-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4311519]Jim Shooter said something interesting on this front:
"I just saw the Wonder Woman movie-–it was good, I liked it. And I heard people say, ‘Well. it’s not the original Wonder Woman.’ Here’s the deal. If you go out and ask 1,000 people to tell you everything they know about Superman, you’ll hear the same things — Daily Planet, Lois Lane, Clark Kent, blah blah. You’ll never hear about Mister Mxyzptlk or even the Fortress of Solitude. [I][U]Anything the 1,000 people say—keep that, don’t mess with that. Anything that 1,000 don’t say, you get a little flexibility.[/U][/I] Wonder Woman was created during the war, so she has the red, white and blue with stars, you know? No one cares about that. When you ask people about Wonder Woman, you’re lucky if they come up with Amazons. So they made some graceful changes and it was fine. It doesn’t have to be a red white and blue suit. So to me, people are just [cavalier] about ignoring the intentions of the original creators-–ignoring the equity that was built up over the years. It’s, ‘I’m in charge now so I’ll do anything I damn well please,’ and that’s almost always a mistake. When Walt [Simonson] did Thor, he didn’t reboot it or throw away the past. He just made it good."
— Jim Shooter
Guardians of the Galaxy were totally forgotten until the movie. But to the extent people knew them, they knew Gamora was involved, as was Rocket Raccoon and Groot. So that wasn't changed, but everything else was altered. And those reinterpretations and changes made by the movie ultimately worked.[/QUOTE]
Really, the only essential thing I feel they left out of the WW movie was the contest.
Although bringing up Gamora, I'm glad her movie characterization as the team girl, with all that entails, didn't become as prevalent in the comics.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4311519]Jim Shooter said something interesting on this front:
"I just saw the Wonder Woman movie-–it was good, I liked it. And I heard people say, ‘Well. it’s not the original Wonder Woman.’ Here’s the deal. If you go out and ask 1,000 people to tell you everything they know about Superman, you’ll hear the same things — Daily Planet, Lois Lane, Clark Kent, blah blah. You’ll never hear about Mister Mxyzptlk or even the Fortress of Solitude. [I][U]Anything the 1,000 people say—keep that, don’t mess with that. Anything that 1,000 don’t say, you get a little flexibility.[/U][/I] Wonder Woman was created during the war, so she has the red, white and blue with stars, you know? No one cares about that. When you ask people about Wonder Woman, you’re lucky if they come up with Amazons. So they made some graceful changes and it was fine. It doesn’t have to be a red white and blue suit. So to me, people are just [cavalier] about ignoring the intentions of the original creators-–ignoring the equity that was built up over the years. It’s, ‘I’m in charge now so I’ll do anything I damn well please,’ and that’s almost always a mistake. When Walt [Simonson] did Thor, he didn’t reboot it or throw away the past. He just made it good."
— Jim Shooter
[/QUOTE]
This is precisely why so many of us see Jim Shooter as a villain in the story of comic books. He has the exactly opposite opinion on what an editor should encourage to many writers. The best I can say is he sometimes left creators alone to do what they wanted with books that were not selling. Where he had a hand it was often detrimental to the stories.
The problem is that many fans agree with this, mainly IMO because the line was towed and the spin was given during their formative years as readers.
If one grows up believing that a story that never challenges the base assumptions of a character, is a good one then one is prone to mediocre stories forever. If one grows up thinking that the characters of their youth are perfectly formed and can’t be improved on they will not be equipped for the inevitability of change.
Change is not an illusion.
Peter David perfectly expressed the trap of illusionary change [URL="https://www.peterdavid.net/2012/12/24/the-illusion-of-change/"]here[/URL]. What he didn’t get into IMO is what Alan Moore found so insulting about it, which is that we tell stories for more than just the gratification of the audience.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4311519]Jim Shooter said something interesting on this front:
"I just saw the Wonder Woman movie-–it was good, I liked it. And I heard people say, ‘Well. it’s not the original Wonder Woman.’ Here’s the deal. If you go out and ask 1,000 people to tell you everything they know about Superman, you’ll hear the same things — Daily Planet, Lois Lane, Clark Kent, blah blah. You’ll never hear about Mister Mxyzptlk or even the Fortress of Solitude. [I][U]Anything the 1,000 people say—keep that, don’t mess with that. Anything that 1,000 don’t say, you get a little flexibility.[/U][/I] Wonder Woman was created during the war, so she has the red, white and blue with stars, you know? No one cares about that. When you ask people about Wonder Woman, you’re lucky if they come up with Amazons. So they made some graceful changes and it was fine. It doesn’t have to be a red white and blue suit. So to me, people are just [cavalier] about ignoring the intentions of the original creators-–ignoring the equity that was built up over the years. It’s, ‘I’m in charge now so I’ll do anything I damn well please,’ and that’s almost always a mistake. When Walt [Simonson] did Thor, he didn’t reboot it or throw away the past. He just made it good."
— Jim Shooter
Guardians of the Galaxy were totally forgotten until the movie. But to the extent people knew them, they knew Gamora was involved, as was Rocket Raccoon and Groot. So that wasn't changed, but everything else was altered. And those reinterpretations and changes made by the movie ultimately worked.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say GOTG were totally forgotten about before the movie. They had a successful DnA run hence why the film was made and based on the series.
I'll admit that after the film the team hit the big time.
-
I guess because the GotG didn't have a great following so it's easy to take liberties?
-
[QUOTE=Shinglepants;4312137]I guess because the GotG didn't have a great following so it's easy to take liberties?[/QUOTE]
More or less Shooter's point. "Anything the 1000 people don't say" would include GOTG. The MCU largely dealt or defined characters who fall in that bracket. Before RDJ, Iron Man was not a popular or banner name. People knew Fantastic Four, they knew Spider-Man and they knew the X-Men, and they also knew the Hulk. But Iron Man, not much. Cap, ditto, Thor, nuh-uh.
The Robert Downey Jr. Iron Man isn't like the comics. He wasn't this quippy joker. Warren Ellis' EXTREMIS deals with the Pre-RDJ Tony and he's basically a serious, all-business character. Even a little dull. In the Iron Man and MCU movies, Tony and Pepper become the main couple and he's become monogamous when Tony was before then, and after that still a ladies' man. Dr. Strange was also altered a bit to be a little more quippy although I'd say he's otherwise faithful. Then in the case of Thor, Loki was changed from the comics and is now this big character popular among girls thanks to Tom Hiddleston.
I will say that Steve Rogers by Chris Evans feels very much like the Cap of the comics : the character that Simon/Kirby, Lee/Kirby, Kirby, Stern, Englehart wrote, the guy who "is loyal to nothing general, but the dream" and to me he's the most faithful and closest to the source than any other MCU character. Cap isn't very quippy in the movies though he can be funny and crack a joke which is also true of comics Steve.
OTOH, even characters who were little known tend to be altered for movies. Take Batman. Tim Burton's first two Batman movies are not exactly literal translations of the comics. At the time, WB wanted a screen Batman entirely removed from the Adam West take visually, tonally, and in terms of content. So that allowed Burton leeway to do that with Batman.
-
And sometimes the mass media versions help expand the comics in ways not expected, because they'll often look at things from a different point of view.
This is how Superman gained the power of flight, Kryptonite, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen and Cat Grant.
And how the Shadow gained Margo Lane.
-
[QUOTE=Shinglepants;4312137]I guess because the GotG didn't have a great following so it's easy to take liberties?[/QUOTE]They've been taking "liberties" with this franchise for a while now . . .
[img]https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/0/4/9045-2353-9996-1-marvel-super-heroes.jpg[/img]
[img]https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/0/4/29547-4398-32838-1-guardians-of-the-gal.jpg[/img]
[img]https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/0/9241/387000-21550-130199-1-guardians-of-the-gal.jpg[/img]
-
[QUOTE=MajorHoy;4312787]They've been taking "liberties" with this franchise for a while now . . .
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see that as taking liberties, I see that as reusing old titles for sound business reasons, but creating new books that are far more likely to sell in their contemporary marketplace. Nobody wants Marvel to just bring back old books for single figure runs just to maintain their intellectual properties. Marvel don’t want that because they want each book to sell, the public don’t really want that even if they think they do, because that just leads to stale dated comics that will wither and die. The legal team don’t want that, because it has been demonstrated in the courts that you can’t cling onto old IP by pretending to be trying to make money with it. You have to have genuine intent.
-
Probably because no one knew who he was? I mean he only made a return during the Annihalation event and how many knew who he was before the movies? Personally i liked that version as opposed to the movie because i felt that one wasn't the kind of idiot who would lose sight of the bigger plan like say not helping take off of the cosmic power glove of infinite death!!!
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4312231]More or less Shooter's point. "Anything the 1000 people don't say" would include GOTG. The MCU largely dealt or defined characters who fall in that bracket. Before RDJ, Iron Man was not a popular or banner name. People knew Fantastic Four, they knew Spider-Man and they knew the X-Men, and they also knew the Hulk. But Iron Man, not much. Cap, ditto, Thor, nuh-uh.
The Robert Downey Jr. Iron Man isn't like the comics. He wasn't this quippy joker. Warren Ellis' EXTREMIS deals with the Pre-RDJ Tony and he's basically a serious, all-business character. Even a little dull. In the Iron Man and MCU movies, Tony and Pepper become the main couple and he's become monogamous when Tony was before then, and after that still a ladies' man. Dr. Strange was also altered a bit to be a little more quippy although I'd say he's otherwise faithful. [/QUOTE]Unlike his supporting cast (black Mordo and female Ancient One).
Iron Man was more well known than Cap or Thor - he had a cartoon in the 90s, which is where I first encountered Tony.
-
[QUOTE=Digifiend;4316847]Unlike his supporting cast (black Mordo and female Ancient One).
Iron Man was more well known than Cap or Thor - he had a cartoon in the 90s, which is where I first encountered Tony.[/QUOTE]
I am a millennial, so my cartoons were MTV Spider-Man, XMen Evolution, Spectacular Spider-Man. I didn't know Iron Man from Moon Knight. I did know Captain America from that X-Men Evolution cartoon showing Cap and Wolverine on the other hand, and since I was reading JMS Spider-Man I knew Cap from where he appeared in ASM #50, V.2.
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4311882]This is precisely why so many of us see Jim Shooter as a villain in the story of comic books. He has the exactly opposite opinion on what an editor should encourage to many writers. The best I can say is he sometimes left creators alone to do what they wanted with books that were not selling. Where he had a hand it was often detrimental to the stories.
The problem is that many fans agree with this, mainly IMO because the line was towed and the spin was given during their formative years as readers.[/QUOTE]
Wow, in order to dismiss Shooters run as one of Marvel's greats you would have to hand wave with so much force and speed that you would break the laws of physics and start flying. Hopefully you are [B]J[/B]ust [B]K[/B]idding, right [B]Mac[/B]?
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4316858]I am a millennial, so my cartoons were MTV Spider-Man, XMen Evolution, Spectacular Spider-Man. I didn't know Iron Man from Moon Knight. I did know Captain America from that X-Men Evolution cartoon showing Cap and Wolverine on the other hand, and since I was reading JMS Spider-Man I knew Cap from where he appeared in ASM #50, V.2.[/QUOTE]
I'm also a millennial but I got to check out the 90's Iron Man cartoon along with [I]Armored Adventures[/I] and the animated movies :).
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4311519]Jim Shooter said something interesting on this front:
"I just saw the Wonder Woman movie-–it was good, I liked it. And I heard people say, ‘Well. it’s not the original Wonder Woman.’ Here’s the deal. If you go out and ask 1,000 people to tell you everything they know about Superman, you’ll hear the same things — Daily Planet, Lois Lane, Clark Kent, blah blah. You’ll never hear about Mister Mxyzptlk or even the Fortress of Solitude. [I][U]Anything the 1,000 people say—keep that, don’t mess with that. Anything that 1,000 don’t say, you get a little flexibility.[/U][/I] Wonder Woman was created during the war, so she has the red, white and blue with stars, you know? No one cares about that. When you ask people about Wonder Woman, you’re lucky if they come up with Amazons. So they made some graceful changes and it was fine. It doesn’t have to be a red white and blue suit. So to me, people are just [cavalier] about ignoring the intentions of the original creators-–ignoring the equity that was built up over the years. It’s, ‘I’m in charge now so I’ll do anything I damn well please,’ and that’s almost always a mistake. When Walt [Simonson] did Thor, he didn’t reboot it or throw away the past. He just made it good."
— Jim Shooter
Guardians of the Galaxy were totally forgotten until the movie. But to the extent people knew them, they knew Gamora was involved, as was Rocket Raccoon and Groot. So that wasn't changed, but everything else was altered. And those reinterpretations and changes made by the movie ultimately worked.[/QUOTE]
I think Shooter has it spot on.
If you need or want to change something that only a handful of people who are probably going to stick with the character would know anyway, then you can do so (as long as you do it in a way that makes sense with what came before).
However, if you have something that is already known by the wider audience, you dont alienate the wider audience by changing that, you keep the familiarity as the pathway in for them.
It's just a shame with Star Lord that they decided to change the character to fit the actor, then decided to try and use that MCU version to bring in new readers by using that as the familiarity factor to by the pathway to comics....and as far as it seems, those new readers haven't really materialised on the whole and so it's the older fans stuck with a character that isn't the one they were enjoying in the first place.
I've always personally felt Marvel missed a trick not doing a sideline imprint of MCU comics, using the MCU characters and their MCU portrayals and pumping those out in Newsstand locations and toy stores etc. Use the MCU as a link back to the comics, without losing what makes the comics their own thing.
-
We all come to this stuff in different ways. I came to the movies first, so for me, Chris Pratt's take on the character is the real deal and the comic one is an odd imposter, a bit like having to read/watch stuff with OG Nick Fury in a post-Samuel L. Jackson Fury world.
