Avengers movie discussion (news/etc.)

[Zombipanda]

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.

 

[Bass]

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.

Except that's purely marketing. It doesn't have a bearing on the structure of the film itself.

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.

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 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.

I mean what would you want to see in terms of originality?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

You know what I want to see? Film Cap. Not Ultimate Cap or 616 Cap. I want a character tailored to match the script.

Agreed.

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).

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.

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.

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]

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.

Ok but should the movie just be an adaption of Ultimates vol.1 or a blend between the 616 Avengers and the Ultimates?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Zeek]

...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.

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]

Ok but should the movie just be an adaption of Ultimates vol.1 or a blend between the 616 Avengers and the Ultimates?

How about something new?

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.

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.

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.

I disagree.

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?

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.

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.

Again, I loved ultimate Cap yet I find regular Cap to be a terrible bore. Tomayto tomarto.

 

[bluebeast]

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]

How about something new?

You mean like the FF movies with corporate scumbag Doom and cloud Galactus. :wink:

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.

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.

I disagree

.

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.

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.

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.

Again, I loved ultimate Cap yet I find regular Cap to be a terrible bore. Tomayto tomarto.

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.

 

[Bass]

You mean like the FF movies with corporate scumbag Doom and cloud Galactus. :wink:

Oooo! Below the belt!

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.

Sure, that's a fine point.

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 think Doom would have really interesting relationships with the main three Avengers.

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.

Sure, it could be.

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.

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]

I think Doom would have really interesting relationships with the main three Avengers.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

 

[Zombipanda]

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".

 

[ProjectX2]

I already hate this movie.

 

[Gothamite]

I already hate this movie.

I wouldn't go that far, but it's certainly not as promising as it once was. I hate that none of the actors playing the Avengers are A-listers other than RDj and Sam Jackson (who doesn't even really count as an Avenger). I certainly would have preferred bigger names for Cap and Thor.

I'm also just irritated that if this movie is successful, it will persuade Warner Bros. to make a Justice League movie (which I don't want to see).

 

[ProjectX2]

I was referring to the Overlord/Bass debate. I really like the cast.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

I'm also just irritated that if this movie is successful, it will persuade Warner Bros. to make a Justice League movie (which I don't want to see).

then don't see it.

there's one crisis averted.

 

[Zombipanda]

I was referring to the Overlord/Bass debate. I really like the cast.

The cast really likes you too.

It came up at the San Diego panel.

 

[ProjectX2]

The cast really likes you too.

It came up at the San Diego panel.

That's good because I am playing The Wasp.

 

[Jaggyd]

That's good because I am playing The Wasp.

You're going to look great in the black latex catsuit with the yellow landing strip.

 

[Zombipanda]

You're going to look great in the black latex catsuit with the yellow landing strip.

I hope they give him pixie wings.

 

[Planet-man]

I was totally psyched for this until they recast Banner. Now, like The Expendables, and Iron Man 2, it just won't really be the same or anywhere near as good as it could've been. I love Ruffalo, but it just busts the whole point of this project wide open.

I'm also just totally numb to excitement for Captain America, and by association this, since they cast Evans. If I see some footage of CA and he's amazing, it might get me more excited for this. In the meantime, it's like a giant beast still lumbering along with a mortal wound. Meh.

 

[Gothamite]

then don't see it.

there's one crisis averted.

Nope.

If WB decide to make a Justice League movie, it (probably) means that they will retool all of their other franchises "in the run up" to their coveted team film, just like Marvel are doing. And unless there's some sort of hyper-intelligent brain trust directing all the different franchises, the movies leading up to the main event will probably be churned-out filler films like Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk absolutely were. I want to be able to enjoy quality films based on franchises I love that are created out of a love for those specific characters and not just as a prologue to a different story.

 

[Bass]

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.

In THE DARK KNIGHT, Batman and Joker have no history. Continuity has almost nothing to do with the success of a villain. The real conflict and drama lies in the conflict generated by the villain, not in how well they know each other.

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.

You're defining Cap by his "You think this letter on my head stands for France" line, and completely forgetting the tenderness he showed towards Bucky and Gail. Your forget how he was the only one who felt that what Pym did to Wasp was wrong and not just 'the way things are'. You forget that he's the one who stopped Hawkeye from killing Thor in the Passion Play. You're forgetting the moments where he feels totally alone and obselete. Your forget how much he loves his country.

Instead you're just focusing on one line that is a funny joke and deemed it a rude and offensive one.

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.

What about Han Solo? He's a murdering, cowardly, selfish, smuggler who is only interested in his own safety and how much money he can have. Sure, at the end of the movie he does something heroic, but for the previous two hours, everyone loved him. He is completely unlikeable, completely empathetic, and starring in the quintessential sci-fi film.

What about Spider-Man? Spider-Man's origin story focuses on him being not only a loser geek, but a selfish, irresponsible fool who gets his uncle killed. But we empathize with him.

What about Iron Man? Or Booster Gold? Or Rorschach? Or anyone in WATCHMEN? Unlikeable all, yet very empathetic.

And Cap wasn't unlikeable anyway.

You're acting like there's a vast difference between the two, when there isn't. There's one difference; Ultimate Cap isn't apologetic. That's it.

Captain America, like every superhero, has been continually written for decades, and the majority of it is slush and interchangeable with any other superhero you care to mention. Your definitive ideas of what 616 Cap is don't even really exist. So when a good story involving the guy comes along, and polarises him effectively with the rest of the superhero cast, it's worth looking to that for inspiration. EARTH X is another great place to go to for Cap, and I'm sure there's a couple of 616 stories which have great Cap elements, but I just cannot be bothered to continue these discussions about miniscule differences in characters that barely exist and change depending on which writer's in charge.

There is no such thing as 616 Cap. There's Mark Millar Cap, and Alex Ross Cap, and Ed Brubaker Cap and on and on and on. Of the ones I've read, I loved EARTH X Cap and THE ULTIMATES Cap. Of THE AVENGERS stories I've read, I only truly enjoyed THE ULTIMATES, and THE ULTIMATES was quite clearly one of the best things to come out of Marvel in the last twenty years.

So yes, I would hope Joss Whedon would look at it for inspiration. And he will, because he wrote the foreword for the hardcover volume and expressed how it was brilliant.

 

[Random]

You're defining Cap by his "You think this letter on my head stands for France" line, and completely forgetting the tenderness he showed towards Bucky and Gail. Your forget how he was the only one who felt that what Pym did to Wasp was wrong and not just 'the way things are'. You forget that he's the one who stopped Hawkeye from killing Thor in the Passion Play. You're forgetting the moments where he feels totally alone and obselete. Your forget how much he loves his country.

Instead you're just focusing on one line that is a funny joke and deemed it a rude and offensive one.

You're also forgetting that Cap himself in the next issue when Fury brings up the line said "I don't know, it was just one of those stupid things you say in a fight". Cap dismisses the line as something stupid and thus you should not give it much weight

 

[The Overlord]

In THE DARK KNIGHT, Batman and Joker have no history. Continuity has almost nothing to do with the success of a villain. The real conflict and drama lies in the conflict generated by the villain, not in how well they know each other.

Except the history and relationship Batman and Joker informed the story of the movie. The Dark Knight drew upon the library of different Batman vs. Joker sotries to create the plot, the same wealth of stories doesn't exist between Joker and Superman. Same deal with Doom and the avengers, the interesting rivalry he has with Reed Richards, any one else comes in a distant second place.

You're defining Cap by his "You think this letter on my head stands for France" line, and completely forgetting the tenderness he showed towards Bucky and Gail. Your forget how he was the only one who felt that what Pym did to Wasp was wrong and not just 'the way things are'. You forget that he's the one who stopped Hawkeye from killing Thor in the Passion Play. You're forgetting the moments where he feels totally alone and obselete. Your forget how much he loves his country.

He loves his country the same way Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin does does, he loves his country, but seems hate half the people in it. Ultimate Cap loves a nation state, but not the true values of America. 616 Cap has fought the government several times when they conflicted with his values, Ultimate Cap mainly seems to obey the government with no questions asked.

Plus as Random noted he seemed brush off any of the tenderness he showed towards Gail and Bucky in a later issue, as a stupid mistake on his part.

Instead you're just focusing on one line that is a funny joke and deemed it a rude and offensive one..

It was funny, I'm not offended by it, I merely like to point out it shows a huge difference between the two, 616 Cap careful reflects on things and makes comments based on well reasoned study of the events in question, well Ultimate Cap just says ignorant non sense that we are supposed to laugh at.

What about Han Solo? He's a murdering, cowardly, selfish, smuggler who is only interested in his own safety and how much money he can have. Sure, at the end of the movie he does something heroic, but for the previous two hours, everyone loved him. He is completely unlikeable, completely empathetic, and starring in the quintessential sci-fi film.

Han Solo started that way, but he developed into a likable character, when he went back to fight the empire at the end of Star wars: A New Hope.

In contrast Millar made Ultimate Cap into a psychopath who uses children as human shields, it was not Loeb who did this, Millar did, so clearly the guy who created the character thinks he capable of being a monster.

What about Spider-Man? Spider-Man's origin story focuses on him being not only a loser geek, but a selfish, irresponsible fool who gets his uncle killed. But we empathize with him.

What about Iron Man? Or Booster Gold? Or Rorschach? Or anyone in WATCHMEN? Unlikeable all, yet very empathetic.

You are confusing flawed characters with unlikable ones, there is a difference between a character who has flaws, but has redeeming qualities that makes them likable and a total A-Hole who has no likable qualities.

The difference is best illustrated by the ideas of a Jerk with a heart of gold and just a Jerk Ass:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Jerkass

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JerkWithAHeartOfGold

Almost all the characters you mentioned fit in the Jerk with a heart of gold, while Ultimate cap seems like just a Jerk ass.

And Cap wasn't unlikeable anyway..

I don't think you have made that case quite yet.

You're acting like there's a vast difference between the two, when there isn't. There's one difference; Ultimate Cap isn't apologetic. That's it.

That's not it, you have been ignoring my main point, that Ultimate cap obeys without question and 616 Cap does not.

They represent two very different things, 616 Cap represents freedom, tolerance, equality, independent thinking. Ultimate cap represents unthinking obedience, service to the state, hegemony, social conformism, jingoism.

Ultimate Cap doesn't apologize because he never considers the possibility that what the government is doing can be wrong, 616 Cap is capable of such self reflection.

Captain America, like every superhero, has been continually written for decades, and the majority of it is slush and interchangeable with any other superhero you care to mention. Your definitive ideas of what 616 Cap is don't even really exist. So when a good story involving the guy comes along, and polarises him effectively with the rest of the superhero cast, it's worth looking to that for inspiration. EARTH X is another great place to go to for Cap, and I'm sure there's a couple of 616 stories which have great Cap elements, but I just cannot be bothered to continue these discussions about miniscule differences in characters that barely exist and change depending on which writer's in charge.

But how much of the 616 Cap stories have you read? Of course with a character that has existed for 60 years there are going to some bland and uninteresting stories, that doesn't negate the existence of the several good ones and there were good Cap stories before the last decade.

There have been tons of stories that are purely Captain America stories in the 616 universe, stories that show him questioning things, he has being at odds with the government at least 3 times and even questioned the origins of the super soldier serum itself, noting how it is similar to a drug.

There is no such thing as 616 Cap. There's Mark Millar Cap, and Alex Ross Cap, and Ed Brubaker Cap and on and on and on. Of the ones I've read, I loved EARTH X Cap and THE ULTIMATES Cap. Of THE AVENGERS stories I've read, I only truly enjoyed THE ULTIMATES, and THE ULTIMATES was quite clearly one of the best things to come out of Marvel in the last twenty years.

So yes, I would hope Joss Whedon would look at it for inspiration. And he will, because he wrote the foreword for the hardcover volume and expressed how it was brilliant.

Except the movie is called Avengers, not Ultimates and I have seen quite a few people around the net who like the Avengers and loathe the Ultimates. I myself have grown to like both in different ways, which why think instead of just basing the movie on Ultimates it should be a blend of the two concepts.

Why should fans of the 616 Avengers not get some bones thrown their way?

 

[Zeek]

He loves his country the same way Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin does does, he loves his country, but seems hate half the people in it. Ultimate Cap loves a nation state, but not the true values of America. 616 Cap has fought the government several times when they conflicted with his values, Ultimate Cap mainly seems to obey the government with no questions asked.

Ultimate Cap is a man out of time. He has nowhere to go, nobody to fall back on, but the government. Bucky and Gail have their own lives, and he isn't really a part of them. He's falling back on his job as a soldier (which, as said MANY times by him, often does conflict with his moralities) because what the hell else can he do? And it's the whole man-out-of-time aspect that causes his dissonance with his nation. Cap is not Sarah Palin, or Rush Limbaugh; he shows no signs of racism, homophobia, religious extremism, etc, etc. He bemoans the loss of the values of his age, but that, again, is a lack of comfort. He seems to grow more or less accustomed to them, and eventually stops complaining.

And, by the way, when the government soldier thing does start to become a job that he is increasingly uncomfortable with? He left it. He told Fury he was outta there.

Plus as Random noted he seemed brush off any of the tenderness he showed towards Gail and Bucky in a later issue, as a stupid mistake on his part.

I couldn't even find the post where Random said this, but I definitely don't remember Cap saying anything like that at all, ever. He remains tender towards Bucky and Gail right up through to the point where he gets taken down by SHIELD for the "footage" from Hawkeye's house. If the line does exist, it's almost certainly a sinister spin being put on his words. I've read The Ultimates countless times, and never did I get the impression that he had anything but the greatest affection for the two.

Han Solo started that way, but he developed into a likable character, when he went back to fight the empire at the end of Star wars: A New Hope.

In contrast Millar made Ultimate Cap into a psychopath who uses children as human shields, it was not Loeb who did this, Millar did, so clearly the guy who created the character thinks he capable of being a monster.

I think it's important to focus on Cap in The Ultimates for this argument, because he's not the only one who underwent a certain degree of character assassination by Millar in UCA. But even with that in mind, that was a gamble by Cap. It's not like he threw children in front of him in lieu of his trademark shield, here; he bluffed. There's nothing saying that he wouldn't have protected the children if that had turned out to be a mistake.

You are confusing flawed characters with unlikable ones, there is a difference between a character who has flaws, but has redeeming qualities that makes them likable and a total A-Hole who has no likable qualities.

The difference is best illustrated by the ideas of a Jerk with a heart of gold and just a Jerk Ass:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Jerkass

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JerkWithAHeartOfGold

Almost all the characters you mentioned fit in the Jerk with a heart of gold, while Ultimate cap seems like just a Jerk ass.

REALLY? RORSCHACH isn't a Jerkass, but Ultimate Cap is? REALLY?

I don't think you have made that case quite yet.

He's made the case just fine. There's a fundamentally different reading of the source work going on, here; it's almost like you'd prefer to hate Ultimate Cap than to admit that he isn't the total ****** that you're reading him as. Plenty of evidence towards him being more than the mindless goon you're making him out to be has been presented.

That's not it, you have been ignoring my main point, that Ultimate cap obeys without question and 616 Cap does not.

Right, except he doesn't.

They represent two very different things, 616 Cap represents freedom, tolerance, equality, independent thinking. Ultimate cap represents unthinking obedience, service to the state, hegemony, social conformism, jingoism.

That's a ridiculously loaded reading of Ultimate Cap. He DOESN'T conform. He never manages to. He tries, because seriously, what other option does he have? But he's not successful, and more importantly, he doesn't abandon his views and values just to fit in. Yeah, he's obedient, but as mentioned above it seems to be because it's the best way to get his bearings. One of the most important differences between Ultimate and 616 Cap is that the former didn't wake up in, like, the 60's, and see most of the social changes and upheaval of the second half of the 20th century. He woke up in the 21st century. The shock is enormous, and while working to adapt, he sticks with his old job until he gets his bearings. He becomes increasingly disillusioned, and eventually leaves.

Ultimate Cap doesn't apologize because he never considers the possibility that what the government is doing can be wrong, 616 Cap is capable of such self reflection.

YES HE DOES. He DOES consider the possibility. He doesn't like what the government is using the superhumans for, and he leaves their employ.

Except the movie is called Avengers, not Ultimates and I have seen quite a few people around the net who like the Avengers and loathe the Ultimates. I myself have grown to like both in different ways, which why think instead of just basing the movie on Ultimates it should be a blend of the two concepts.

Why should fans of the 616 Avengers not get some bones thrown their way?

I agree. All the best Marvel movies have blended the two, and Whedon has said that it's a blend himself. I just don't agree with your ridiculously cynical view on Ultimate Cap.

 

[Zombipanda]

I wish they'd make Captain America CGI.

 

[Bass]

Except the history and relationship Batman and Joker informed the story of the movie. The Dark Knight drew upon the library of different Batman vs. Joker sotries to create the plot, the same wealth of stories doesn't exist between Joker and Superman. Same deal with Doom and the avengers, the interesting rivalry he has with Reed Richards, any one else comes in a distant second place.

Right, so the guys I saw TDK with, who had never read a Batman comic or seen a Batman tv show, when they saw TDK, they were all, "wow, thankfully the history is relevant". They didn't know the history, particularly with Two-Face. So for them, history had nothing to do with it.

This argument is absurd. What history did Bane have in KNIGHTFALL? None. But it doesn't matter. History can help, but it can be invented. Indiana Jones has a history with Belloq but it's within the story they tell, same for Syndrome and Mr Incredible. There's no reason why a 'history' couldn't be built in the story that involves them.

Continuity and history is never what makes these things work, it is always about the relationship and conflict. By your logic, the Prankster has a better relationship with Superman than Darkseid, because Prankster has 28 years more history.

Look, superheroes are cool, but they don't exist in a pocket world where basic storytelling principles no longer apply. You don't need backstory and previous published works to make a villain work, but rather a villain who generates real conflict. It doesn't matter how many times they've clashed.

Han Solo started that way, but he developed into a likable character, when he went back to fight the empire at the end of Star wars: A New Hope.

Right. But when he was an unlikeable jerk everyone still loved him. So a protagonist being unlikeable doesn't stop you from loving them.

You are confusing flawed characters with unlikable ones, there is a difference between a character who has flaws, but has redeeming qualities that makes them likable and a total A-Hole who has no likable qualities.

The difference is best illustrated by the ideas of a Jerk with a heart of gold and just a Jerk Ass:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Jerkass

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JerkWithAHeartOfGold

Almost all the characters you mentioned fit in the Jerk with a heart of gold, while Ultimate cap seems like just a Jerk ass.

So Cap's patriotism, honor, loyalty, and capability for self-sacrifice don't count as a 'heart of gold'?

TVtropes is a fun site, but it is not particularly insightful. Many of the tropes listed duplicate one another or are discussions on hairpin differences.

That's not it, you have been ignoring my main point, that Ultimate cap obeys without question and 616 Cap does not.

In the first issue, Ultimate Cap disobeys orders and crashes a plane into the Nazi base to break it open. He later disobeys orders again, when he goes after Pym. He does it again when he confronts Thor about the security leak. And even in the New Ultimates, the moments you cite as awful, are him disobeying orders in search of the Red Skull.

You are clearly not remembering U-Cap correctly.

Except the movie is called Avengers, not Ultimates and I have seen quite a few people around the net who like the Avengers and loathe the Ultimates. I myself have grown to like both in different ways, which why think instead of just basing the movie on Ultimates it should be a blend of the two concepts.

Why should fans of the 616 Avengers not get some bones thrown their way?

When did I ever suggest it had to be THE ULTIMATES with nothing from 616? You asked how much they should take from either one, and I gave three principles from THE ULTIMATES that they should keep. That's it.

That said, I did just get the KREE-SKRULL WAR saga in tpb today. I'll probably get some of the Brubaker stuff I haven't read.

He's made the case just fine. There's a fundamentally different reading of the source work going on, here; it's almost like you'd prefer to hate Ultimate Cap than to admit that he isn't the total ****** that you're reading him as. Plenty of evidence towards him being more than the mindless goon you're making him out to be has been presented.

Thanks. As I said, the only difference between the two is that U-Cap isn't apologetic. He's strong-willed and it makes sense that he's not hesitant about his decisions; he does what he thinks is best for everyone, and he does it uncompromisingly. It's that single element that made him, for me, so distinct from Superman as to really get into him.

I wish they'd make Captain America CGI.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Random]

I'm kinda of just glance over this debate has anyone mentioned Ultimate Nightmare yet? Where Ultimate Cap reflects on the bravery and sacrifice of the soviets during WWII and how deeply disturbed over their creation of monsters? What a dick.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

You don't understand Random, he never puts locks on his door, he's obviously a dick.

 

[Zombipanda]

I'm kinda of just glance over this debate has anyone mentioned Ultimate Nightmare yet? Where Ultimate Cap reflects on the bravery and sacrifice of the soviets during WWII and how deeply disturbed over their creation of monsters? What a dick.

You're missing the point.

Ultimate Nightmare is clearly an indication that, not only is he a dick, he's a PINKO too!

 

[ProjectX2]

He also killed Hawkeye's family.

What an *******.