Planet-man
Well-Known Member
The tall guy is playing Thor, the guy to the right of Jackson is Jeremy Renner of The Hurt Locker(Hawkeye), next to him is Mark Ruffalo, next to him is Joss Whedon.
Avengers movie discussion (news/etc.)
- Thread starter Hellsbuttmonkey
- Start date
The Overlord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
So how much should this movie borrow from the Ultimates and the 616 universe?
Random
Didn't **** any of those *****es
Wow, I can't remember the last time you've ask a question just like that, Where you been?
The Overlord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
Oh don't ruin my fun, I haven't asked that in quite a while.
Dr.Strangefate
He Sees You When You're Sleeping. He Knows When Yo
From SuperheroHype!
Would someone care to do a left-to-right on this picture? I know who RDJ, Jackson, Evans, Johannsen and the guy playing Coleson is, but I don't recognise anyone else in the photo.
RDjr, Agent Coleson, Scarlett Johannson, Chris Helmsworth (Thor), Chris Evans (Cap), Samuel L. Jackson, Jeremey Renner (Hawkeye), Mark Ruffalo (Hulk), Joss Whedon, and Kevin Feige (President of Marvel Studios).
Bass
Nexus of the World
Heheheheheheh.
Anyhow, in regards to your question, I wonder how long it would take to film THE ULTIMATES page for page. I'm going to read it tonight and take a guess.
What I'd want them to take from it are three things;
1) PEOPLE AS WEAPONS; It's a fantastic image system that Millar and Hitch came up with and really sold a very unique element to the Ultimate reboot (which is now completely gone).
2) SAVING THE WORLD IS RARE; I loved that in THE ULTIMATES it took five issues before we had a proper fight, and it was born out of the fact that there was no one to fight. It really sold this as something extra-ordinary. I'd like to see that preserved.
3) ORIGINALITY; I want the movie to be as big a breath of fresh air as THE ULTIMATES was. Something so completely self-contained and whole, completely recognisable as an old franchise and yet completely different and new.
The Overlord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
But one has to keep in mind in terms of personality these characters will not be exactly like the Ultimates, movie Nick Fury perhaps will, but movie Cap seems to be based on 616 version, except in terms of costume and 616 Cap wouldn't be the type of blindly follow orders and just be used a government weapon.
Except for the fact that wouldn't work in terms of movie pacing, with a movie you have to get to the point somewhat quickly you 2 hours to tell a 3 act story with a climax, so the whole movie cannot be just them chit chatting and you can't have a 4 hour movie with 2 hours of them chit chatting and then fight something in the last 2 hours.
Not mention considering in this movie universe Iron Man already saved the day twice and Thor would have once, so already its not completely rare for this to happen, but still it doesn't happen as much as it does in the comics.
Now this depends on how you define originality, the fact in terms of comic book movies the whole Avengers project is kinda original,, no one has ever introduced heroes in other movies and then have them come together in one movie to for a team.
Now I ask this question, again is it seems that some people think the Avengers movie should just be an adaption if the Ultimates, which suggests the idea that there are no elements from the 616 Avengers worth adapting, which I disagree with. What other original element would you want to see, it be hard to call an adaption of Ultimates original, because it would just be an adaption and the themes that were original at the time are almost a decade old now. Even in terms of political message, Ultimates seems to be something more relevant in the early paranoid post 9-11 era then now. I think it important to ask the same question say a year later because circumstances around the movie can change in that time.
I think 616 Ultron for example is a way better villain then Klesier and the Skrulls, who they don't even have the rights to. I would much rather have Ultron then the Skrulls as the villain for a sequel, Ultron is more iconic as an Avengers villain and with the Red skull as Cap's movie war time nemesis. I even kinda like Kang the Conqueror, I don't love him, but I like him well enough, though I'm not positive he would work in a movie. I do think those two villains have gotten some epic stories like Ultron Unleashed for Ultron and Avengers Forever and Kang War for Kang, so I do think it be easy to translate some 616 Avenger villains as the villain for an avengers movie.
Last edited:
Bass
Nexus of the World
We don't know that for certain, and I don't agree that is what Cap was in THE ULTIMATES.
Saved the day, not the world. Also, I'm certain that the first four issues of THE ULTIMATES would take no more than 30 minutes. You'd have a, at most, ten-minute opening sequence of WW2, followed by 20 minutes of slow build and then the Hulk. I think the first six issues could probably be done in an hour. Now, if the movie is 90 minutes, it's not going to work, but if it's about 150 minutes (2 1/2 hours), then it probably would work absolutely fine.
It's wholly unoriginal. You're describing THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN here. And OCEAN'S ELEVEN. The biggest Hollywood stars teaming up for a movie has been done before, and while yes, Danny Ocean didn't get his own prequel, the point of casting someone like Clooney is because he brings expectations of previous movies with him. The Avengers as a team is not original, the marketing for it is, but the originality of the build-up has nothing to do with the final product.
When I say original, I consider THE DARK KNIGHT to be original, in that it gave us Batman, Two-Face, Joker, and Gotham in ways we'd never seen before, as opposed to say the 'faithful adaptation' we saw in X-MEN or SPIDER-MAN which was desperately predictable even if you hadn't read the comics.
It seems Pym isn't even in the movie, so what's the point?
I think the best Avengers villain is Doctor Doom and Marvel doesn't even have access to the movie rights. Same for Galactus, and probably the Skrulls, and Thanos. Which leaves us with Red Skull (taken), Loki (taken), Ultron (ugh), Kang (I love him, but weird), Korvac (blegh), Mandarin (taken), Baron Zemo (maybe), Magneto (taken), Apocalypse (taken), Green Goblin (taken), and Dark Phoenix (taken).
So really, I can't think of a good villain they could use. Maybe we'll get a new one, or maybe it'll be Red Skull and Loki and Mandarin in a team-up, but I doubt it.
And it seems that Joss Whedon is focusing on why these guys need to get together in the first place, so hopefully it'll be something with real gravitas.
The Overlord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
I don't find Ultimate cap to be that likable frankly. For example: 616 Cap talked about the contributions the French resistance made during WWII, while Ultimate Cap just mocks the French with insults that make him seem kinda like a petty, reactionary dolt, that was funny mind you, but not endearing. Not to mention in Ultimate Avengers where Ultimate Cap used a kinder garden class as a human shield to protect himself from War Machine, he went from from a jerk to a psychopath.
616 Cap comes off as being able to reflect on himself, well Ultimate Cap does not. In terms of having a likable character that the audience can relate too, I would pick 616 Cap over Ultimate cap. Plus 616 Cap seems represent a deeper value system then Ultimate cap does.
I liked some of the characterization Millar gave to say Thor and Iron Man, but at the end of the day I would say 616 Cap is far more well rounded and likable then Ultimate cap and he likely wouldn't consent to just being a weapon. I like the themes of the Ultimates, but sometimes the characterization of certain characters wasn't as good as their 616 counterparts.
In terms of characterization I wouldn't go strictly with either the 616 Avengers or the Ultimates for the entire cast, I would mix it up a bit.
Except I think the build up in of itself is original, I have never heard of characters being given their own separate movies to introduce them and then putting them all in the same movie.
And frankly a compete shot for shot retelling of Ultimates vol.1 wouldn't be original either, I think a blend of the Ultimates and 616 Avengers would be more of story we never saw before, then just trying to retell Ultimates with no surprises. Plus frankly I have heard accusations that the themes done in Ultimates were done first by the Authority. Also blending the Ultimate and 616 versions of characters worked well in the first Iron Man movie.
I mean what would you want to see in terms of originality?
There are no bad characters, only bad writers, in the right hands almost any character can be interesting. You haven't really provided a reason why Ultron is not a good villain. Have you ever read Ultron Unleashed? That story line did a pretty good job of making Ultron into a massive threat, so what's wrong with making Ultron the villain?
Even the protests that Kang is too weird doesn't work for me, a time travelling conqueror is too outlandish, but a shape shifting alien who dresses up like a Nazi isn't. They seem equally weird to me.
Considering that Obadiah Stane was able to present a threat to Iron man in the Iron Man movie, I think it shows the movie makers can be a bit creative in terms of making a hero's rogues gallery work for the movie, rather then resorting to stealing other villains from other rogues galleries. Dr. Doom and the skrulls are FF villains they belong to that property, Doom is far more iconic as a FF villain then a Avengers villain, so using him in a Avengers movie seems like cheap drama to me, the fact the Skrulls and Doom are more associated with the FF then the Avengers is why Fox has the rights to them. I would rather them find a clever way to use an existing Avenger villain and I think most of them have been used well in the best to make it doable.
Last edited:
Zombipanda
My Boom-Boom's mostly gay
I think Ultimate Cap is kind of a prick. If he existed in real life, I wouldn't like him very much. He honestly represents plenty of qualities I hate in a human being. But there's a difference between a good character and a person you like. And while I felt like he was the least interesting of the Ultimates cast, he was still a fun character. That said, I doubt they'll do a point by point recreation of Ultimate Cap in the movie because, honestly, it would be hard to make him likable in a two hour picture. But then, who knows?
The Overlord said:
You know what I want to see? Film Cap. Not Ultimate Cap or 616 Cap. I want a character tailored to match the script.
The Overlord said:
Hah! Except, well, that's what Captain America is. He's a living weapon. He volunteered to become a living weapon. He's a peak condition soldier brought in to win the war, an analogy for the A-Bomb. That's what he's always been. That's what he consented to be by taking the serum.
But I don't think that's what Bass is talking about when he talks about the weapons metaphor in Ultimates. He's talking about the perspective that, if superheroes were introduced in a universe, regardless of intent, that it would effectively change the face of politics and warfare. He's talking about the idea of a superhuman arms race that served as an undercurrent throughout the Ultimate Universe (even though it was generally not all that well executed). It's not a wholly original idea, but it was incorporated more explicitly in the UU than most. If you introduce a super soldier serum, people with varying intentions will try to replicate it, because it's a potential game changer. If you introduce power armor, there will be profiteers and copycats. And that's something we've already seen introduced in the Iron Man movie. The problem, in general, with continuous publication comic universes is they can't dramatically change the status quo. Their world needs to resemble our world to a pretty high degree, and we can't see most of the big picture implications that would really spin out of a universe where demi-gods existed. A film series can go hog wild with those kinds of ideas.
The Overlord said:
Except that's purely marketing. It doesn't have a bearing on the structure of the film itself.
The Overlord said:
I don't think anyone's suggesting a shot-for-shot remake of Ultimates. The fact of the matter is, on a superficial level, anything Whedon creates will be something new. We haven't seen a big comic book super-team mash-up like this before. But what I want to see is a film that undermines this established and tired structure of the superhero flick, which is something I'll address a couple quotes down.
The Overlord said:
It is. The Authority is the Ultimates done better and more dramatically. The subversion is that the Ultimates uses versions of established, fan favorite characters.
The Overlord said:
My worry is that the superhero genre is falling rapidly into stock tropes. To a large extent, we've seen Raimi's Spider-Man remade again and again with new characters. "Superhero gets powers, uses those powers irresponsibly, reconsiders how he's been living his life, dovetails into a messy final battle that's not all that well built to". In the sequels, the heroes seem to forget the trite lessons and relearn them again and again. The Dark Knight undermined a lot of these ideas in a handful of ways. It filtered the superhero archetype through a crime thriller archetype rather than the typical superhero journey. It showed a setting that was dramatically altered by the appearance of the hero. It tried (sometimes clumsily) to show the hard kind of decisions a character in that situation would have to make in a way other superhero films really haven't. And it provided a fundamentally different threat particularly tailored to that character. Don't get me wrong. It stumbled in places. Some of the lectures were heavy handed, non-sensical, and rooted in genuinely unsettling logic that bordered on the fascist. But it showed hard decisions and hard consequences and the script swerved in directions that surprised the audience. Iron Man 2 made a smart choice by doing something similar. Make the origin of Iron Man's powers the source of his threats. He's a weapons manufacturer. In the same way that an atomic bomb both ended World War II and led to sixty years of Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation that looms over us today, Stark's creation is something that can literally change the face of the modern world in as fundamental a way.
And I think that's the approach they should take. They should expand on what was lightly established in Iron Man 2. All these characters can essentially change the status quo of the modern world just by their very being. Follow up on the implications of what a world with superhumans would look like, and you've got a good basis for an Avengers film.
Last edited:
Zombipanda
My Boom-Boom's mostly gay
In more specific terms of structure, here's an example, broken into a three act structure for ease of Overlord's understanding.
Act One, Brave New World:
The Avengers are in place from the get-go. We hardly need a lot of expo to get the team together. What is the public's expectations for a nationally-funded superteam? What socio-political implications does a squad of demi-gods have on the world at large? What are the objectives of America and SHIELD in a setting where they have the superhero market cornered? There are hardly super villains in place to keep the heroes distracted. The heroes themselves are possibly at cross purposes. Steve Rogers, raised as a soldier, of course, sees the defense and peace keeping implications. SHIELD is similarly focused but they're also interested in developing more to insure that they have the corner marketed in the foreseeable future. Thor, raised in a warrior culture and seeing the implications of that, might be cautious about such suppositions and might be more interested in the capacity for disaster relief. Tony is, perhaps, more interested in the far-reaching implications of the technology. **** superhumans, with technology, in two decades, we can ALL be post-human. We see the sort of sweeping impact such a team can potentially have on the world, and how the cross-purposes of these heroes might prevent them from achieving the fullness of their potential.
Act Two, It Hits the Fan:
Something goes wrong, naturally. A threat needs to present itself, something that drops the utopian visions of the team and public into tailspin. For internal consistency, for weight of emotional resonance, it needs to be in some way consequential of the heroes themselves. If the heroes are practically worshiped as gods in the first act, then they need to have a devastating setback in the second act, something which will redeem them in the eyes of the public. Perhaps Stark's tech or the super-soldier serum is used for a devastating act of terrorism. Or a betrayal from the Black Widow leaves the headquarters devastated and SHIELD projects brought into enemy hands. If they really want to get bleak, perhaps the failure of the team to work together in a disaster leads to a dramatic loss of American lives. One way or another, the threat should probably play to the trope that "this new technology will doom us all". The Hulk would be the most obvious and effective threat to use.
Act Three, They're Good Guys After All:
In the wake of this disaster, the team is forced to reevaluate and rebuild. SHIELD is perhaps under review, the team is perhaps suspended. Their public ratings are in the toilet. The characters themselves are left bickering over what exactly went wrong and how to address it. But in the end, it's their strength of will and virtue that forces them to overcome. There's a catalyst, of course. The threat they faced earlier is either revealed to be the result of some greater villain, or else a stronger threat forces themselves to work together, despite their difficulties with each other. Red Skull. Loki. Ultron. The Five Rings. Any number of threats really. I personally like the idea of a long-form conspiracy. I'd probably tie the Five Rings into WWII era machinations by Red Skull and possibly Loki that just surface now. One way or another, we leave the cast in a place not so idyllic as the beginning or as bleak as the middle. The Avengers aren't going to make a perfect world. In fact, the world may have been better off without superhumans in the first place. But now that the pandora's box has been opened, there's no shutting it. The world is fundamentally changed, the risk of comic book threats are fully exposed, and the Avengers themselves are a necessary threat to prevent it from falling into chaos. Cue closing credits.
It's a pretty standard structure, of course, but then practically every film is. I guess my point is, it's not about the basic structure so much as it is about the execution. Whedon needs to take standard tropes and give them resonance that have real world implications. He has to extrapolate on the most powerful parts of the superhero mythos and interpret them in a way that effects people who might not be superhero fans in the first place. It can't just be a setting where superheroes exist. It has to be a setting that's fundamentally altered by the presence of superheroes, and it needs to be an alteration that reflects the anxieties and hopes of the present.
Act One, Brave New World:
The Avengers are in place from the get-go. We hardly need a lot of expo to get the team together. What is the public's expectations for a nationally-funded superteam? What socio-political implications does a squad of demi-gods have on the world at large? What are the objectives of America and SHIELD in a setting where they have the superhero market cornered? There are hardly super villains in place to keep the heroes distracted. The heroes themselves are possibly at cross purposes. Steve Rogers, raised as a soldier, of course, sees the defense and peace keeping implications. SHIELD is similarly focused but they're also interested in developing more to insure that they have the corner marketed in the foreseeable future. Thor, raised in a warrior culture and seeing the implications of that, might be cautious about such suppositions and might be more interested in the capacity for disaster relief. Tony is, perhaps, more interested in the far-reaching implications of the technology. **** superhumans, with technology, in two decades, we can ALL be post-human. We see the sort of sweeping impact such a team can potentially have on the world, and how the cross-purposes of these heroes might prevent them from achieving the fullness of their potential.
Act Two, It Hits the Fan:
Something goes wrong, naturally. A threat needs to present itself, something that drops the utopian visions of the team and public into tailspin. For internal consistency, for weight of emotional resonance, it needs to be in some way consequential of the heroes themselves. If the heroes are practically worshiped as gods in the first act, then they need to have a devastating setback in the second act, something which will redeem them in the eyes of the public. Perhaps Stark's tech or the super-soldier serum is used for a devastating act of terrorism. Or a betrayal from the Black Widow leaves the headquarters devastated and SHIELD projects brought into enemy hands. If they really want to get bleak, perhaps the failure of the team to work together in a disaster leads to a dramatic loss of American lives. One way or another, the threat should probably play to the trope that "this new technology will doom us all". The Hulk would be the most obvious and effective threat to use.
Act Three, They're Good Guys After All:
In the wake of this disaster, the team is forced to reevaluate and rebuild. SHIELD is perhaps under review, the team is perhaps suspended. Their public ratings are in the toilet. The characters themselves are left bickering over what exactly went wrong and how to address it. But in the end, it's their strength of will and virtue that forces them to overcome. There's a catalyst, of course. The threat they faced earlier is either revealed to be the result of some greater villain, or else a stronger threat forces themselves to work together, despite their difficulties with each other. Red Skull. Loki. Ultron. The Five Rings. Any number of threats really. I personally like the idea of a long-form conspiracy. I'd probably tie the Five Rings into WWII era machinations by Red Skull and possibly Loki that just surface now. One way or another, we leave the cast in a place not so idyllic as the beginning or as bleak as the middle. The Avengers aren't going to make a perfect world. In fact, the world may have been better off without superhumans in the first place. But now that the pandora's box has been opened, there's no shutting it. The world is fundamentally changed, the risk of comic book threats are fully exposed, and the Avengers themselves are a necessary threat to prevent it from falling into chaos. Cue closing credits.
It's a pretty standard structure, of course, but then practically every film is. I guess my point is, it's not about the basic structure so much as it is about the execution. Whedon needs to take standard tropes and give them resonance that have real world implications. He has to extrapolate on the most powerful parts of the superhero mythos and interpret them in a way that effects people who might not be superhero fans in the first place. It can't just be a setting where superheroes exist. It has to be a setting that's fundamentally altered by the presence of superheroes, and it needs to be an alteration that reflects the anxieties and hopes of the present.
Last edited:
Bass
Nexus of the World
Exactly as ZP says. We know nothing about the film beyond the cast and writer/director. It's not possible to say if it's original or not since it's not even been written yet. You asked how much 616/UU it should be, and I'm saying that from the UU it should attempt to recreate the same feeling of it being an original, fresh take on something, while still feeling quintessentially like the franchise.
I never, ever, suggested it should be a shot for shot retelling. I suggested that the same kind of approach taken to THE ULTIMATES should be taken to the film. I only ever pointed out the idea of shooting it panel for panel when you said the pace of THE ULTIMATES wasn't doable in terms of cinema, when it very clearly is; if a 64-page comic, with a scene or two cut, becomes a 20-minute cartoon (as is the case with MAD LOVE) you could make the assumption that a minute of cinema is two pages of a comic. Give or take (it will always be different, but it's a good baseline). This makes the first volume of THE ULTIMATES come in at 150 minutes, with the first six issues resolved in the first hour. Now, it's a baseline estimate, but that's the point; the pace seems very doable.
Also, THE AUTHORITY was only similar to THE ULTIMATES in its bold, iconoclastic freshness, and the fact that Bryan Hitch co-invented THE AUTHORITY and Mark Millar was the second writer to write them. Millar and Hitch got their fame through THE AUTHORITY. So comparisons are par for the course, but none of the characters or themes in THE AUTHORITY are repeated in THE ULTIMATES at all.
What I said: I want something to stand up and not feel like other superhero movies and comics I've read. I want it to feel like THE ULTIMATES felt; something fresh and new while insightful and exciting. It's an approach to making it an awesome spectacle that I'm advocating, not a specific criteria of *things Joss must do*.
I'm pretty certain he'll pull it off.
Racking up a villain's body count isn't what makes him good. It's all about qualities of conflict. Ultron works with Pym, but you could alter it so Stark invented him instead. Regardless, the problem is that Ultron simply isn't deep enough in terms of conflict to sustain him dealing with the Avengers. He really only has two modes; angry at his 'father' (and 'mother') and "kill all humans". And there's not enough variety or depth there to be interesting for long periods of time. This is true for most villains, which is why a lot of superteams fight other superteams, so they can each face-off against a counterpart and vary the telling.
There aren't many villains with the kind of depth and variance I think you'd need. Sure, Ultron could be one of them, you make him more like SkyNet or something, but if I were Joss Whedon my shortlist for villains would be; Doctor Doom, Galactus, Kang, Thanos, and the Masters of Evil. Which is kinda depressing, as I'm sure three of them aren't available, Kang is too much, and the Masters is too expensive.
I think it's not the concept that's the problem, but rather putting time travel into the movie when you've already got Cap from the 40s, a Norse God, and so on. You've got too many concepts vying for the audience's mindspace. Kang might be too much.
Agreed.
That's not at all what I meant. I meant that it's a varied category of imagery in all elements of the telling, from visual depiction to dialogue. The recurring theme of "People as Weapons" helped make THE ULTIMATES unique. An example of what I mean; in TOY STORY 3, there is an image system of Daycare as Prison, and in DEAD POET'S SOCIETY there is an image system of Education as Death. That system of imagery permeates the work.
In what fashion? None of the team dynamics or characters are repeated. The Authority's iconclastic desire to topple governments is wholly unlike The Ultimates reactionary drive. The approach of the titles to the subject matter is very similar; cinematic, iconoclastic blockbusters, but the themes and characters are very much apart.
The Overlord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
Ok but should the movie just be an adaption of Ultimates vol.1 or a blend between the 616 Avengers and the Ultimates?
Frankly I don't think Klesier is more 3 dimensional then Ultron, don't get me wrong I thought Klesier was alright, he moved the plot along well and provided some menace, but was pretty disposable at the end of the day.
Plus I think Ultron's ability to learn from past defeats and create new defenses makes him pretty dangerous. The Borg were not 3 dimensional villains, but they were menacing.
Considering they completely reworked Whiplash for Iron Man 2, I don't see how this is a problem, with more of a B-list, there is more room to rework them for the silver screen.
However with a villain as epic Doom, I wouldn't want to change certain elements. hH has no real chemistry with the avengers, he would see them as a minor obstacle and nothing more, there is no real rivalry between Doom and the Avengers and I wouldn't them to have Tony be the one Doom hates instead of Reed. That's too big change to such an iconic character, so I don't think Doom would work as an avengers villain, he works best an FF villain.
Again the main villain for Ultimates vol. 1 was an shape shifting alien who dressed like a Nazi, I don't see why that couldn't be seen as too much either. How does one define what is too much or not?
I don't think Kang would be good as the villain of the first movie, but you could possibility make an interesting story with him in a sequel, perhaps where Kang pretends to be benign, offering advanced technology to Earth, making his conquest more subtle.
Plus I think one can argue a lot of the stuff in the upcoming Green Lantern looks pretty outlandish.
Its an interesting theme and some of the leg work has already been done some of the other Marvel movies.
But you need to balance it with some likable characterization, The Ultimates come off as weapons often because Ultimate Cap is a goon who merely follows orders no matter what and has no moments of self reflection. Ultimate Cap seems to only disobey orders due to selfishness, he never seems to disobey due to any sort of moral values. Ultimate Cap isn't a very good protagonist, he is very unlikable.
I would like to keep the theme, but have a more likable Cap.
Last edited:
I think we were reading different comics, because Ultimate Cap has PLENTY of moments of self-reflection. Hell, he has one in almost every comic series he appears in (pre-U3, anyways). I always found Ultimate Cap extraordinarily likable, and never felt him come off as a goon who follows orders "no matter what" (in fact, he doesn't; his attack on Pym was completely against regulation and is absolutely the opposite of what a mindless drone of a soldier would do). His morals are never really seen to conflict with what he's being asked to do, so of course he never disobeys because of personal moral quandaries.
Bass
Nexus of the World
How about something new?
All very good points. Except that Whiplash wasn't really any good. But you make good points, I would note that Klesier had the entire Skrull race, as opposed to just being Kleiser, while Ultron would just be Ultron (hence my comment about making him SkyNet).
I agree though; Kleiser is the weakest part of THE ULTIMATES, but he'd be off the table I think, since I doubt THE AVENGERS will be based in Cap's backstory as much as THE ULTIMATES was.
I disagree.
It simply rests in how much time travelling Kang does. If Kang is say, trapped in the past (or has chosen to stay in the past), then he's got no problems. But if you have the film jumping through time with Kang, that could be a problem.
Again, I loved ultimate Cap yet I find regular Cap to be a terrible bore. Tomayto tomarto.
If it was a perfect world I would love to see one of the majors as the first villain: Loki, Kang, Hulk, etc and in future sequels an adaptation of the Kree/Skrull War and some form of the Masters of Evil. The point is the Avengers have loads of potential for villains and its based all on how they're adapted. From Whedon's work on antagonists in the past I have faith he'll put as much effort into them as he does the heroes.
The Overlord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
You mean like the FF movies with corporate scumbag Doom and cloud Galactus.
:wink:Whiplash was alright, he just needed more time to be developed, he suffered due to lack of screen time, but I don't see how he was a bad villain.
Plus have you never read Ultron Unleashed? In that story he created an army of less powerful but still dangerous robotic doubles of himself, made of less powerful but still very durable form of secondary Adamantium and he dropped a bomb on an African country killing half its population and making the other half into his personal cyborg slaves. He is more then capable of creating an army of minions to help him fight the Avengers, so I don't see why he is less of a worthy foe then anyone else mentioned.
.
Fair enough, but at the risk of sounding pedantic, it seems to me the only heroes Doom cares about are Reed and Sue Richards, everyone else gets the same reaction from him: contempt. Doom has nothing but contempt for every other super, he views them as either pawns to be used against Reed Richards or merely beneath his notice, which is far different from the blind rage he feels towards Richards. I think using him as an avengers villain takes away from one of the most important aspects of his character, I would rather them developing some Avengers villains then just borrow FF ones.
I don't see why you need more then one time jump, with Kang for some reason coming to the 21st century to conquer it. Kang sending the avengers to King Arthur's court or the Wild west is not only silly, but not feasible, considering it would add to the budget with a lot of set pieces that are not needed. Kang merely appearing in the past and fighting the avengers is an epic enough story.
Fair enough again, but I do think in terms of marketability to a general audience, a likable protagonist is better then an unlikable one. The audience can relate more to a likable protagonist then someone who acts like a total A-hole, A-hole characters. In the movie Iron Man Stark was jerk, but he had several likable qualities as well, something Ultimate cap seems to lack.
Plus I have seen many comic book fans who don't like the Ultimates and their biggest problem is, they think Ultimate Cap is a total prick, so from a marketing stand point it makes sense to make Cap more likable like his 616 counter part, instead of being a total A-hole like is the Ultimate universe. That seems like a deal breaker for a lot of people. I think that would have a better chance of success with a wider range of demographics.
Ultimate Cap is kinda fun to watch sometimes, but he isn't a good protagonist, he seems like the kind of character critics would loathe right away and would turn off many members of the audience.
Last edited:
Bass
Nexus of the World
You mean like the FF movies with corporate scumbag Doom and cloud Galactus.
Oooo! Below the belt!
Sure, that's a fine point.
I think Doom would have really interesting relationships with the main three Avengers.
Sure, it could be.
In my experience, Ultimate Cap helped make the Ultimates. I just can't see in what way he's a prick or a jerk, and I think the notions of why he was are somewhat preposterous when you look at the first 18 or so issues. He's got moments of total non-negotiable conviction, and moments of quiet self-doubt, he's intolerant and stern, yet considerate and fair. He's wonderful, and he's certainly not unlikeable.
But even if he was, the idea that a protagonist must be likeable is an absurd notion. Tony Soprano is hardly likeable, but one of the best protagonists in fiction. Virtually the entire cast of THE WIRE is not only unlikeable, but brilliantly engaging. Comic protagonists are routinely unlikeable, like Basil Fawlty, Phil Connors from GROUNDHOG DAY, and most of the Bluth family from ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT.
A protagonist doesn't need to be sympathetic at all, he just needs to be empathetic. No matter how unlikeable, he has to be the center of good. In THE GODFATHER, everyone is either a mobster or a corrupt law enforcer, yet we empathise with the Corelone family because unlike everyone else, they're loyal. Everyone in that movie backstabs one another, except the Corelones, who believe in family. MacBeth is a horrible man, who kills an old man in his sleep, but his incredible guilt makes us identify with him and say, "Yeah... I'd feel bad too."
I disagree that U-Cap is unsympathetic, but if he were, he's still got a terrific center of good; he's an icon. He inspires people routinely with his courage and honesty and sheer skill. He's just terrific. But even if you want to say he's unsympathetic, sympathy is not a requirement for a good protagonist.
The Overlord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
Perhaps but IMO, that's kinda like putting Joker against Superman, interesting for a short while due to novelty, but not the kind of thing that has any legs, because the real conflict and drama lies between Batman and Joker due to their history, the same cannot be said for Superman and Joker. Same deal with Doom.
How so? He comes off as a thoughtless reactionary and a goon, someone who makes crude and thoughtless remarks that seem to be played for laughs, entertaining sure, but endearing it is not. Like I said the France comment he made is funny, but ultimately the laughs come at Cap's expense, because it makes him come off as someone who controversial comment out of ignorance, compared to 616 Cap who talked about the courage that the French resistance showed during the war.
One of these comments a well thought statement based on facts and the other is just ignorant non sense based on stereotypes that we aren't even supposed to take seriously.
Its stuff like that makes 616 Cap more sympathetic then his counterpart. 616 Cap sounds like Lincoln and Ultimate cap sounds like Bill O'Reilly and it seems like we supposed to find what 616 Cap is doing is agreeable while I think Millar seems to be saying most Ultimate Cap's beliefs are just outdated reactionary BS.
All of those examples are in a different context then this purposed movie, usually in sci fi and action movies the protagonist is supposed to be likable, the examples you are pointing to are mainly crime, drama and comedy. The difference between comedy and action-sci fi is night and day plus the protagonist in Ground Hog's day learned something at the end and became a likable character, the only thing that has happened to Ultimate cap is Millar has started writing him as a psychopath who uses a kinder garden class as human shields, even his own creator has made him more monstrous rather then develop him into someone we are supposed to like, at this point I'm wondering if he was a psychopath back in the 40s too.
Look at most comic books from the 90s, they were filled with unlikable anti heroes, how many those were good? Or look at Anakin Skywalker from the Star war prequels, he was an unlikable whiny a-hole to the point that you didn't care about his fall from grace, because he was just a prick. Different contexts require different approaches.
Plus unlike those other examples there are not two different versions of those characters, so the comparisons don't quite work, because there is a different version of the same character that was likable while the second is very unlikable, ticking of the fans of the likable version of the character, that's not the case with your examples.
I personally kinda liked Ultimate Cap in a fun house mirror sort of way, but I have seen some Cap fans loathe Ultimate Cap.
How is he more inspirational then 616 Cap? 616 Cap seems to truly represent the ideals America was founded upon, well Ultimate Cap seems just represent what George W. Bush's America was supposed to be about.
Has Ultimate Cap ever said anything that was more inspiring then the exchange 616 Cap had with a corrupt general in Daredevil number 233? Considering how often the Ultimates degenerated into internal conflict, he didn't seem to inspire his team that which either.
I don't think Ultimate cap inspires, because all he believes is blindly following orders, the only time he didn't follow orders he still came off as a irresponsible A-hole who put people in danger for reasons that personal and fairly selfish reasons instead of idealistic ones.
I don't think Ultimate Cap is inspiring because all he is a solider, he doesn't seem like an icon, he can get killed and be replaced with an jar head jacked on the super solider serum and there wouldn't be much of a difference. He is a solider and ground commander, but he is a not good leader or a deep thinker. He can inspire with deeds of physical combat which are shallow when you compare that to someone who inspires with ideals, because in Ultimates Cap's deeds had no moral relevance beyond mere service to the state, it seemed like he was the "good" side by accident and if the US government ordered him to do something horrific he would do it without question. The fact that he had a baby out of wedlock even shows his whole moral is just a contradiction.
The difference between Ultimate cap and 616 Cap is simple, Ultimate cap is loyal to the state and will obey without question, unless he has selfish reason not to, 616 Cap is loyal only to the ideals of America, not the reality of America or the state, just the ideals and he has fought against the government to preserve those ideals. 616 Cap is far more an icon then Ultimate Cap, because his ideals are far stronger.
Also from what I have seen from various comic related sites, it seems like the majority of fans I came across prefer 616 Cap to Ultimate cap, so 616 Cap seems like a more popular choice.
Last edited:
Zombipanda
My Boom-Boom's mostly gay
I'm taking bets!
50:1 odds that this argument never gets resolved and only ends when Bass finally says something like "Clearly we're on completely different pages and we'll never reach an understanding".
50:1 odds that this argument never gets resolved and only ends when Bass finally says something like "Clearly we're on completely different pages and we'll never reach an understanding".
