They will work something out if they choose to use the UCoT.
We already saw a genocidal, ethnic-cleansing Ronan. Child-trafficking is a part of Star-Lord's origin, plus the filicide of Quill's half siblings by Ego. I can even throw in the clear case of child abuse of Nebula by Thanos.
Disney has already used the Guardian films to touch on some serious subject matters.
Ehh,MCU had already complex Marvel characters in the movies done well.As Odin,Vision,Doctor Strange and Thanos.
Thus i am not worried about the MCU version of Adam Warlock.I think that as other complex characters,Adam Warlock will be great in the movies.
Maybe but the name is too close to the actual name of the church so they are just not going to use it. Universal and catholic are direct similes. Expect a major uproar if a dark evil figure that entirely dominates an empire of planets effectively calls his evil empire ‘The Catholic Church’. The comics got away with it because it flew way under the radar.
An individual villain does not represent an entire institution. All the characters, good or bad were catholic.
I wouldn’t for one minute suggest that the Catholic Church should be above parody or criticism. But there is a difference between making movies that question things and plotting a story that uses the entire church as a parody. It’s just not happening.
Last edited by JKtheMac; 09-12-2018 at 11:50 PM.
I said in the grand scheme he is not important which means Marvel can and will move on and tell stories without him with little trouble. You are here worrying about will they do the character justice instead of wondering will he ever show up. The story where they needed him the most to work just they did it without him. They did a good Infinity Gauntlet story without Silver Surfer,Adam Warlock and Death which if you told me before I didn't think it would be possible to do that. Yeah he is more than infinity gauntlet storyline but if they can take him out of that they can take him out of anything else.
Given the amount of Christ tropes WB sneaked into Man of Steel/Batman v Superman without anything more than eyebrows being raised, I'm not sure Disney would have all that much to fear.
Thanos's character evolved dramatically under Starlin. The guy that was doing it "for love" was The Final Threat Thanos. After that, he became a lot closer to movie Thanos. In the Rebirth of Thanos Silver Surfer issues, Norrin Radd describes him as Professorial. He also states the exact same motivation that he has in the movie. The only difference is he's doing it as a service to Death as opposed to something he just believes in due to personal experience. Once he places himself as more powerful than Death, his motivation of loving her seems to go away and, certainly, after the story, that motivation is gone entirely for the rest of the trilogy.
I'm not saying there's no difference between the two, but people overstate the difference. To me, the movie got the core of the character very much right rather than inventing their own thing.
Matt Murdock's cooler twin brother
I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Thomas More - A Man for All Seasons
Interested in reading Daredevil? Not sure what to read next? Why not check out the Daredevil Book Club for some ideas?