Marvel (Movies, Comics, etc.)

Which of the Marvel hero's are your favorites?

  • Total voters
    37
I wouldn't look for Marvel to follow the comic book universe too closely. They do it at times, but in very subtle ways and often they stray far away from established canon. While it hasn't happened yet, I wouldn't be surprised for Pepper Potts to end up married to Tony Stark, even though in the comics, she ends up with Happy.
 
Right. Some of these characters, like Captain America have been around for 75 years, with thousands of issues. Iron man ahs been around for 50 years. To try and make a movie about either of them that is "true" to the comics is impossible.

And actually more recently Pepper has gotten together with Tony in the comics. During the 2007 Civil War Story arc, Happy was attacked and killed by some of Tony's enemies in an attempt to lure him out.

As for the Maximoff's due to the rights to X-men being at Fox, they can't state that they are mutants or children of Magneto. Which is fine as during their earliest years with the Avengers, Wanda and Pietro were trying to distance themselves from Magneto and his Brotherhood so they didn't tell any one who and what they really were.
 
Marvel Comics made ONE attempt to have time REALLY PASS for the characters. They had Reed and Sue Richards' son Franklin grow up to lead his own superhero team, and they gave Spider-Man a daughter who inherited his powers. But the effort to "grow beyond" the originals appears to have fizzled.

Something like this even happened in the late medieval period. Bards made up epics about a gallant knight named Orlando, who was a variation on the epic hero Roland, as in Le Chanson de Roland. The historical Roland had a very short life, but the legendary Orlando kept on going like the Energizer Bunny. No minstrel could bear to kill him off. So Orlando saw his children and GRANDchildren grow to adulthood, yet he kept on having his own adventures. Kind of like James Bond too.
 
Marvel actually has what is called a 'sliding timeline,' which means that the heroes will never die (unless they do, like recently) because events in the universe fix themselves to be in synch with the people. This causes problems, like how Deadpool still exists when the events leading to his creation have been erased.
 
Internal consistency does not cease to be valuable just because a story is fantasy. If your fantasy is about people IN the real world, then unless you establish that endless youth IS PART OF the fantasy, having regular mortals stay thirty years old for sixty years is still preposterous. I realize that "sliding time scale" sidesteps this.
 
I give myself permission to double-post, because (1) the thread's idle anyway, and (2) I just saw Captain America vs. Winter Soldier.

Wasn't that masked killer also in Iron Man Two?

I correctly guessed the major surprises; I spotted Stan Lee; and I noticed the throw-away reference to a Marvel hero who hasn't been filmed lately.

It's nice to know that the air conditioning works.

I'm glad that Agent Hill was allowed to have a part in the action.

Where was Hawkeye during all the ruckus? And why did Thor fail to take notice of such large-scale events? Of course, if one stays through the credits, one may see another matter that would interest Thor.

How does the outcome of this movie affect the TV series about SHIELD?
 
Copperfox said:
I give myself permission to double-post, because (1) the thread's idle anyway, and (2) I just saw Captain America vs. Winter Soldier.

Wasn't that masked killer also in Iron Man Two?

I correctly guessed the major surprises; I spotted Stan Lee; and I noticed the throw-away reference to a Marvel hero who hasn't been filmed lately.

It's nice to know that the air conditioning works.

I'm glad that Agent Hill was allowed to have a part in the action.

Where was Hawkeye during all the ruckus? And why did Thor fail to take notice of such large-scale events? Of course, if one stays through the credits, one may see another matter that would interest Thor.

How does the outcome of this movie affect the TV series about SHIELD?
Click to expand...

No. The Winter Soldier was a villain created exclusively for this film. The one from Iron Man 2 was someone different.

I'll let you know about the last question once tonight's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is over. I'm too glued to the tv to think much. ;)
 
If I were running the franchise, I would have Captain America APPEAR ON the television series right now, to meet with Agent Coulson and discuss -- things.
 
So my mind was fairly blown by last night's episode; it felt just like a continuation/parallel of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I'm still confused by all these plot twists, which I suppose is why Marvel is so good at what it does. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., like articles have predicted, is FINALLY the show that it should have been from episode 1. This crossover is far better than any other they've attempted so far (even surpassing the Thor crossover with Sif).

I'd love to see Cap, Nick Fury, Black Widow, and Hill all appear on the show. Don't see it happening since it's tv and not film, and since everybody is probably pretty busy with other projects (Johannson is currently pregnant, so I sincerely doubt that she could even fit into her Black Widow outfit!). But it will be interesting to see how the rest of the episodes play out. Marvel I think is brilliant in their marketing strategy. They're just saturating the market with their superheroes, which will most likely all culminate in Avengers: Age of Ultron next year.
 
Changing Thor into a woman is the last and final straw. Marvel is even _lying_ about their bogus justification for it. They're saying that "Thor" was never the name of an individual person, it was like a rank title to be assumed. _False!_

I was around, reading comics, when they _first_ began their Thor stories. It did _seem_ for awhile as if being Thor was indeed something that could be passed from person to person; but then they revealed that it was _not_ so. Rather, Donald Blake had always _been_ Thor, he had just been made to forget it for a time. "Thor" was _always_ an individual person's name, and it was a _male_ person.

If Marvel simply said that Thor _died,_ and that a goddess with an identity of her own took over for him, I would not be writing this complaint. If they created _fifty_ new invincible Mary-Sues, I would not be writing this complaint. But what they _chose_ to do was to tamper with the very _identity_ of Thor himself, as if it had _never_ mattered who he was.

As if masculinity itself had never been of any importance.

Henceforth, _nothing_ produced by Marvel will _ever_ get one cent of my money again.
 
Er... "Whosoever holds this hammer, if they be worthy, shall posess the power of Thor." ~Odin.

The real Thor is unworthy right now, so someone else picked up the hammer, and Marvel decided to call her Thor rather than Thordis, Thora, She-Thor, or Thorita. I see it as her trying to carry on Thor's legacy until he redeems himself. What's the problem? Falcon is also picking up Captain America's shield. Superheroes are usually pretty fluid.
 
Did you read what I wrote? Including my statement that I read the EARLY stories? That inscription on the cane which turned into the hammer was there TO MISLEAD THOR, so that he would for a time still BELIEVE he was no more than Donald Blake. But behind the temporary deception, HE AND ONLY HE AND NOBODY ELSE always was the original actual Thor, direct genetic son of Odin.

When Marvel reminds us of the inscription now, it is an intentional half-truth, which equals a whole lie. They had ONE storyline, much later, in which another MAN assumed the role of Thor in order to sacrifice himself and avert Ragnarok; THAT man assumed the role, but only for a HIGHLY unusual piece of time-bending.

Marvel didn't HAVE TO decide to deny that there was ANY signficance to Thor being a PARTICULAR person, and male; they CHOSE to do this, as part of pandering to modern society's effort to downgrade and belittle all maleness. It proceeds by increments; but it will proceed without any support from me.
 
Well, I didn't exept a heated argument over Thor! Copper I love you but hear me out. Thor is still alive and well, he just isn't worthy anymore. He will be in time(if you know Marvel, you know that everyone comes back somehow). Steve Rodgers is worthy too, btw. I think it's great that we get a women possesing the power of Thor AND a man of color being Captian America. Marvel is progressing in the right direction(as it always has, of course). Both steve rodgers and thor will be in different comics don't worry about that. Don't give up on Marvel. Plus they're not changing Thor in the movies so if you really want a guy to be worthy......

Sorry my feminist side came out, I don't want to hurt you in anyway.

Plus you guys should see Garudians of the Galaxies that movie is awesome.
 
I will definitely see GotG. It seems like a great movie.

Copperfox, in recent years, the inscription has been shown to be a real thing, not just a ploy. People who have been shown to be able to lift Mjolnir include Steve Rogers, Beta Ray Bill, and I think Cyclops at one point, but probably not since AvX.

In any case, we have been left without a doubt that the worthiness enchantment actually exists.
 
Anne-Marie and Satyr, both of YOU are good folks. But even VERY good folks may fail to see the full significance of a long-developing trend.

So others were able to LIFT Mjolnir over the years; I confess I had not seen that. But did any of them BECOME Thor? Nothing done in the comics later changes the fact that the inscription was FIRST put there only for Thor/Donald's benefit, because Thor WAS Thor, and he was the ONLY true Thor.

This part of what I wrote earlier seems to have gone unnoticed:

If Marvel simply said that Thor _died,_ and that a goddess with an identity of her own took over for him, I would not be writing this complaint. If they created _fifty_ new invincible Mary-Sues, I would not be writing this complaint.


My gripe is with their diminishing a male character in a way that I have not seen them diminishing female characters. It's like when the "Hercules" TV series was in production, and they added the "Xena" series. They originally said that Hercules inspired Xena to start doing good; but later, they pandered to the ultra-girl-power feminists, and contradicted that. They changed the story to make it so that a FEMALE sorceror got all the credit for Xena turning good.

Combine the Thor business with what ELSE Marvel had chosen to promote and glamourize -- namely, something that this forum won't even discuss -- and I am fed up with them permanently.

 
Last edited:
I'm just going to say what everyone is really thinking: the changing of Thor from female to male just means that Chris Hemsworth is no longer going to play the role, so we won't get to see him anymore in that outfit.


:D



On a serious note, though: I personally dislike the idea of a female Thor, and if there were ever to be a movie about her, I wouldn't see it. If only because I'm so used to Hemsworth's Thor that it would be difficult to like any other version. The same is true of Captain America; I just don't think anyone else can really fill Chris Evans' shoes as that character on film. Maybe in the comics, it's changed. But in the films? I think that change may be a long time down the road.

Also about Guardians; I haven't decided yet if I'll ever see it. It doesn't look that interesting to me. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. execs have hinted at doing tie-ins from Guardians, so I may see the film to understand the tie-ins better. But I'll wait for the dvd to come out. :)
 
Aravis Kenobi said:
On a serious note, though: I personally dislike the idea of a female Thor, and if there were ever to be a movie about her, I wouldn't see it. If only because I'm so used to Hemsworth's Thor that it would be difficult to like any other version. The same is true of Captain America; I just don't think anyone else can really fill Chris Evans' shoes as that character on film. Maybe in the comics, it's changed. But in the films? I think that change may be a long time down the road.

Also about Guardians; I haven't decided yet if I'll ever see it. It doesn't look that interesting to me. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. execs have hinted at doing tie-ins from Guardians, so I may see the film to understand the tie-ins better. But I'll wait for the dvd to come out. :)
Click to expand...

They won't change the casting, unless the new thor is popular, which I highly doubt because so many people are against it(this whole conversation is an great example!). Same with Captian America. They would never change those movies, they're too popular right now. Also I'm pretty sure they have these contracts for future movies, but I could be wrong about that.

Guardians is really good. It's much lighter than Avengers, totally different vibe. There's not a lot of S.H.I.E.L.D stuff in it. But watch it anyway, it's fun and clever. All of the characters are very well written, Chris Pratt does an exellent job with Starlord. Totally worth the money to go see it.

Copper- I don't feel like fighting. What happened in the comics happened. Let it go and enjoy OTHER Marvel comics if you're so fed up with Thor.
 
Actually, it's been confirmed (SPOILER FOR FUTURE MOVIE)

That Steve Rogers will die in Age of Ultron.

(END SPOILER)

Personally, I also dislike the idea of a female Thor. I was playing devil's advocate very badly, as well as pointing out that the worthiness enchantment has been retconned into more than just a trick.

Thor, as a character and an idea, is really too masculine to be changed out for a female version. It just doesn't work. I think that enough fans dislike the idea that it should be fairly short-lived.

In the meantime, be prepared for the vocal minority to publish a lot of online articles with titles like 'Why people who hate the new Thor are misogynists'.
 
Back
Top