69 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

That's not true at all. The original Journey Into Mystery (the title was later changed to Thor) is considered one of the most influential comics of its day. It might seem hokey by today's standards, but so do most comics from that time. Later, during the 1980s, Thor received wide acclaim for its artwork and storytelling under the legendary Walt Simonson. There was no shortage of good material to choose from.

[Vvardenfell]

The original comic of Thor was a steaming pile of poop. One of the worst comics in the history of American comics. So making an awful movie out of it is just being authentic.

I wouldnt know Ive not read the original. I think I gave Thor an extra 2 stars because it has Natalie Portman in it. That's the only reason I gave attack of the clones a two star rating

EDIT: oh yeah Whedon has another movie out at the same time I've been hearing good things about, a horror movie, reckon it will be good?

Edited by Vvardenfell, 09 April 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[Haflinger]

Yeah I only remember Thor in the 70s. I remember it being a great big pile of awfulness.

Spiderman was influential. Thor was ... oh god. It was Thor. The comic kids read that comic fans get embarrassed about.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Thor in the 70s belonged to that same subgenre of Marvel comics wherein resided other mystical, mythological, and supernatural characters like Dr. Strange, Devil-Slayer, Valkyrie, Son of Satan, and the Man-Thing. I will admit it wasn't my favorite group of Marvel comics (I preferred straight up superheroes without all the magical mumbo jumbo), but it had a following. Thor wasn't great then but I don't think it was as bad as you make it out. If nothing else it retained enough of a following to keep the title in print, which is more than can be said for many, many others.

At any rate the movie bore little or no resemblance to the Thor comic book from that era. It was closer to Ultimate Thor, and I despise the Ultimate titles almost without exception.

[Bambi]

For the sake of the movie, I'll give you Cap as a founding member, but Hawkeye and the Black Widow? Ugh. Yes, they too were major characters, but they were not founding Avengers. Also they're stupid. At least Hawkeye is. The Black Widow was kind of cool, but without the Cold War with the Soviet Union as a backdrop, her character loses her raison d'être. Plus, counting Cap, you now have THREE characters in a movie about super-heroes who have no super-powers.

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. It ju-...

And one of them shoots arrows. Quite lame.

WHAT?! You take that back right now! Don't say it like that... there's nothing inherently lame about archery :'(


I don't think they're the best combination of Marvel characters to focus on, but I also don't mind the films straying from the original canon a little bit - just by virtue of not having the freedom to make 15 films in order to establish and evolve a character to get the best bang for buck. I'm still hoping for at least an Ant-Man/Wasp cameo... they hardly have the broader appeal of Spider-Man or Iron Man, but if they've Black Widow and Hawkeye then they should at least be talking about Hank 'n Jan :|

[Vvardenfell]

I seem to remember from the comic books that spiderman was the outcast of the group, ie given a trial but not allowed to join, but it seems iron man plays that role now

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Spider-Man was traditionally something of an outsider in the Marvel universe. While the other major heroes, such as the Avengers and Fantastic Four, had official sanction and widespread public popularity, Spider-Man was seen as an outlaw vigilante. Most of the major Marvel characters knew this was an unfair characterization, but it was always depicted that Spider-Man's public image kept him from being allowed to join a group like the Avengers. For his part, Spider-Man seemed to prefer it that way. In recent years this has changed, and Spider-Man appears to have gained more widespread acceptance by the general public of the Marvel universe, as evidenced by the fact that he has been a member of both the Avengers AND the Fantastic Four. This is just part of what is wrong with Marvel today.

[Haflinger]

Nah, I think it was more just that Spiderman belonged in the Stan Lee tent and he wouldn't let go of him. Remember Spidey wasn't just a bunch of comic books, he was also a daily strip in newspapers, a TV show (a terrible TV show) and so on and so forth.

Nowadays Stan Lee is more or less retired.

Dr. Strange does not belong with those other titles. Dr. Strange actually had decent writing. The rest of them?

Pthyuck.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

All of those characters belonged in the Stan Lee tent. Most of the primary Marvel characters, even to this day, are Stan Lee/Jack Kirby creations. By the 1970s Kirby was out, but Lee remained the major guiding force (and public face) of Marvel right up through the 1980s. Sort of like me with Invicta.

Anyway I was talking about how the character fit into the fictional Marvel universe, not how fans responded to him.

[Haflinger]

FF was Stan Lee too, but it was Stan early days. I didn't think Avengers (and Thor, lol) had anything to do with him.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Aye. From Wikipedia:

The first superhero group [Stan] Lee and artist Jack Kirby created was the Fantastic Four. The team's immediate popularity led Lee and Marvel's illustrators to produce a cavalcade of new titles. With Kirby primarily, Lee created the Hulk, Iron Man, Thor and the X-Men; with Bill Everett, Daredevil; and with Steve Ditko, Doctor Strange and Marvel's most successful character, Spider-Man, all of whom lived in a thoroughly shared universe.

Stan Lee basically created the Marvel pantheon, minus Captain America.

[The Dark Empire]

Honestly I really liked Captain America, he was always my favorite alongside spider man.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I liked Captain America. I have a friend, also a comic book fan, who feels that Cap was too corny, too hooray-for-the-red-white-and-blue. But that's exactly what I like about him, the almost corny patriotism, like something from another time. Which he is (the 1940s -- he was frozen in an iceberg for decades before the Avengers found him). He was always portrayed as having an aura of nobility, and was widely respected by the normal human population of the Marvel universe, even those who did not like other super-heroes. Thus the classic line, "All them super-dupers is bums. 'Cept maybe Cap."

Spider-Man was never one of my favorites. I didn't like his outsider status. I preferred the Avengers and Fantastic Four, the accepted, "establishment" heroes. Although I did also like the X-Men, who were the ultimate societal outsiders. So mostly I went for group books, that way you got more super-hero characters. More bang for your buck, in other words.

My favorite group/book was Alpha Flight, the Canadian super-heroes. But I doubt they're going to make a movie of that.

[The Dark Empire]

I liked Captain America. I have a friend, also a comic book fan, who feels that Cap was too corny, too hooray-for-the-red-white-and-blue. But that's exactly what I like about him, the almost corny patriotism, like something from another time. Which he is (the 1940s -- he was frozen in an iceberg for decades before the Avengers found him). He was always portrayed as having an aura of nobility, and was widely respected by the normal human population of the Marvel universe, even those who did not like other super-heroes. Thus the classic line, "All them super-dupers is bums. 'Cept maybe Cap."

Spider-Man was never one of my favorites. I didn't like his outsider status. I preferred the Avengers and Fantastic Four, the accepted, "establishment" heroes. Although I did also like the X-Men, who were the ultimate societal outsiders. So mostly I went for group books, that way you got more super-hero characters. More bang for your buck, in other words.

My favorite group/book was Alpha Flight, the Canadian super-heroes. But I doubt they're going to make a movie of that.

I agree with you on the Captain America thing. I like how spider man's an outsider because it makes him unique and shows he doesn't do it for the fame an public support.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I don't think any of them ever did it for the fame or public support. It's just that some of them happened to have more of it. They were like the popular kids in school, while Spider-Man was the nerdy loser on the outside looking in. As a real-life nerdy loser, I fantasized about being one of the In Crowd, so naturally I gravitated toward the popular, establishment super-heroes. Heh.

[Haflinger]

My favourite comic when I was a kid was Flash. I'm still not entirely sure why other than I thought his superpower was really cool. I used to read Spiderman in the daily newspaper as well, but that was a kinda strange way to read a superhero comic.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I like super-speed characters, always have. Marvel's Quicksilver was my favorite, but I did like the Flash too, and especially Kidflash (who was the Flash's nephew as I recall; I think now that character has taken up the mantle of the Flash). The problem, of course, with these sorts of characters is lack of imagination on the writers' part. The Flash could move at almost the speed of light -- for all intents and purposes that should make him invincible. Even Quicksilver, who only moves at a much more manageable 275mph, should easily be able to overpower a whole crowd of baddies before they even have time to react. No one ever really uses them to their full potential.

[Haflinger]

Well to be honest most of the superheroes in the Flash's era (the 70s) were really invincible. None of the bad guys ever won. It was always Hollywood endings in every book.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

DC Comics heroes were always several orders of magnitude more powerful than Marvel characters. For example, DC's strongest character was Superman, who at one point was capable of pushing planets out of orbit. By contrast, Marvel's headline strongman was the Hulk, who could lift around 100 tons, the weight of a Boeing 757. In the 1980s DC got things under control by revamping most of its titles and toning down the power levels to be more in line with the Marvel way, which by then had come to be dominant. Today the two publishers' characters are generally depicted as being of more or less comparable power levels.

The 70s were a transitional period for comics, much as they were movies. There were still a lot of the trite, hero-wins-the-day type storylines like Haf mentioned. But there were also lots of titles delving into darker, edgier stuff. Batman during that period was particularly well done, as was Swamp Thing. By the end of the decade a more mature aesthetic had taken shape, and that period produced some of the genre's greatest stories, not least of which the Dark Phoenix Saga in the pages of X-Men.

[Haflinger]

You sure?

I associate all that stuff with the '80s. The Dark Knight was '80s. Batman in the '70s I remember being more or less Adam West; you know, Green Goblin flying around, the Penguin being a caricature, etc.