cborg's forum posts

#1 Edited by cborg (51 posts) - - Show Bio

@norrinboltagonprime21: Don't get me wrong I love the ultimate universe (pre-Ultimatum) and totally agree with you that the directors should be allowed to tailor the characters to fit the film they envision, I'm just wondering if besides the inclusion of ultimate elements into the characters of the MCU, the the inclusion of ultimate mentality on capital punishment is needlessly muddying the characters up to a wider audience with no experience with the 616 characters. I may totally be jumping the gun since my feelings are based mainly on Iron Mans actions in IM3. Not to drop any spoilers but he does kill maybe a dozen people in and out of the armor in IM3 with no moral questions. In my personal experience the people I've talked to who have never read comics seem to get the impression from the films that the Marvels have the authority to kill when they deem appropriate like a police officer or soldier and are more than willing to do so than "pussies like Batman and Superman" (quote from a dude in the theater.) The marvels are unlicensed, self appointed protectors and so have NO authority to kill outside self defense which legally allows only as much violence as reasonably necessary to end the attack anything more= battery or manslaughter. In comics they generally avoid killing at all costs and do so usually only to prevent immediate deaths of innocents. As for the films themselves,while the storylines and costumes are more 616 there are many elements of Ultimates tossed in and the characterizations themselves owe a LOT to the Ultimates characters and general darker mentality.

IM123- for as many women he's dated before the Ultimates, Stark was never really seen as a partying/womanizer in the 616. Most of his girls were long term committed relationships and his drinking was sulking alone in demon in a bottle trying to forget his problems not party. Ultimate stark said he dated a diff girl each night/ drank while partying/ and was a shameless attention hound. Since the success of ultimates the 616 has adopted several of these traits but he's still a pretty serious dude in the 616(director of SHIELD, Civil War, Extremis...etc). I consider the IM1 created Stark personality that has carried through all the films more an adaptation of Ultimate Stark with a little 616 somber stark mixed in. IM2 played up more the 616 serious Stark but the fun Ultimate Stark was still on display. IM3 plays up the 616 unsure stark trying to live up to/control the crazy world that exists since Avengers while doing it with the Ultimate Starks personality and morality of life.

cap- here I'd say is a definite ultimate cap vibe. For all the man out of time idea behind cap since his revival in avengers to the release of ultimates he never really seemed out of time. His ideas were pretty progressive and too appropriate for the 70s/80s/90s for a dude from the 40s. His feelings on killing in or out of war, relationships, the government, liberal rights all seemed out of touch with the 40s but perfect for the era the stories were written. But in Ultimates this was a guy with a mentality of guy raised in the 30s/40s so out of touch with thoughts of people his age from today. Being that he was a soldier in the worst war ever seen to that point he was willing to kill. In first avenger and Avengers cap seems like a guy with a 40's mentality on things/ a soldier who killed in battle and used firearms when appropriate seemingly having much more inline with Ultimate cap. Still his big soft heart and dreamy view on America is what made 616 the symbol of hope that ultimate cap never seemed is showcased prominently.

avengers- I'd say while the look and story are definitely 616 inspired but the set up is strongly ultimate based. First the whole avengers initiative being shield run and created is obviously ultimate. Fury's position on the team, interactions with them and manipulation of them is also key to the ultimates. Also the dysfunctional nature of the team that was key to the story was the point of Ultimates vol 1 and rarely an issue in 616 pre-ultimates. As you said hawkeye seemed to step out of the pages of Ultimates with his costume/personality/and morality.

By the way guys thanks for the responses I appreciate the notice :)

#2 Edited by cborg (51 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonny_anonymous: cap kinda used guns in WWII. This is a good example of the ultimate-izing. In the golden age comics he occasionally carried but rarely used, and in the 90s (when I started reading comics) the depictions of the past showed cap with only his shield. I think Mark Gruenwald even made a point of having Cap say he never killed someone until the Ultimatum terrorist. I hated that, it seemed dumb and a comic hallmark of making characters too squeaky clean. He was a soldier in WWII for gods sake. That's why I gravitated to the ultimate no nonsense 40s cap of the ultimate universe. In the 2000s and since, hes been depicted as a gun carrying soldier in the 40s though still with the somewhat cop out that bucky did the dirty work. In the film he and bucky are shown to do the same amount of killin, if anything Cap kills way more soldiers. So while I agree with this one you see the change.

#3 Edited by cborg (51 posts) - - Show Bio

Initially I loved the inclusion of some ultimate aspects into the film universe (Samuel Jackson!!!, a Cap that used guns in WWII...etc) but as time went on the characters seem to take a more from the Ultimate Universe and less from the 616 (Avengers= Shield initiative, Hawkeye= starts as shield agent... etc ). Watching Iron Man 3, I noticed Starks complete indifference to killing. In the Extremis storyline Stark went to great lengths to avoid killing Mallen doing so when absolutely necessary (and even then upset Mallen forced him to). In the film he kills dozens of men without batting an eye, he seems more like one of Fury's soldiers from the Ultimates than the 616 Stark. He went from killing 2 people(he overloaded Stanes circuits and caused an explosion that didn't kill either him or Rhodes earlier) in the first 2 to straight murdering dozens in this one. They seem to be phasing out his compassion. Many of the people I've seen watch these films with no history of reading comics have since given me the impression they feel the marvel stable is much kill hungry than the pussys at DC and cheering that on. To me the Marvel stable was never like vigilantes, dishing out death to suit their view of justice and more like DC stable desiring to stop attacks but respecting the law by placing criminals in police hands(except in extreme circumstances). It reminds me of the scene in Kingdomcome where Magog reminds superman of how he murdered the joker and was cheered on for his actions; horrifying superman that this was where heroes where headed, he exiled himself in disgust leaving the humans to the monsters they seemed to want. So what do you all think? are they phasing out the Marvels compassion? are they becoming too cavalier about taking a life? should they all become Punishers?

#5 Edited by cborg (51 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm thinking its the first appearance of Owlman in the new 52. Instead of being Bruce's big bro though, he's an evil version of bruce himself or Martian manhunter sneaking in with intangibility/invisibility shifted into Bruce's form, either way explains the hand and eye ID confirmations.

#6 Edited by cborg (51 posts) - - Show Bio

wow, I really like Peter Nguyen's red robin. I am not a fan of booths take (too many belts) really cool take, maybe a little too red hood but still cool

#7 Edited by cborg (51 posts) - - Show Bio

@k4tzm4n: Apparently there's a lot of new readers who aren't familiar with this article series and are taking the title TOO LITERALLY. a) congrats on the new readers k4tz b) hey new readers before commenting check the past articles, the usual outcome so far has been Bats taking it on the chin. The title is to rib the comic idiom that bats always wins because k4tz is testing it.

#8 Edited by cborg (51 posts) - - Show Bio

Sabretooth was the only interesting threat. the rest had sketchy motivations (mad your dads science was used to make your bones?) huge gaps in skill or strength or lack of ongoing animosity(gorgon is more nick furys now, mystique has stronger ties to rogue). But even sabretooth is a tiny inconvenience to him most of the time, in return of the native he was beat by a car tire. I love Wolverine, the problem is his powers vs enemy powers. He always said he'd treat a man on equal terms come with a fist he'll meet you with one, come with a knife he'll meet you with his claws. The problem is when his strength can lift tons or rend steel, his skill is beyond the best fighters and he heals from nuclear blasts, there is no equal footing. Thats what I liked about the claremont years. He was strong but not the strongest, his skill could quickly be negated by a berserker rage that left him at the mercy of a skilled martial artist, and he could be killed. Now he is the god of death literally not figuratively. No real threats but himself which at this point it's like, go to therapy already man

#9 Posted by cborg (51 posts) - - Show Bio

Drax is actually a complicated character in the annihilation story arc and Guardians comic. And using a wrestler instead of a taditional actor to play a part has the potential to be a Jeep Swensen Bane vs a Tom Hardy Bane. Like Dark Knight Rises or not you gotta admit Hardy was better than Swensen

#10 Posted by cborg (51 posts) - - Show Bio

A study showed that "spoiling" the end of stories before reading them actually increased enjoyment of the story. So feeling hearing an ending beforehand hurts ones enjoyment of the story may be imagined.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2011/08/15/story-spoilers-may-boost-enjoyment