|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 3, 2023 14:28:59 GMT
The comics themselves agreed that X-Men needed updated and there were inherent flaws, that's why the book was canceled at first and needed to be seriously reworked being relaunched. And why multiple attempts were made to remove all the lingering legacy characters from the start (Cyclops and Xavier in particular) and even have the school itself be destroyed and left destroyed. These failed, but the writers did want this. FF similarly has issues with adaptations thanks to the source materials flaws.
Sounds like you're making excuses now.
And I'm saying that if what you were saying was true, Batman Returns would have a worse reputation over time rather than the other way around. Seems those major changes to major characters were somehow acceptable by the very same people who'd be angry if changes were made to characters like Xavier. Making them hypocrites.
So double standards then.
There is, there very much is. The over homogeneous-ness was a mistake and must be dealt with. If Jim Gordon can be made into a black man then so can Xavier.
I suggest you read my statement once more, because I admitted that because both series having existed for over half a century there have been stories, attitudes, and dialog that do not resonate today, but the basic premise of the two still resonate with readers today, hence why they're still being published to the masses. The Fantastic Four are a team of explorers and superheroes who still have to deal with everyday issues and face trials and tribulations. Some people idolize them, others do not, sometimes they like the fame, other times they dislike that they can never have a normal life again. The X-Men is about people with unique abilities who face difficulty in being accepted in society. I am not making excuses for anyone; I am pointing out that outside of the comic books Bane wasn't portrayed that too accurately to the source material and as such many people's impressions of him was that he was a Batman villain who dressed like a professional wrestler who used a serum to get bigger. As mentioned, there was a reason why DC Comics released collected editions of the Knightfall story arc and decided to use Bane in more stories around the time of release of the film. The evidence is all over the internet - Batman Returns was a controversial movie and wasn't seen as a huge crowd pleaser on release, its reception changed overtime. It depends on the individual, if they show acceptance of change for one thing but not for the other and they happen to be well-versed in both properties, then an argument can be made for hypocrisy, otherwise it is a fallacy. There is no need to, there are plenty of non-white characters in the Marvel universe that can carry their own movie or series, I have already said that you can have an X-Men movie centered around a cast of non-white characters but still keep Xavier as traditionally presented as in media. And that basic premise doesn't exclude room for updating.
You certainly come off like you're supporting the major changes Nolan made to Bane.
Uh huh, which is the opposite of how it usually goes. If there's even the slightest change made to anything now it's automatically rejected but somehow Batman Returns' rep went in the other way. Hypocrisy.
And based on all the evidence, the double standards stick.
There was no need to make Fury a Black Man in the Ultimate comics and use that version in the MCU, there was no need to make Rogue a useless damsel in the FoX-Men movies, there was no need to make Mystique a heroine when she never was in the comics, there was no need to make Jim Gordon black. So why draw the line with an outdated character like Xavier?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 4, 2023 3:57:10 GMT
I suggest you read my statement once more, because I admitted that because both series having existed for over half a century there have been stories, attitudes, and dialog that do not resonate today, but the basic premise of the two still resonate with readers today, hence why they're still being published to the masses. The Fantastic Four are a team of explorers and superheroes who still have to deal with everyday issues and face trials and tribulations. Some people idolize them, others do not, sometimes they like the fame, other times they dislike that they can never have a normal life again. The X-Men is about people with unique abilities who face difficulty in being accepted in society. I am not making excuses for anyone; I am pointing out that outside of the comic books Bane wasn't portrayed that too accurately to the source material and as such many people's impressions of him was that he was a Batman villain who dressed like a professional wrestler who used a serum to get bigger. As mentioned, there was a reason why DC Comics released collected editions of the Knightfall story arc and decided to use Bane in more stories around the time of release of the film. The evidence is all over the internet - Batman Returns was a controversial movie and wasn't seen as a huge crowd pleaser on release, its reception changed overtime. It depends on the individual, if they show acceptance of change for one thing but not for the other and they happen to be well-versed in both properties, then an argument can be made for hypocrisy, otherwise it is a fallacy. There is no need to, there are plenty of non-white characters in the Marvel universe that can carry their own movie or series, I have already said that you can have an X-Men movie centered around a cast of non-white characters but still keep Xavier as traditionally presented as in media. And that basic premise doesn't exclude room for updating.
You certainly come off like you're supporting the major changes Nolan made to Bane.
Uh huh, which is the opposite of how it usually goes. If there's even the slightest change made to anything now it's automatically rejected but somehow Batman Returns' rep went in the other way. Hypocrisy.
And based on all the evidence, the double standards stick.
There was no need to make Fury a Black Man in the Ultimate comics and use that version in the MCU, there was no need to make Rogue a useless damsel in the FoX-Men movies, there was no need to make Mystique a heroine when she never was in the comics, there was no need to make Jim Gordon black. So why draw the line with an outdated character like Xavier?
I never said one couldn't, I am saying that the basic premise for both still resonate with consumers today. I wasn't, I was saying that outside of the DC Comics reader, the average consumer before 2012 was only vaguely familiar with the Bane character and what was shown of him in other media like in television, film, and video games didn't touch upon either very well or not enough - he was portrayed as a physical threat only, not so much (or at all) an intellectual one. Unless someone who is partial towards Batman Returns but rejects changes made to other source material in adaptation that they say are equally as well-versed in, then the argument of hypocrisy can only go so far. Because people are very complex, you are also bound to encounter people who don't care about any change being made to any source material as long as it entertains them, or one who's idea of the source material was formed from exposure to such media. If you encounter someone who says they are a fan of so-and-so and are bothered by changes made in an adaptation, but they are not a fan of such-and-such and care about whatever alterations were made it in its own adaptation, then the double standards argument cannot be applied, it cannot be applied to someone who expresses no interest in subject matter being adapted properly in other media as long as they find the product entertaining and good. Your "one size fits all" approach is not particularly logically sound and comes across as very middle school-ish. But how is Charles Xavier as an outdated character? You have only given one example as to why it has to do with his skin color, what about his personality, background, power set, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 4, 2023 5:00:24 GMT
And that basic premise doesn't exclude room for updating.
You certainly come off like you're supporting the major changes Nolan made to Bane.
Uh huh, which is the opposite of how it usually goes. If there's even the slightest change made to anything now it's automatically rejected but somehow Batman Returns' rep went in the other way. Hypocrisy.
And based on all the evidence, the double standards stick.
There was no need to make Fury a Black Man in the Ultimate comics and use that version in the MCU, there was no need to make Rogue a useless damsel in the FoX-Men movies, there was no need to make Mystique a heroine when she never was in the comics, there was no need to make Jim Gordon black. So why draw the line with an outdated character like Xavier?
I never said one couldn't, I am saying that the basic premise for both still resonate with consumers today. I wasn't, I was saying that outside of the DC Comics reader, the average consumer before 2012 was only vaguely familiar with the Bane character and what was shown of him in other media like in television, film, and video games didn't touch upon either very well or not enough - he was portrayed as a physical threat only, not so much (or at all) an intellectual one. Unless someone who is partial towards Batman Returns but rejects changes made to other source material in adaptation that they say are equally as well-versed in, then the argument of hypocrisy can only go so far. Because people are very complex, you are also bound to encounter people who don't care about any change being made to any source material as long as it entertains them, or one who's idea of the source material was formed from exposure to such media. If you encounter someone who says they are a fan of so-and-so and are bothered by changes made in an adaptation, but they are not a fan of such-and-such and care about whatever alterations were made it in its own adaptation, then the double standards argument cannot be applied, it cannot be applied to someone who expresses no interest in subject matter being adapted properly in other media as long as they find the product entertaining and good. Your "one size fits all" approach is not particularly logically sound and comes across as very middle school-ish. But how is Charles Xavier as an outdated character? You have only given one example as to why it has to do with his skin color, what about his personality, background, power set, etc.? Which still doesn't mean there isn't room for updating, like ditching the more sexist elements of FF and having the X-Men be less of a cult.
Uh huh, and the Nolan Bane was still a significant enough departure that he should've warranted a backlash. But he didn't.
IE, the complaints that happen when any changes are made are utter bunk and shouldn't be taken seriously.
I'm simply applying the "fans" own logic and attitude right back at them. Give them a taste.
Well, make him less of a Cult Leader who cloisters up kids where he can indoctrinate them and be overall rather bad at his self-appointed mission. That helps.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 4, 2023 9:25:12 GMT
I never said one couldn't, I am saying that the basic premise for both still resonate with consumers today. I wasn't, I was saying that outside of the DC Comics reader, the average consumer before 2012 was only vaguely familiar with the Bane character and what was shown of him in other media like in television, film, and video games didn't touch upon either very well or not enough - he was portrayed as a physical threat only, not so much (or at all) an intellectual one. Unless someone who is partial towards Batman Returns but rejects changes made to other source material in adaptation that they say are equally as well-versed in, then the argument of hypocrisy can only go so far. Because people are very complex, you are also bound to encounter people who don't care about any change being made to any source material as long as it entertains them, or one who's idea of the source material was formed from exposure to such media. If you encounter someone who says they are a fan of so-and-so and are bothered by changes made in an adaptation, but they are not a fan of such-and-such and care about whatever alterations were made it in its own adaptation, then the double standards argument cannot be applied, it cannot be applied to someone who expresses no interest in subject matter being adapted properly in other media as long as they find the product entertaining and good. Your "one size fits all" approach is not particularly logically sound and comes across as very middle school-ish. But how is Charles Xavier as an outdated character? You have only given one example as to why it has to do with his skin color, what about his personality, background, power set, etc.? Which still doesn't mean there isn't room for updating, like ditching the more sexist elements of FF and having the X-Men be less of a cult.
Uh huh, and the Nolan Bane was still a significant enough departure that he should've warranted a backlash. But he didn't.
IE, the complaints that happen when any changes are made are utter bunk and shouldn't be taken seriously.
I'm simply applying the "fans" own logic and attitude right back at them. Give them a taste.
Well, make him less of a Cult Leader who cloisters up kids where he can indoctrinate them and be overall rather bad at his self-appointed mission. That helps.
What you are describing are not elements that are rooted entirely in the premise of either - Sue Storm was written better as the book carried on, and pretty much everyone agrees that Jonathan Hickman's run on the X-Men had many misses to its swings. The Fantastic Four are a functioning family unit who have to deal with everyday life, the X-Men are about people with unique abilities who struggle to find acceptance and their place in the world. I suppose that was the case because how successful the previous Batman film by Christopher Nolan was - he had proven to many people he was a name to rally behind and seemed to guarantee a high-quality product. Also, his Batman movies were meant to be set in a somewhat exaggerated reality, so the expectation of a more tone-down version of Bane was to be expected from some people. What's your point? You know you cannot generalize every person, because they all have their own reasons, I've attempted to try to be fair and categorize three sets of people, one of which I would place under the category of being hypocritical, the other not so. You are only debating with me on this, no one else. Jonnathan Hickman's run clearly shouldn't be used as a template for Marvel Studios' eventual attempt in the 616 universe.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 4, 2023 15:41:19 GMT
Which still doesn't mean there isn't room for updating, like ditching the more sexist elements of FF and having the X-Men be less of a cult.
Uh huh, and the Nolan Bane was still a significant enough departure that he should've warranted a backlash. But he didn't.
IE, the complaints that happen when any changes are made are utter bunk and shouldn't be taken seriously.
I'm simply applying the "fans" own logic and attitude right back at them. Give them a taste.
Well, make him less of a Cult Leader who cloisters up kids where he can indoctrinate them and be overall rather bad at his self-appointed mission. That helps.
What you are describing are not elements that are rooted entirely in the premise of either - Sue Storm was written better as the book carried on, and pretty much everyone agrees that Jonathan Hickman's run on the X-Men had many misses to its swings. The Fantastic Four are a functioning family unit who have to deal with everyday life, the X-Men are about people with unique abilities who struggle to find acceptance and their place in the world. I suppose that was the case because how successful the previous Batman film by Christopher Nolan was - he had proven to many people he was a name to rally behind and seemed to guarantee a high-quality product. Also, his Batman movies were meant to be set in a somewhat exaggerated reality, so the expectation of a more tone-down version of Bane was to be expected from some people. What's your point? You know you cannot generalize every person, because they all have their own reasons, I've attempted to try to be fair and categorize three sets of people, one of which I would place under the category of being hypocritical, the other not so. You are only debating with me on this, no one else. Jonnathan Hickman's run clearly shouldn't be used as a template for Marvel Studios' eventual attempt in the 616 universe. The X-Men being a cult of indoctrinated kids is how the series started, and you're agreeing that the FF got improved from the initial starting point. Meaning there's always room for changes.
You "suppose" that's the case. I can just as easily "suppose" that people who were fine with everything Nolan did who later complain about anything the MCU does are just hypocrites.
That if "fans" (and I'm using that term more loosely as time goes on) were fine with all the changes prior adaptations made do nothing but complain about every last little change the MCU makes, then they're not worth listening to. They're selfish hypocrites.
Xavier acting like a Cult Leader was right there from Day One of the comics, it's one of the inherent flaws I brought up.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 4, 2023 21:24:38 GMT
What you are describing are not elements that are rooted entirely in the premise of either - Sue Storm was written better as the book carried on, and pretty much everyone agrees that Jonathan Hickman's run on the X-Men had many misses to its swings. The Fantastic Four are a functioning family unit who have to deal with everyday life, the X-Men are about people with unique abilities who struggle to find acceptance and their place in the world. I suppose that was the case because how successful the previous Batman film by Christopher Nolan was - he had proven to many people he was a name to rally behind and seemed to guarantee a high-quality product. Also, his Batman movies were meant to be set in a somewhat exaggerated reality, so the expectation of a more tone-down version of Bane was to be expected from some people. What's your point? You know you cannot generalize every person, because they all have their own reasons, I've attempted to try to be fair and categorize three sets of people, one of which I would place under the category of being hypocritical, the other not so. You are only debating with me on this, no one else. Jonnathan Hickman's run clearly shouldn't be used as a template for Marvel Studios' eventual attempt in the 616 universe. The X-Men being a cult of indoctrinated kids is how the series started, and you're agreeing that the FF got improved from the initial starting point. Meaning there's always room for changes.
You "suppose" that's the case. I can just as easily "suppose" that people who were fine with everything Nolan did who later complain about anything the MCU does are just hypocrites.
That if "fans" (and I'm using that term more loosely as time goes on) were fine with all the changes prior adaptations made do nothing but complain about every last little change the MCU makes, then they're not worth listening to. They're selfish hypocrites.
Xavier acting like a Cult Leader was right there from Day One of the comics, it's one of the inherent flaws I brought up.
Very well, could you please cite some examples of what you would say is the X-Men, in particular the Charles Xavier character, being like that of a cult from the comic books, as the series is over 60 years old then it shouldn't take you very long to find something that could convince me of your claim. Sue being better written in the years that followed after debut doesn't go against my argument that the premise of the Fantastic Four still resonates with consumers. But the situation isn't as streamlined as you make it out to be, maybe the person who liked the Nolan Batman trilogy is not a fan of the comic book and the changes made to the source material mean nothing to them but they are a fan of Marvel comics and may not be fond of every change made in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 5, 2023 2:08:17 GMT
The X-Men being a cult of indoctrinated kids is how the series started, and you're agreeing that the FF got improved from the initial starting point. Meaning there's always room for changes.
You "suppose" that's the case. I can just as easily "suppose" that people who were fine with everything Nolan did who later complain about anything the MCU does are just hypocrites.
That if "fans" (and I'm using that term more loosely as time goes on) were fine with all the changes prior adaptations made do nothing but complain about every last little change the MCU makes, then they're not worth listening to. They're selfish hypocrites.
Xavier acting like a Cult Leader was right there from Day One of the comics, it's one of the inherent flaws I brought up.
Very well, could you please cite some examples of what you would say is the X-Men, in particular the Charles Xavier character, being like that of a cult from the comic books, as the series is over 60 years old then it shouldn't take you very long to find something that could convince me of your claim. Sue being better written in the years that followed after debut doesn't go against my argument that the premise of the Fantastic Four still resonates with consumers. But the situation isn't as streamlined as you make it out to be, maybe the person who liked the Nolan Batman trilogy is not a fan of the comic book and the changes made to the source material mean nothing to them but they are a fan of Marvel comics and may not be fond of every change made in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? He takes children, indoctrinates them, puts them in danger against supervillains regularly, cloisters his "students" up in his fancy house while mostly ignoring the mutants who can't pass as humans and talks about a peaceful future for Humans and Mutants but does little to actually accomplish this. It wasn't until the early 2000s when he was outed as a Mutant that these flaws got more pointed out and the mid 2000s when his own X-Men started questioning him more.
Sue being better written was because the initial premise of FF was abandoned and changed over time.
Then that hypothetical "fan" is a hypocrite with no will.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 5, 2023 9:24:35 GMT
Very well, could you please cite some examples of what you would say is the X-Men, in particular the Charles Xavier character, being like that of a cult from the comic books, as the series is over 60 years old then it shouldn't take you very long to find something that could convince me of your claim. Sue being better written in the years that followed after debut doesn't go against my argument that the premise of the Fantastic Four still resonates with consumers. But the situation isn't as streamlined as you make it out to be, maybe the person who liked the Nolan Batman trilogy is not a fan of the comic book and the changes made to the source material mean nothing to them but they are a fan of Marvel comics and may not be fond of every change made in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? He takes children, indoctrinates them, puts them in danger against supervillains regularly, cloisters his "students" up in his fancy house while mostly ignoring the mutants who can't pass as humans and talks about a peaceful future for Humans and Mutants but does little to actually accomplish this. It wasn't until the early 2000s when he was outed as a Mutant that these flaws got more pointed out and the mid 2000s when his own X-Men started questioning him more.
Sue being better written was because the initial premise of FF was abandoned and changed over time.
Then that hypothetical "fan" is a hypocrite with no will.
So, no examples but observation. I would like to be referred to storylines, panels, and interactions with other characters - again, this property has been around for more than 60 years, you should be able to find some to make your argument more sound. The premise for the Fantastic Four is about four superheroes who are portrayed as somewhat of a dysfunctional yet loving family unit. This has never been abandoned. Does this hypothetical individual who questions the changes in the adaptation of a work they have a history with, required to express the same exact knowledge and passion of any other work in culture that is being adapted in other media?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 5, 2023 16:17:59 GMT
He takes children, indoctrinates them, puts them in danger against supervillains regularly, cloisters his "students" up in his fancy house while mostly ignoring the mutants who can't pass as humans and talks about a peaceful future for Humans and Mutants but does little to actually accomplish this. It wasn't until the early 2000s when he was outed as a Mutant that these flaws got more pointed out and the mid 2000s when his own X-Men started questioning him more.
Sue being better written was because the initial premise of FF was abandoned and changed over time.
Then that hypothetical "fan" is a hypocrite with no will.
So, no examples but observation. I would like to be referred to storylines, panels, and interactions with other characters - again, this property has been around for more than 60 years, you should be able to find some to make your argument more sound. The premise for the Fantastic Four is about four superheroes who are portrayed as somewhat of a dysfunctional yet loving family unit. This has never been abandoned. Does this hypothetical individual who questions the changes in the adaptation of a work they have a history with, required to express the same exact knowledge and passion of any other work in culture that is being adapted in other media? Alright, I think it was Issue...2. The first one with the Blob.
They try to recruit him, he says he's not interested, they push the issue and he decides to give them a fair shake. They bring him to the Mansion and explain everything to him, he brings up his concerns and how he was happy with his old life, he says he appreciates their offer but he turns them down. Xavier freaks out and has the X-Men attack him rather than let him go.
THAT is not the Xavier we need adapted.
It started out as a "Father knows best" thing with Reed as the father character who was always right and Sue as the submissive little wifey. That got abandoned over the years.
They're required to have some integrity with their position of "No changes ever in anything". Not "Well it's okay if one thing gets changed massively but not anything else ever".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2023 20:03:51 GMT
Uh-huh, and the all Male Trinity walking over to Thanos...that WASN'T just as cringe? How exactly was that scene cringe? And more importantly, WHY did I take you off my ignore list? ??
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Mar 5, 2023 20:55:04 GMT
So, no examples but observation. I would like to be referred to storylines, panels, and interactions with other characters - again, this property has been around for more than 60 years, you should be able to find some to make your argument more sound. The premise for the Fantastic Four is about four superheroes who are portrayed as somewhat of a dysfunctional yet loving family unit. This has never been abandoned. Does this hypothetical individual who questions the changes in the adaptation of a work they have a history with, required to express the same exact knowledge and passion of any other work in culture that is being adapted in other media? Alright, I think it was Issue...2. The first one with the Blob.
They try to recruit him, he says he's not interested, they push the issue and he decides to give them a fair shake. They bring him to the Mansion and explain everything to him, he brings up his concerns and how he was happy with his old life, he says he appreciates their offer but he turns them down. Xavier freaks out and has the X-Men attack him rather than let him go.
THAT is not the Xavier we need adapted.
It started out as a "Father knows best" thing with Reed as the father character who was always right and Sue as the submissive little wifey. That got abandoned over the years.
They're required to have some integrity with their position of "No changes ever in anything". Not "Well it's okay if one thing gets changed massively but not anything else ever".
Yeah, Xavier is a bad guy as seen in Dark Phoenix. He probably has sex with his female students then wipes their memories.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Mar 5, 2023 21:07:41 GMT
Alright, I think it was Issue...2. The first one with the Blob.
They try to recruit him, he says he's not interested, they push the issue and he decides to give them a fair shake. They bring him to the Mansion and explain everything to him, he brings up his concerns and how he was happy with his old life, he says he appreciates their offer but he turns them down. Xavier freaks out and has the X-Men attack him rather than let him go.
THAT is not the Xavier we need adapted.
It started out as a "Father knows best" thing with Reed as the father character who was always right and Sue as the submissive little wifey. That got abandoned over the years.
They're required to have some integrity with their position of "No changes ever in anything". Not "Well it's okay if one thing gets changed massively but not anything else ever".
Yeah, Xavier is a bad guy as seen in Dark Phoenix. He probably has sex with his female students then wipes their memories. Bill Cosby should play Xavier.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 5, 2023 22:43:58 GMT
Uh-huh, and the all Male Trinity walking over to Thanos...that WASN'T just as cringe? How exactly was that scene cringe? And more importantly, WHY did I take you off my ignore list? ?? If the women having a...5 second thing together is cringe, then the 3 main heroes all being together and walking to Thanos should be cringe by the same logic. But no one complains or says it's "White Het Pandering".
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 5, 2023 22:45:10 GMT
Alright, I think it was Issue...2. The first one with the Blob.
They try to recruit him, he says he's not interested, they push the issue and he decides to give them a fair shake. They bring him to the Mansion and explain everything to him, he brings up his concerns and how he was happy with his old life, he says he appreciates their offer but he turns them down. Xavier freaks out and has the X-Men attack him rather than let him go.
THAT is not the Xavier we need adapted.
It started out as a "Father knows best" thing with Reed as the father character who was always right and Sue as the submissive little wifey. That got abandoned over the years.
They're required to have some integrity with their position of "No changes ever in anything". Not "Well it's okay if one thing gets changed massively but not anything else ever".
Yeah, Xavier is a bad guy as seen in Dark Phoenix. He probably has sex with his female students then wipes their memories. In the comics it was revealed he was in love with Jean when she was a teenager, and his psychic dark side tried to sexually assault Danielle Moonstar and Kitty Pryde when they were teenagers.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 6, 2023 0:25:11 GMT
So, no examples but observation. I would like to be referred to storylines, panels, and interactions with other characters - again, this property has been around for more than 60 years, you should be able to find some to make your argument more sound. The premise for the Fantastic Four is about four superheroes who are portrayed as somewhat of a dysfunctional yet loving family unit. This has never been abandoned. Does this hypothetical individual who questions the changes in the adaptation of a work they have a history with, required to express the same exact knowledge and passion of any other work in culture that is being adapted in other media? Alright, I think it was Issue...2. The first one with the Blob.
They try to recruit him, he says he's not interested, they push the issue and he decides to give them a fair shake. They bring him to the Mansion and explain everything to him, he brings up his concerns and how he was happy with his old life, he says he appreciates their offer but he turns them down. Xavier freaks out and has the X-Men attack him rather than let him go.
THAT is not the Xavier we need adapted.
It started out as a "Father knows best" thing with Reed as the father character who was always right and Sue as the submissive little wifey. That got abandoned over the years.
They're required to have some integrity with their position of "No changes ever in anything". Not "Well it's okay if one thing gets changed massively but not anything else ever".
Actually, Blob was introduced in issue no. 3 of the original comic book run. Blob was offered to join the X-Men after Xavier sensed his power, he refused to initially, but he changed his mind after seeing Jean Grey and becoming instantly attracted to her. The X-Men didn't take a liking to him because of his rude behavior and ego (He said he was better than every one of them), and when he decided to go out on his own Charles tried to erase his mind to hide their secret identities but despite the team's efforts he got away to fight another day. But that's not the core premise of the Fantastic Four, that's a character dynamic that was written over 60 years ago (different times) for a certain number of issues, but was adjusted later on, the same concept of them being a team of four superheroes who are portrayed as somewhat of a dysfunctional, yet loving family unit still persists today. But what if the person admits to not being fanatical of another intellectual property and has not enough of a relationship to be upset about change? What if the person just doesn't care about any change made to any adaptation as long as it is entertaining?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 6, 2023 2:37:52 GMT
Alright, I think it was Issue...2. The first one with the Blob.
They try to recruit him, he says he's not interested, they push the issue and he decides to give them a fair shake. They bring him to the Mansion and explain everything to him, he brings up his concerns and how he was happy with his old life, he says he appreciates their offer but he turns them down. Xavier freaks out and has the X-Men attack him rather than let him go.
THAT is not the Xavier we need adapted.
It started out as a "Father knows best" thing with Reed as the father character who was always right and Sue as the submissive little wifey. That got abandoned over the years.
They're required to have some integrity with their position of "No changes ever in anything". Not "Well it's okay if one thing gets changed massively but not anything else ever".
Actually, Blob was introduced in issue no. 3 of the original comic book run. Blob was offered to join the X-Men after Xavier sensed his power, he refused to initially, but he changed his mind after seeing Jean Grey and becoming instantly attracted to her. The X-Men didn't take a liking to him because of his rude behavior and ego (He said he was better than every one of them), and when he decided to go out on his own Charles tried to erase his mind to hide their secret identities but despite the team's efforts he got away to fight another day. But that's not the core premise of the Fantastic Four, that's a character dynamic that was written over 60 years ago (different times) for a certain number of issues, but was adjusted later on, the same concept of them being a team of four superheroes who are portrayed as somewhat of a dysfunctional, yet loving family unit still persists today. But what if the person admits to not being fanatical of another intellectual property and has not enough of a relationship to be upset about change? What if the person just doesn't care about any change made to any adaptation as long as it is entertaining? I got the issue number wrong, and that further description doesn't change that their first impulse was to attack the guy after inviting him in and not wanting him to return to his old life. Thereby making him their enemy thanks to Xavier.
That WAS the core premise, it got changed over time because the original premise was problematic and outdated. It became the dysfunctional family thing when it started out as a "Father knows best" with superheroes premise.
Then that person simply has no integrity if they complain about one but not the other.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 6, 2023 4:01:37 GMT
Actually, Blob was introduced in issue no. 3 of the original comic book run. Blob was offered to join the X-Men after Xavier sensed his power, he refused to initially, but he changed his mind after seeing Jean Grey and becoming instantly attracted to her. The X-Men didn't take a liking to him because of his rude behavior and ego (He said he was better than every one of them), and when he decided to go out on his own Charles tried to erase his mind to hide their secret identities but despite the team's efforts he got away to fight another day. But that's not the core premise of the Fantastic Four, that's a character dynamic that was written over 60 years ago (different times) for a certain number of issues, but was adjusted later on, the same concept of them being a team of four superheroes who are portrayed as somewhat of a dysfunctional, yet loving family unit still persists today. But what if the person admits to not being fanatical of another intellectual property and has not enough of a relationship to be upset about change? What if the person just doesn't care about any change made to any adaptation as long as it is entertaining? I got the issue number wrong, and that further description doesn't change that their first impulse was to attack the guy after inviting him in and not wanting him to return to his old life. Thereby making him their enemy thanks to Xavier.
That WAS the core premise, it got changed over time because the original premise was problematic and outdated. It became the dysfunctional family thing when it started out as a "Father knows best" with superheroes premise.
Then that person simply has no integrity if they complain about one but not the other.
They invited him because they thought he could be of great service to their cause but they soon learned he was a bully with a large ego who thought he was better than all of them and wanted Jean Grey to be his girl. They had to attack him because he was getting unruly and tried to prevent Charles from erasing his mind of recent events. No, the core premise has always been that they are a superhero team that consists of four people who happen to make up a dysfunctional, yet loving, family unit. This was established in the debut issue. Depends on how they go about it, I would argue.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 6, 2023 14:35:38 GMT
I got the issue number wrong, and that further description doesn't change that their first impulse was to attack the guy after inviting him in and not wanting him to return to his old life. Thereby making him their enemy thanks to Xavier.
That WAS the core premise, it got changed over time because the original premise was problematic and outdated. It became the dysfunctional family thing when it started out as a "Father knows best" with superheroes premise.
Then that person simply has no integrity if they complain about one but not the other.
They invited him because they thought he could be of great service to their cause but they soon learned he was a bully with a large ego who thought he was better than all of them and wanted Jean Grey to be his girl. They had to attack him because he was getting unruly and tried to prevent Charles from erasing his mind of recent events. No, the core premise has always been that they are a superhero team that consists of four people who happen to make up a dysfunctional, yet loving, family unit. This was established in the debut issue. Depends on how they go about it, I would argue. They didn't have to attack him, Charles just immediately is shocked the Blob would turn them down and then decides to violate his mind and then attack him when he won't let this violation happen. They're the aggressors the whole time. This is not the Xavier we should be seeing on screen.
And yet they went with the "Father Knows Best" thing for years until it did get started written as a family drama with superheroics. They didn't stick to what was in the comics from day one, they evolved the premise.
Complaining so much about one and allowing the exact same thing to happen to the other, shows no integrity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2023 17:31:26 GMT
How exactly was that scene cringe? And more importantly, WHY did I take you off my ignore list? ?? If the women having a...5 second thing together is cringe, then the 3 main heroes all being together and walking to Thanos should be cringe by the same logic. But no one complains or says it's "White Het Pandering". The hell is White Het Pandering?
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Mar 6, 2023 17:34:23 GMT
If the women having a...5 second thing together is cringe, then the 3 main heroes all being together and walking to Thanos should be cringe by the same logic. But no one complains or says it's "White Het Pandering". The hell is White Het Pandering? OH!
|
|