Or did Bendis make him a dumbass first?
Like I hate what they did to him
Totally incompetent brolord
I guess they felt he didn’t have enough to distinguish himself
But I would have preferred they make him a no nonsense straightman
maybe give him a southern accent to match Yondu
Like a tommy lee jones type
I’d be less mad if the comics just ignored it
[QUOTE=Armageddon;4309748]Or did Bendis make him a dumbass first?
Like I hate what they did to him
Totally incompetent brolord
I guess they felt he didn’t have enough to distinguish himself
But I would have preferred they make him a no nonsense straightman
maybe give him a southern accent to match Yondu
Like a tommy lee jones type
I’d be less mad if the comics just ignored it[/QUOTE]
I presume the idea was to make the far-out cosmic Marvel corner earthy and identifiable to people. Star-Lord is the earthling among aliens, he's a reverse-Superman, so you need him to be the viewpoint and audience character at least in Gunn's Guardians movies. The cool thing in Infinity War, is that Gamora became the emotional center of the movie and we identified with her and Rocket Raccoon is the last of the guardians, so he isn't the anchor and hook anymore, and that might be interesting to see in the third movie if that happens.
The MCU makes all characters into a little more goofy types: Iron Man in the comics was a bore, but RDJ is hyper-energetic. Dr. Strange in the comics is also a stoic type, but Benedict Cumberbatch is also a quippy guy, Thor also became this in later films, except for IW where he's a little more serious.
Because even most comic fans barely knew who the Guardians of the Galaxy were before the film.
The film is what put them on the map both in and out of comics. It's easy to change a property like that to synergize with the films.
Because movie Starlord was a real fun likeable character and comic Starlord was a dull boring one.
I want to go to this alternate universe of 2000's cosmic books where Peter wasn't a quip-bot. He's only that serious in the 70's stuff. Wait... Damn, why did they change Star-Lord so much?
The more outlandish a premise is, the farther removed from reality, the more nessisary it becomes to create a protagonist who is as relatable as possible and typically forced into a position of discovery so the audience can discover with him. Said audience needs that relatability because without it no drama can be created. The events are too foriegn.
Think of it as modern art. Those steeped in it, those who live it will appreciate that modern and abstract thing on disaply. The casual viewer will shrug at the painted trash before them and go "... OK ...". They dont have the foundation and backstory, they effectively havn't been trained to look at things in a new way. Guardians may not be high art, but its premise and tone is clearly shaped and targetd at the hardcore comic reader already exposed to those concepts. But movies? No ... in order to mximize viewership it needs to remain accesible and thus you need a perverbial anchor for the viewr to latch onto.
This is what drives the Starlord changes, as well as the Strange changes, etc. Actually I think strange is the best example: I'd argue stephen acted more like himself in all the movies that werent his own because he didnt need to be relatable. He could just be Strange. In contrast look at Peter Parker. By year 11 the idea of superpowers is so mainstream they could basically skip his origin story and just get right to what makes him unique within the MCU (even then they basically made him Miles Morales as Peter Parker simply wasnt unique enough from the rest of the cast).
Non-Sci Fi audiences werent ready for a hardcore Guardiuans of the Galaxy. So they got something more comedy heavy, toneally lighter, and easier to digest.
Most MCU characters decades and decades worth of stories. Starlord was barely known even by regular marvel readers until the Annihilation cosmic stuff happened... and even then it was largely in it's own corner of the MU.
Plus, everyone is funnier in the MCU.
[QUOTE=XPac;4309798]Most MCU characters decades and decades worth of stories. Starlord was barely known even by regular marvel readers until the Annihilation cosmic stuff happened... and even then it was largely in it's own corner of the MU.
Plus, everyone is funnier in the MCU.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I'm looking through his appearances cited on Comicvine and the grand majority of them are through the past decade's and a half worth of stories. And yeah, for good or bad it was the Bendis retool of the book that really brought Star Lord and the other Guardians to the forefront, and then the movies, so it's not really a mystery why the movies have such a big defining effect on how he's going to be portrayed.
[QUOTE=Crimz;4309782]Because even most comic fans barely knew who the Guardians of the Galaxy were before the film.
The film is what put them on the map both in and out of comics. It's easy to change a property like that to synergize with the films.[/QUOTE]
Nothing more needs to be added here.
I will give the answer nobody likes because the character is better in the MCU. It is nature of fiction when you get a chance to retell a story you get change aspect that were bad or change things to work better. Comics fans have a hard time accepting it but the movie version are sometime better than comic version. Characters like Starlord, Thanos, Killmonger, M'Baku, Shuri,Vulture,etc I would argue are better than there comic book counterparts. I would argue that Fox making Wolverine handsome and taller are improvement and lessening the length of his hair every movie was improvement. Miles in into the Spiderverse is probably the best version the character. Aquaman in current movie works better than probably any incarnation. You can improve on fiction.
That leads to interesting decision making process do you try to implement the improvements or do you stick with the version of character who has been pretty good. Sometimes you get a middle solution like Iron Man who is clearly now influenced by RDJ performance but still enough of the comic book version to keep everyone happy. Sometimes you fully change them like Shuri or Starlord knowing that when a writer captures movie version on the comic page it will be special.
Because...
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/50w95Q7v/Starcoolness.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Snoop Dogg;4309793]I want to go to this alternate universe of 2000's cosmic books where Peter wasn't a quip-bot. He's only that serious in the 70's stuff. Wait... Damn, why did they change Star-Lord so much?[/QUOTE]
Even CBR did an article about his forever changing history!
[url]https://www.cbr.com/the-abandoned-an-forsaked-so-whats-star-lords-origin-exactly/[/url]
The posts above have made valid points, and while I may agree with them it’s still a shame what has happened to comic Star-Lord. The Dan Abnett run of Guardians of the Galaxy made Star Lord one of my favorite comic characters but most of his comic appearances after the movie came out are completely unreadable. Thankfully Cates is taking a different approach with the character in the current comic run.
[QUOTE=Killerbee911;4309952]I will give the answer nobody likes because the character is better in the MCU. It is nature of fiction when you get a chance to retell a story you get change aspect that were bad or change things to work better. Comics fans have a hard time accepting it but the movie version are sometime better than comic version. Characters like Starlord, Thanos, Killmonger, M'Baku, Shuri,Vulture,etc I would argue are better than there comic book counterparts. I would argue that Fox making Wolverine handsome and taller are improvement and lessening the length of his hair every movie was improvement. Miles in into the Spiderverse is probably the best version the character. Aquaman in current movie works better than probably any incarnation. You can improve on fiction.[/QUOTE]
Indeed Star Lord is almost the poster child for this. If any one of his previous incarnations had actually taken off then maybe they would have used that in the movie. Instead he has a long history of tweaking and change because he was never quite finished. His original story was fine, but not if you want to integrate him into the MCU or even the MU. Even that original story developed as it went along. I doesn’t read as a unified story, it reads as a story that slowly expanded and changed.
[QUOTE=Alan2099;4309792]Because movie Starlord was a real fun likeable character and comic Starlord was a dull boring one.[/QUOTE]
I would at least try to keep the movie version of Starlord separate from the Comic version as at least the comic version had character growth before Bendis got to him.