Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 19:58:54 GMT
Fine. Fox and Warner are pure and innocent companies that live on creativity and rainbows while Marvel while a big Meaniepants out of ruin them. There, happy? When did I ever suggest that any one company was innocent? You're the one who seemed to be trying to suggest that Marvel is the innocent victim here, and you provided a pretty flimsy reason for why you consider that to be the case. Fox subjects the public to films like Fantastic Four (2015) just to hold onto the rights and you think Marvel isn't the victim?
|
|
flasuss
Sophomore
@flasuss
Posts: 323
Likes: 147
|
Post by flasuss on Mar 14, 2017 20:23:22 GMT
You're wrong. In fact, they even started in the Brotherhood of Evil MUTANTS. In their first appearance, their lives are saved by a mutant-chasing mob by Magneto. And attempting to defend Marvel sidelining the X-men is just pathetic. The X-men books despite no promotion actually manage to stay on a par and more often than not outsell the Avengers books. And that not even considering most of the major Marvel mutants are dead or being horribly written. Okay, so you're right about Quicksilver and Wanda, but I maintain my stance about the Marvel's treatment of the X-Men. It's a business decision. Nothing else. You hardly have room to complain because they're still treating the X-Men better than Fox does. If you know anything about the lunatic that runs Marvel, Ike Perlmutter, you know it wasn't "just a business decision".
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 14, 2017 20:26:37 GMT
When did I ever suggest that any one company was innocent? You're the one who seemed to be trying to suggest that Marvel is the innocent victim here, and you provided a pretty flimsy reason for why you consider that to be the case. Fox subjects the public to films like Fantastic Four (2015) just to hold onto the rights and you think Marvel isn't the victim? None of these companies are innocent victims. It's naive to suggest otherwise. That's why your insistence that every studio is specifically out for Marvel's blood is ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 20:29:49 GMT
Fox subjects the public to films like Fantastic Four (2015) just to hold onto the rights and you think Marvel isn't the victim? None of these companies are innocent victims. It's naive to suggest otherwise. That's why your insistence that every studio is specifically out for Marvel's blood is ridiculous. MCU is killing it right now with their cinematic universe. Of course their rivals are gunning for them.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 14, 2017 20:33:38 GMT
Namor is not part of the MCU at the moment, and Marvel wasn't even allowed to use him back when Jason Momoa was cast as Aquaman. There were no plans to include him in the MCU back when Jason Momoa first landed the role as Aquaman.
There's no denying that the DCEU owes its existence to the success of the MCU, but suggesting that a casting choice for one of their characters is an attempt to screw Marvel over is ridiculous, and has less credbility to it than the argument that Marvel is trying to screw over the X-Men just to spite Fox.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 20:36:06 GMT
Namor is not part of the MCU at the moment, and Marvel wasn't even allowed to use him back when Jason Momoa was cast as Aquaman. There were no plans to include him in the MCU back when Jason Momoa first landed the role as Aquaman. There's no denying that the DCEU owes its existence to the success of the MCU, but suggesting that a casting choice for one of their characters is an attempt to screw Marvel over is ridiculous, and has less credbility to it than the argument that Marvel is trying to screw over the X-Men just to spite Fox. Wrong on literally every account.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 14, 2017 20:48:50 GMT
I'm wrong that Marvel didn't have the rights to Namor back in 2014? I'm wrong that the Inhumans movie being cancelled suggests that Marvel didn't have a solid plan for it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 20:51:02 GMT
You are wrong about the Inhumans. The only thing that proves if they're holding off on them until they have a more opportune time for bring them more to the forefront.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 14, 2017 21:14:58 GMT
So why are they making it into a TV show now?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 21:59:54 GMT
Because they decided that'd be a better format for them. Duh.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 14, 2017 22:33:26 GMT
Which would once again suggest that they didn't have a very solid plan laid out for a film.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 14, 2017 22:50:41 GMT
When did I ever suggest that any one company was innocent? You're the one who seemed to be trying to suggest that Marvel is the innocent victim here, and you provided a pretty flimsy reason for why you consider that to be the case. Fox subjects the public to films like Fantastic Four (2015) just to hold onto the rights and you think Marvel isn't the victim? marvel is not a person......it's a company, as is Disney, WB, Fox, Sony, Lionsgate, they'll make decisions that best suit them. marvel as a company has done well without the fantastic four, xmen, daredevil, punisher, Spider-Man, for almost 10 years. if they never made a Netflix series with daredevil and punisher.....they'd still do well, if Spider-Man was never in civil war, they'd still do well. xmen has been a bit inconsistent, and F4....well yeah, but you can't ignore what has happened to them in the comics, F4 cancelled and xmen sidelined and kind of replaced with the inhumans, and i don't think fox owns the toy rights for the xmen and marvel isn't producing them much. so you can argue marvel is deciding to slightly nullify those characters because they're not tied to their cinematic universe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 23:40:01 GMT
Fantastic Four haven't had good sales in years. That's why they got canned.
Like I said, Marvel is just making use of the Inhumans since that's all they have access to for their cinematic universe.
|
|
gromel
Sophomore
@gromel
Posts: 279
Likes: 119
|
Post by gromel on Mar 15, 2017 4:15:30 GMT
He's more like 90s gladiator Aquaman run through a Hawaiian filter or something. Neither Aquaman nor Namor are Hawaiian.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 15, 2017 21:17:08 GMT
He's more like 90s gladiator Aquaman run through a Hawaiian filter or something. Neither Aquaman nor Namor are Hawaiian. Aquaman is clearly caucasian but Namor is harder to identify. He has the slanted eyes of an Asian but Asians don't usually have such defined cheekbones and angular facial features as he does. And while he used to look "white" in older drawings, lately he's been drawn with a more bronze tan. So I doubt that any person can ever be a perfect racial match to Namor. That said, I don't really care what race Momoa is or where he's born. As long as he looks like the character, I don't really care what his racial classification is. Bottom line is Momoa looks far closer to Namor than he does Aquaman.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Mar 15, 2017 21:33:20 GMT
Bottom line is Momoa looks far closer to Namor than he does Aquaman. I disagree. Like most of the arguments on this, they are going with the more film friendly look of the 90's Aquaman. I think it would be really hard to adapt the classic look to live action without making it look cheezy. And Aquaman still suffers from the bad "PR" of the Superfriends cartoon, so going with the version that strays a bit from the classic concept is a good idea. They went with the Ultimates version of Hawkeye for the MCU and it was to the benefit of the character... A Polynesian take on Atlantis is a good idea. Classically defined Seafaring populations are generally either Nordic or South Pacific, so it is a realistic version of the character.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 15, 2017 22:29:49 GMT
Bottom line is Momoa looks far closer to Namor than he does Aquaman. I disagree. Like most of the arguments on this, they are going with the more film friendly look of the 90's Aquaman. I think it would be really hard to adapt the classic look to live action without making it look cheezy. And Aquaman still suffers from the bad "PR" of the Superfriends cartoon, so going with the version that strays a bit from the classic concept is a good idea. They went with the Ultimates version of Hawkeye for the MCU and it was to the benefit of the character... A Polynesian take on Atlantis is a good idea. Classically defined Seafaring populations are generally either Nordic or South Pacific, so it is a realistic version of the character. Other than the beard, is there anything about the 90's Aquaman that looks like Momoa?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 22:44:05 GMT
I can't wait for this film. I love Aquaman, he's my favorite hero from the DC universe, and I'm excited that he is finally getting his own film. I don't think the classic Aquaman from the cartoon would translate well to film aesthetically, so I'm okay with a different look, as long he has all of the same powers Aquaman is supposed to have.
That said, I am hoping to see Jason Momoa as naked as possible, so the reviews can suck ass, and my ass will still in the theater.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 15, 2017 22:53:54 GMT
I disagree. Like most of the arguments on this, they are going with the more film friendly look of the 90's Aquaman. I think it would be really hard to adapt the classic look to live action without making it look cheezy. And Aquaman still suffers from the bad "PR" of the Superfriends cartoon, so going with the version that strays a bit from the classic concept is a good idea. They went with the Ultimates version of Hawkeye for the MCU and it was to the benefit of the character... A Polynesian take on Atlantis is a good idea. Classically defined Seafaring populations are generally either Nordic or South Pacific, so it is a realistic version of the character. Other than the beard, is there anything about the 90's Aquaman that looks like Momoa? Well, there's also the long hair, and the outfit that exposes his chest.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 15, 2017 23:13:37 GMT
Other than the beard, is there anything about the 90's Aquaman that looks like Momoa? Well, there's also the long hair, and the outfit that exposes his chest. I actually meant to put hair and beard. Don't know why I ended up skipping it. But if hair and beard is all he has in common with Aquaman then you basically got someone who looks like Namor and then tried to dress him up like Aquaman. Yet still give him a personality like Namor.
|
|