why you see things like the Superhuman registration act pop up every so often.

Aka:

(https://38.media.tumblr.com/0013e762e69b4ee4ae637f46a6c726e5/tumblr_mjf8l3rJXy1qatmzjo4_500.gif)

^Yes,I get the tolerance/anti-rasicm of X-men,but thats not my point.
I mean why is HumanTorch ok and Magma,Sunfire and Pyro are dangerous mutants?Superpowers or mutant power,why is it so different?

Quote from: Tomato on June 16, 2014, 04:33:07 PM
You're assuming people like the other heroes of the Marvel universe... the reality is, the citizens of the Marvel Universe have always had much more of a love/hate relationship with all their heroes. Look at characters like Spider-man, who busts his butt saving people, only for his own boss to constantly bash him on the news. The Avengers have, on more than one occasion, been required to have liaisons assigned to them by the US Government in order to build up trust with the populace.

That being said, there has always been more of a stigma on mutants than with heroes like Captain America or Iron Man. A good chunk of that is just that the core message of the X-men books is about combating intolerance, so writers tend to focus most of their attention on the antagonism on both sides of the fence. Plus, I think there's more of a fear when it comes to Mutants... if you get your powers through a suit of high tech armor, or through a chemical compound, or whatever, then A. it's entirely possible everyone could get the same powers, and B. you feel like whoever does have those powers somehow earned them, and at least has some measure of control over them. But if you can get a mutation from just random chance... who's to say that the creepy stalker kid won't wake up with the ability to go invisible and watch girls in the shower, or whatever. And even with good mutants, just because you're born with an ability doesn't mean you can control it. There are legitimate fears with that, and it's why you see things like the Superhuman registration act pop up every so often.

My post. Read it.

^Yes,I did.But think about it,a lot of bad people gained their powers  cuz of chemicals or accidents.About mutants going out of control:NOT ALL OF THEM have that problem and even Iron Man had his suit taken over 999 so he can be danger if you think of it that way.
True people sometimes dont trust superheros but when were they ever gratefull to mutants?

Yes, and if you look back, how many times did the Avengers get dumped on by the population for that very reason. Think about just how quickly people turned on CAPTAIN AMERICA during the Civil War arc because of a single decision. How much nonsense does Spiderman take, on a daily basis, because people fear what they don't understand? How much garbage does the Thing take for his appearance? The movie avengers are praised because they just saved the world, but people were still willing to turn on Captain America not too long afterward.

Yes, mutants have historically had it worse, but there HAVE been stories where the X-men have been praised for saving the world, and there are constantly individuals thanking them for this or that act. Mutants are hated by certain organizations and communities, but there is still shown to be enough positive sentiment among the population that none of the anti-mutant bills have ever passed, and the Avengers have been praised for including mutants as well. But because the X-men's focus is almost entirely on combating racism, we tend to focus more on the racists.

Public opinions do change too easly.Thunderbolts(original) are the best Marvel example.Maybe its just me,but in a world where Nordic gods are around people hate a guy who looks different,thats kinda pointless.
Second thing that seemed stupid is that mutant-haters go all KKK on people with superpower.

Quote from: Spade on June 16, 2014, 07:10:05 PM
Public opinions do change too easly.Thunderbolts(original) are the best Marvel example.Maybe its just me,but in a world where Nordic gods are around people hate a guy who looks different,thats kinda pointless.
Second thing that seemed stupid is that mutant-haters go all KKK on people with superpower.

Widespread panic and hatred of people who are different are the most realistic things about the Marvel universe.

I don't know, I've always had trouble with public reaction to superheroes in both Marvel and DC.  Look at how our society treats pro athletes and movie stars - people who are really good at sports, or play make believe heroes, and compare that to real people whose job is averting natural disasters and catching planes falling out of the sky.  They'd probably be treated like gods.

Well, I'm reminded of a story during the Ion stuff where they brought up the fact that there ARE churches devoted to some of these heroes, and the problems it causes when that goes too far.

That being said, I point to the very examples you did- celebrities and athletes- as evidence that those exact types of things would happen. Think about how much news coverage there is EVERY TIME an athlete or celebrity does drugs, has an affair, or even gets drunk at a party. Imagine how much worse that would be with Superheroes, who would be the ultimate celebrities.

Quote from: Spade on June 16, 2014, 05:21:26 PM
^Yes,I did.But think about it,a lot of bad people gained their powers  cuz of chemicals or accidents.About mutants going out of control:NOT ALL OF THEM have that problem and even Iron Man had his suit taken over 999 so he can be danger if you think of it that way.
True people sometimes dont trust superheros but when were they ever gratefull to mutants?

Any group that discriminates against another always brings up the worst example or stereotype of that group. The fact that you think that it's stupid to have a problem with mutants, but not with other superheroes, is exactly the point Marvel was trying to make when it created the X-men back in the 60's.

If we think of superheroes as "all Mankind" and mutants as a race, different because of genetics, then the fact that they are hated or discriminated against is racism. Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but so is racism. To hate someone because of a difference in their chromosomes is asinine. 

If you haven't read it already, I would highly recommend picking up the mini-series Marvels, printed back in 1994 and created by Kurt Busiek and Alex Ross. It details the events of the Marvel Universe as told by a human news reporter. One of the issues focuses on mutants and the fear of them. I don't have it handy, so I'm not able to relate much to you, but the one thing that is prevalent throughout the series is that no matter how much the people were grateful to have superheroes (all superheroes) protecting them, they also were in fear of them and the danger they brought just being around.

Talavar/Tomato: Wasn't there a scene in the JLA/Avengers crossover where the Marvel heroes came across a statue of a DC hero in one of their cities and one of them said (paraphrasing), "They must be revered/think of themselves as gods." ? Sorry, my stuff is in storage, so I couldn't look it up. Regardless of what was said, I always thought that this was a great example of the differences between the two universes.

There is indeed. I have my copy out from doing the CSA reviews, and there are a couple bits in there... one where Flash steps in and stops a crowd from terrorizing a mutant, and then later when the Avengers go to the DCU they take down some thugs and a whole bunch of people show up trying to figure out who they are and get autographs. One of the major conflicts between the two groups is over this fact... the Justice League feels the Avengers aren't going far enough and have left their world in shambles, and the Avengers feel like the JLA is lording their power over the population like gods.

^BTW Hawkeye is the only person to be a member of JLA and the Avengers.
@T Its kinda natural people fear those who are different.Even DC has Doom Patrol.
In Thunderbolt when NY is attacked,the Major in an emergency says to call every possible hero...heck,even X-men.So they are the last resort?That is just mean.

With mutants, there is the implied threat that this is a new species that's going to eventually take over. There's a great line from the Roy Thomas / Neal Adams run of X-Men comics that's been quoted and paraphrased many times since (including in the "Days of Future Past" movie): "What did the last Neanderthal say to the first Cro Magnon?" Hulk or Iron Man might be powerful, but you don't have to worry about them taking your place on the evolutionary ladder.

Quote from: JKCarrier on June 17, 2014, 06:00:31 AM
With mutants, there is the implied threat that this is a new species that's going to eventually take over. There's a great line from the Roy Thomas / Neal Adams run of X-Men comics that's been quoted and paraphrased many times since (including in the "Days of Future Past" movie): "What did the last Neanderthal say to the first Cro Magnon?" Hulk or Iron Man might be powerful, but you don't have to worry about them taking your place on the evolutionary ladder.

That viewpoint can explain something.But as a regular human how would you even know whos got superpowers and whos a mutant.
Like I said you have Human Torch and you have Magma,Sunfire and Pyro.Now imagine yourself as a regular Jo in Marvel universe.How would you tell the difference on how any of them got their powers?

That's a good point, JKC. I had forgotten about that statement. After all, the mutant species is classified as Homo superior.

Quote from: Spade on June 17, 2014, 06:13:25 AM
But as a regular human how would you even know whos got superpowers and whos a mutant.
Like I said you have Human Torch and you have Magma,Sunfire and Pyro.Now imagine yourself as a regular Jo in Marvel universe.How would you tell the difference on how any of them got their powers?

This is a very complicated topic because Marvel has tweaked how they have handled this mutant/superhuman situation over the years. Mutants usually get their powers during their early phases of puberty with some exceptions (Nightcrawler was born with his mutations) and the majority of them just want to learn to control their abilities and live normal lives as possible. Superheroes/supervillians usually had their origin and usually found themselves being a villain or a superhero in some kind of costume or uniform or whatever. Spider-Man has been accused by the general public as a mutant and several other characters over the years have run that course of a storyline before. The Ultimate Universe pretty much just solved the problem by having Sentinels constantly scanning the population for mutations and killing them on the spot until they finally got Captain America in political office to finally give them rights and not have to hide anymore. The Regular Marvel Universe now has a whole different situation.. there are mutants and now inhumans that are appearing when they reach maturity plus the whole regular superhuman origins.. and the general population really can't tell the difference unless something narrows it down (Inhumans seem to be able to detect each other, Mutants are outed by Sentinels or mutant detection devices or just happen to be a student at an X-School, and everyone else by being neither of the other two).

As far as the cinematic universe, Fox's X-Men Universe has been dealing with mutations for awhile but there doesn't seem to be any other type of superheroes and supervillians in this mutant only universe and thanks to Trask's handheld mutant detectors will probably be much easier to spot mutants among the population. Marvel Studios' Universe doesn't have any mutations and most powers that might be possible mutations are deemed "rumored" or "myths". Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch seem to be experiments of using the alien technology to create mutates (artificial mutations) or as Baron Von Strucker termed them "miracles". So there really isn't too much confusion among the average joe in either universe.. they are just powered people.

- CQ

Since the movies dont have both types there isnt much to be said there.
But like you said if ordinary people cant tell the difference how do they know who to hate then?

Quote from: Spade on June 17, 2014, 08:37:16 AM
Since the movies dont have both types there isnt much to be said there.
But like you said if ordinary people cant tell the difference how do they know who to hate then?

They just hate Mutants in general because they are deemed "living weapons" or "unnatural beings". Does not matter if they have an obvious mutation or look like everyone else. The mutant haters just start showing up in places where they might be seen holding signs and then usually become the first to riot when actual mutants or pro-mutant supporters show up to defend themselves. Then you add in the MRD (Mutant Response Division) which is a military police created by Anti-Mutant Politicians which are there to "protect" the human citizens and round up any dangerous mutants into protective custody (aka Mutant Camps).

Now remember the Sentinels eventually go amok in both the comics and movies because following the rules of genetics everyone who has powers or possibility of mutation will eventually have offspring that ARE mutants. So the Sentinels pretty much decide to just enforce complete genocide which ends up with all super humans being killed, rounded up into prison camps, or sterilized permanently to be "reeducated" into soldiers or mutant-hunting Hounds. This has happened over and over and over in most storylines which feature humankind becoming fearful of super humans no matter where their powers come from.

- CQ

^That somewhat explains it,I guess.