|
Post by politicidal on May 18, 2017 23:07:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Atom(ica) Discord on May 18, 2017 23:14:05 GMT
I don't blame him. Mantis, as portrayed in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, isn't anything like the comic book character (although, there have been several iterations). Mantis is usually not as servile or as passive as James Gunn envisions her. Still, this new take on the character served the story well and there were plenty of alpha females to choose from (if that's your complaint).
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 19, 2017 3:22:21 GMT
I followed the entire Guardians comic series from the start, and I very much loved her portrayal. It was a perfectly suitable way to bring her in.
|
|
barkingbaphomet
Junior Member
all backlit and creepysmoking
@barkingbaphomet
Posts: 2,252
Likes: 1,006
|
Post by barkingbaphomet on May 19, 2017 6:27:05 GMT
Mantis is usually not as servile or as passive as James Gunn envisions her. Still, this new take on the character served the story well and there were plenty of alpha females to choose from (if that's your complaint). so your advice for someone dissatisfied with the poor translation of a character they like... is to find a different character to like?
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on May 19, 2017 6:32:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 19, 2017 7:07:38 GMT
so your advice for someone dissatisfied with the poor translation of a character they like... is to find a different character to like? My advice would be the interpretation was awesome, so enjoy it.
It's like complaining about cookies & cream ben and jerry's because it isn't chocolate chip. I mean really?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 19, 2017 7:09:16 GMT
She. Is. Hideous.
I hope she's beautiful on the inside.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on May 19, 2017 11:09:23 GMT
I don't blame him. Mantis, as portrayed in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, isn't anything like the comic book character (although, there have been several iterations). Mantis is usually not as servile or as passive as James Gunn envisions her. Still, this new take on the character served the story well and there were plenty of alpha females to choose from (if that's your complaint). In all fairness, James did make changes to all the guardians. Drax being the prime example, but I'm fine with it. I can see why the creator is upset about it, but it's the MCU, it's it own universe where they can do either updates or changes to whatever character or story needs it.
|
|
|
Post by Atom(ica) Discord on May 19, 2017 13:28:40 GMT
Mantis is usually not as servile or as passive as James Gunn envisions her. Still, this new take on the character served the story well and there were plenty of alpha females to choose from (if that's your complaint). so your advice for someone dissatisfied with the poor translation of a character they like... is to find a different character to like? No. Not really. Actually, I don't recall giving out any advice at all. I was pointing out that if Mantis were as aggressive as she has been portrayed in the comics, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 might have had one two many dominant woman. Additionally, I don't think the character's creator was nearly as "dissatisfied" with the her portrayal as some of the headlines would lead you to believe. Here is his quote. He seems more puzzled than anything else. It's interesting to note that in spite of his confusion and 'dissatisfaction,' he was still able to enjoy the film.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 19, 2017 13:40:47 GMT
I followed the entire Guardians comic series from the start, and I very much loved her portrayal. It was a perfectly suitable way to bring her in. Mantis has been around for decades, though. This version of her is completely different than the original comic version. I enjoyed the character in the film, but as he says in the interview, that's not Mantis. That being said, I'm fine with them making changes to characters. MCU Thor is most certainly not the Thor of the comics, and that's worked out well. Hell, RDJ's Iron Man is considerably different from how I read the character as a kid. He always seemed to have a dry arrogance, more like James Bond than the frenetic spaz in the MCU-- and I'll take the MCU version every time.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 19, 2017 15:02:35 GMT
I followed the entire Guardians comic series from the start, and I very much loved her portrayal. It was a perfectly suitable way to bring her in. Mantis has been around for decades, though. This version of her is completely different than the original comic version. I enjoyed the character in the film, but as he says in the interview, that's not Mantis. That being said, I'm fine with them making changes to characters. MCU Thor is most certainly not the Thor of the comics, and that's worked out well. Hell, RDJ's Iron Man is considerably different from how I read the character as a kid. He always seemed to have a dry arrogance, more like James Bond than the frenetic spaz in the MCU-- and I'll take the MCU version every time. Yes, I'm aware, Celestial Madonna, all that stuff.
So we're saying we like her in the film. Great!
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 21, 2017 15:33:31 GMT
She. Is. Hideous.
I hope she's beautiful on the inside.
Okay, this cracked me up. Nice.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Custer on May 21, 2017 20:09:11 GMT
She. Is. Hideous.
I hope she's beautiful on the inside.
You must be gay right?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 21, 2017 23:24:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 19:36:51 GMT
Well, the MCU was bound to displease the creator of one of the characters its used sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 24, 2017 0:49:17 GMT
Well, the MCU was bound to displease the creator of one of the characters its used sooner or later. So, basically, you finally admit that the MCU is flawed and terrible and believe it's too formulaic?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 1:22:27 GMT
Well, the MCU was bound to displease the creator of one of the characters its used sooner or later. So, basically, you finally admit that the MCU is flawed and terrible and believe it's too formulaic? Very funny. However, if I may give a small piece of advice, using Thor might not be the best option among the internet's vast selection of winking gifs. Few films have ever even made mention of the Norse god of lightning, let alone featured him as a character. Kind of hard to argue to the "formulaic" part when Marvel's among the few to give Norse mythology any real cinematic exposure.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 24, 2017 2:53:09 GMT
So, basically, you finally admit that the MCU is flawed and terrible and believe it's too formulaic? Very funny. However, if I may give a small piece of advice, using Thor might not be the best option among the internet's vast selection of winking gifs. Few films have ever even made mention of the Norse god of lightning, let alone featured him as a character. Kind of hard to argue to the "formulaic" part when Marvel's among the few to give Norse mythology any real cinematic exposure. I originally used a James Franco one. But Thor felt funnier/more apt. This is the original:
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 24, 2017 2:57:50 GMT
So, basically, you finally admit that the MCU is flawed and terrible and believe it's too formulaic? Very funny. However, if I may give a small piece of advice, using Thor might not be the best option among the internet's vast selection of winking gifs. Few films have ever even made mention of the Norse god of lightning, let alone featured him as a character. Kind of hard to argue to the "formulaic" part when Marvel's among the few to give Norse mythology any real cinematic exposure.Also: I hate to break it to you, but films featuring the Norse pantheon were huge in the fifties. HUGE. Those USSR-fearing, Ike-loving folk couldn't get enough of that kind of stuff. It's -- it's very much a forgotten period now. Very obscure. No sense in even googling it. Trust me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 3:12:59 GMT
Very funny. However, if I may give a small piece of advice, using Thor might not be the best option among the internet's vast selection of winking gifs. Few films have ever even made mention of the Norse god of lightning, let alone featured him as a character. Kind of hard to argue to the "formulaic" part when Marvel's among the few to give Norse mythology any real cinematic exposure.Also: I hate to break it to you, but films featuring the Norse pantheon were huge in the fifties. HUGE. Those USSR-fearing, Ike-loving folk couldn't get enough of that kind of stuff. It's -- it's very much a forgotten period now. Very obscure. No sense in even googling it. Trust me. In that case, Marvel is still one of few in a very long time to give Norse mythology much attention in movies. Though, if Hollywood had any sense (we know it doesn't), another company could easily make a movie that's closer to the mythological roots. There's a lot of interesting stuff in there, like Sigurd the Dragon-Slayer. Or even a movie about a Valkyrie collecting the souls of the heroic dead to fight for Asgard.
|
|