We got some references to the Daily Bugle in the first Amazing Spider-Man movie, meaning JJ most likely exists. Currently Jonah is the MAYOR of New York City in the comics, so what if that was the case in the movies?
I would like this change in the movies because it has the following effects
1: It means Jonah has far more pull to make a smear campaign against Spider-Man
2: It puts him in a more believable position to be behind the creation of Scorpion as he was in the comics, should they introduce Scorpion.
3: Jonah could still own the Daily Bugle, using it as a way to spearhead his Spider-Man hate mongering.
*NOTE: The following is simply my thoughts on how Superior Spider-Man should have gone and what I think of it. Mayhap a little late for this, but I feel I have all I need to go on to make an intelligent response to it*
Let me say this right here, right now. I am a Peter Parker fan. Granted the last few years he hasn't been in the best light since OMD, but I'm still a fan. However I must say this as well. When I heard they were killing Peter off and were going to be using a new Spider-Man? I was fine!! Why? Peter has been struggling, fighting, and going since he got bit by that spider. I for one feel that if any superhero deserves a rest it's Peter.
I was even getting excited about how this new Spider-Man would be different. I was looking forward to seeing how he fit in the Marvel universe, who his supporting cast would be, if he'd have any ties to Peter. I was legitimately excited for Superior Spider-Man! And then they did the biggest disservice to a supehero they could possibly do. Die helpless in the body of one of his archenemies while they parade around in what is essentially that hero's corpse and not have to face justice for the lives they have ruined.
At it's heart Superior Spider-Man has this message.
"The villain won, faced no consequences, and the hero died for no reason"
Yeah, Ock can go on and on about how he's a "superior Spider-Man" but really he's not. If he was he would have turned himself in and take responsibility for the crimes he has committed over the years and the fact he just murdered an innocent man who has done nothing but try to help people with every fiber of his being. It made me feel SICK ridding that issue. The only reason I'm reading Superior Spider-Man at all is because I have to believe they will reverse this soon. It's sending the wrong message, that villains can get off without ANY kind of punishment and heroes are helpless to do anything about it. That's not what superhero comics should be about.
As I said, they wanted to kill of Peter Parker? Then they should have had the balls to make it as sad and yet at the same time satisfying as Death of Ultimate Spider-Man.
And I know sometimes bad people win out in real life, but I'm not talking about some trial technicality and a criminal getting off. I'm talking about the fact that the premise of Superior Spider-Man is based on lies, deceit, manipulation of people, murder, and identity theft. Now I've seen movies where all that happens, read comics where all that happens, and played video games where all that happens. Difference here? IT'S IN SPIDER-MAN!!! A superhero who is about taking responsibility for his actions and being an example of one of THE best superhero creations right up there with Superman, Batman, and Captain America.
Ock should have at that moment killed himself. Yes. Killed himself. Only way to keep Peter's secret and atone for what he's done.
I was promised a "Superior Spider-Man" but all I've seen so far is a lying sack of filth wearing a dead man's skin.
Got your attention with the title? Good. This is a little idea I've had for a while now. Basically it has to do with The Avatar. It's really more or less speculation and connecting the dots.
Now we all know what The Avatar is, a bridge between the Spirit World and the human world and a keeper of balance and peace in the world. However that last role and how the Avatar reincarnates into different people greatly reminds me of another character with multiple lives.
The more I think about it the more The Avatar is like The Doctor from Doctor Who. Hear me out here. The Doctor can regenerate into a new body, totally rewriting his genetic code and becoming an entirely new person, new personality and everything. He still has the same memories and is TECHNICALLY the same person, but if you had two Doctor's in the same room you'd never know it. What is the Avatar's reincarnating if not a more complicated form of regeneration?
It has a couple of the same properties. One Avatar or Doctor dies and is replaced with a new one. The new Avatar/Doctor looks different, sounds different, and has a completely different personality from the last.
The Doctor is a character that has been described as a hero, but has done a number of morally ambiguous things in the pursuit of helping people. Quite a few Avatars like Kyoshi has done just that, some Avatars even telling Aang to kill Ozai.
The Doctor is well known for taking companions on adventures and trips across time and space. The Avatar also seems to take companions on adventures. We've seen Aang do this and Korra as well, and if they have it's not too hard to think that other Avatar's didn't as well.
Also The Doctor is currently the last Time Lord. Aang was the last airbender, the only one of his race left, another connection.
This is a question I've been wondering about. Marvel Studios can't use Spider-Man related characters. Like characters that fall under the Spider-Man brand-name such as his villains and supporting characters. However what if they decided to use Spider-Woman. I mean Jessica Drew has no affiliation with Spider-Man aside from somewhat similar powers and the name, so why couldn't they use her to fill the same role? Spider-Woman has always been heavily affiliated with both SHIELD and The Avengers, even working for HYDRA for sometime in the comics, and all of those fall under Disney/Marvel's control.
Perhaps they could have her as a vigilante to begin with? Basically do the same thing Spidey does to start with, but gets drafted into the Avengers at some point? Really I think this would help flesh out their street level heroes more.
I was wondering if it's possible for Marvel/Disney to use the term "Mutate" for Pietro and Wanda Maximoff? Mutate is a term in Marvel used to refer to superhumans who acquired their superpowers by exposure to some compound or energy that can cause mutations. The Hulk, Captain America, Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, etc, are all Mutates, but does that Marvel/Disney can't alter the term to apply to Pietro and Wanda?
Sure they can't be called mutants, but wouldn't this be the next best thing since Mutate is also a Marvel term? I mean, since they don't seem to have a concept of mutants in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, for obvious reasons, couldn't the usage of mutate allow them to keep to the Maximoff siblings origins and even allow for the use of other mutant characters that were never really a part of the X-Men/Brotherhood like Namor since he wasn't a confirmed mutant until the 90's.
L is the world's greatest detective, Batman is the world's greatest detective. L has a butler, Batman has a butler. Both live in secrecy. Both have apprentices, Mello and Near for L and four Robin's for Batman.
Sailor Moon and the Sailor Scouts= Captain Marvel and the Marvel Family:
If you think about it, this fits a LOT more than Wonder Woman for Sailor Moon. Especially if you take the magical aspect, transformation, and the fact there's a GROUP of them which fits with the Marvel Family and the Lieutenant Marvels from the Golden Age which gave the Marvel Family 6 members total.
Naruto Uzumaki= The Hulk:
Really when you boil things down this fits amazingly well, what with Naruto's rough childhood, the vast majority of the people around him thinking he's a monster, the fact he actually DOES Hulk-out, Yami Naruto is obviously Devil Hulk, and since Naruto now has control over Nine Tails makes the connection even better as he is now like Professor Hulk, and in fact Menma Namikaze from the Road to Ninja movie could be viewed as a version of Maestro.
Ichigo Kuroaki= Thor:
Both are considered powerhouses in their respective universes, both have signature weapons which most of their power comes from, both have a mortal form and constantly travel between fantastical realms and Earth, both are hybrids with Thor being part Elder God and Ichigo part Quincy, and both have been trapped on Earth for a time such as Thor in the form of Donald Blake and Ichigo after he lost his powers for the second time. Also Ichigo's Hollow Form basically serves the same function as Thor's Warrior's Madness
Do I REALLY need to explain this one?
Kotetsu T. Kaburagi AKA Wild Tiger= Iron Man
Wears armor, had a company, both are superheroes, neither pay MUCH attention to property damage which is what actually cost Wild Tiger his company due to having to PAY for all the damage he caused fighting crime, and both have beards,
Vash the Stampede= Spider-Man:
Again, do I REALLY need to explain this one? If you've EVER seen Trigun this makes so much sense it's scary!!
Now I would love for them to have a GOOD interpretation of Robin in the next Batman film. Chris O'Donnell's Robin was horrible and in all seriousness having Batman take a 12 or 16 year old minor out to fight crime with him doesn't work in a live action setting. It works in the comics and cartoons, but not in a movie. Well a movie that's trying to be realistic so anyone with Hitgirl from Kick-Ass as a reference of how a traditional Robin could work need not post.
Anyway, that being said, I believe I've come up with a way to make Robin work in a new movie. Basically 14 year old Dick Grayson is taken in by Bruce Wayne, having the same origin he does in the comics. However he's not given a costume. He IS trained by Bruce in criminology and martial arts, but Bruce doesn't allow him to go out in the field. Instead Dick actually acts more like Oracle from the Batcave, under the codename Robin, which also sets up Barbara Gordon's future role. Dick does occasionally go out in the field, wearing a homemade domino mask to hide his identity, to aid Batman though he never outright gets involved in the fights.
This sets up Nightwing very well and allows for the Robin Mantle to be established.
Ya know? One would think people give a new Superman movie a chance since there hasn't been a good one since 1980!!! I mean film is art and art is subjective. Not everyone is going to see a film and get the same thing out of it, but this is just mind boggling. I personally think most bad reviews come from Batman fanboy's who cannot stand the fact that Superman has produced a movie that is just as good, if not in many cases BETTER, than Batman Begins was for Batman. I won't compare Man of Steel to The Dark Knight because there's no comparison to be had. Trying to judge Man of Steel against The Dark Knight is like trying to judge Superman against Batman. There's no way to do it because they are two different characters!!
People saying "Oh, they made a Batman movie and swapped him out for Superman" should be fired from breathing. There was NOTHING about this film that said Batman aside from the Wayne Enterprises satellite!!!! It was not dark like a Batman movie is dark. It was dark in places, but you cannot go too dark with Superman or it's NOT Superman anymore.
They went dark enough and only when they NEEDED to go dark. Having Zod kill Jor-El? Dark, but it was unexpected and added something to Zod's character. It showed just how far he was willing to go, even killing his own friend to reach his goals. Zod willing to and fulling intending to wipe out all of humanity instead of just ruling Earth? Again, dark, but it again adds something to Zod's character. He said it best himself.
"No matter how violent, every action I take is for greater good of my people."
He's not the admittedly one dimensional "Take over the world" villain he was in Superman II or in the comics. He's still a great villain in those instances, but his motivations are just so basic and we've seen it a hundred times already in other villains. Man of Steel's Zod is a sympathetic villain as he simply wants to save his race, but is still someone you want to see defeated as he is more than willing to cause total genocide to achieve this goal.
Really the only dark spot for Superman himself was when he killed Zod and in that instance there was no choice. Other Superman fans have harped on this one act, but what was he supposed to do? He couldn't lock Zod in the Phantom Zone as that ship had sailed, there was no Kryptonite to use on him, there was no red sunlight generator he could use, and there was no magic users for him to call either. So it was either kill Zod and save an innocent family from being brutally murdered, or let the family die and let the fight continue with everyone suffering because of the untold amounts of destruction their fight would cause. And it's not like they had Superman feel OKAY with killing Zod. He broke down afterward!!! He HATED the fact that he had to take a life!!! This is a Superman that has only officially been Superman for about a day or so, it's not a Superman that has been on the job for a few years and could figure out a way to defeat Zod without killing him even without all of the weaknesses I mentioned.
I will say this to begin with. I don't mind homosexuality. I can't understand it for the life of me, but I don't mind it.
This is a topic I feel must be addressed. You see I am a fan of Alan Scott. The ORIGINAL Green Lantern from the Golden Age. I always found him to be a very interesting character with an interesting origin and look. I don't even MIND the fact his costume doesn't have much green. If he's flying or when he's using his ring he's got the green glow so that's enough really. Now in DC's reboot they changed plenty of things. However these changes are the most jarring with their reboot of the Earth 2 universe. Some of the biggest changes is that Alan Scott's ring isn't powered by an extremely magical lantern anymore, his costume is the most unimaginative redesign I have EVER seen and looks a random member of the Green Lantern Corps. Not to mention he's gay. I have no problem with gay people and feel there should be gay superheroes, just as there should be African/African-American, Hispanic, or Asian superheroes
And there ARE gay superheroes: Batwoman, Obsidian(Alan Scott's SON who apparently will never exist again as with Alan Scott's daughter whom I was a fan of), Mikaal Tomas AKA Starman, Northstar, Wiccan, Hulking, and Apollo and Midnighter(Personally hate these two since they're basically one big "Superman and Batman are gay" joke. At least that's the feeling I've gotten every time I read a comic with them in it).
However they should NOT have an established straight superhero for that. Why? Not only does it show a SEVERE lack of imagination on the writers part as it makes them seem incapable of creating a new character, it also makes the entire character into a sales gimmick and nothing more.
Now some of you may say
"But what about Batwoman? She was an established straight character and she's now gay!"
And you would be right. The difference? Originally the entire reason Katherine Kane AKA Batwoman existed in the first place was to show people that Batman and Robin were not gay. That's the entire reason. She also fell into extreme obscurity very quickly. This means she had no time to form real fans before she fell into obscurity. Unlike a character like Alan Scott who actually has fans and appeared in quite a number of comics. The current Batwoman is so different a character with so different a back story that she only thing she has in common with the original Batwoman is the name.
And if any of you still can't see where I'm coming from, think of it like this. Is not making an established heterosexual character a homosexual the same as making an established gay character straight? Would not there be a backlash from the LGBT community? It's the same thing here. When dealing with established characters you need to make sure of but one thing. Make sure the character you plan on making gay is either completely original or so completely obscure with so little previous appearances that no one will even care.