Out of all Marvel characters why was Starlord changed the most to match the MCU?

[Will Evans]

IMO, Nick Fury was the character that was changed the most to resemble his MCU counterpart.

To be fair, it’s impossible now to have a modern Fury be a leftover from World War II.

The Infinity Formula is a weak excuse. Especially since he’s not suppose to have powers or frozen like Cap and Bucky.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The big 3 to me always felt like Spidey/Hulk/Wolverine

This can be plausibly argued. Not sure I agree but it's plausible to argue that after Spider-Man, the biggest individual name heroes are Wolverine and Hulk.

The Hulk has never been a consistent title but he has had several stretches of success reinventing and reintroducing himself in comics whether it's the PAD run, the Defenders title, Planet Hulk and World War Hulk, and now of course Immortal Hulk. The Hulk has had a successful live action TV show, but hasn't had success as a solo act in movies (yet). He's headlined animation but not had great success there. He's been part of successful games like "Ultimate Destruction" but nothing since then.

Wolverine is the only X-Men to establish himself as a major solo hero, having an ongoing with several hundred issues, and establishing himself as a solo hero in the movies and cartoons. Wolverine like Spider-Man has established success in multiple mediums -- comics, games, cartoons, movies, merchandise. So yeah, you can argue that Spider-Man and Wolverine are Marvel's two biggest heroes.

[Dboi2001]

In other words you know nothing whatsoever about Gunn and it's just your projection. You also don't know the interviews well since I quoted one interview where Gunn said explicitly, "Rocket [Raccoon] is me"

great then that makes him look even more like an a hole

Because you miss the forest for the trees.

no you just ignored it

Far more people saw Spider-Man and the Amazing Friends than read the comics, so yeah in the 80s more people knew who Firestar was than Iron Man. I say this by the way as someone who's not even a fan of that show (and for that matter most Spider-man cartoons).

yeah and now they’re all old

It's not.

it is. Look it up

Giant Size X-Men #1 was published in 1975, Claremont and John Byrne's legendary run on the title (Phoenix Saga-Dark Phoenix Saga) ran from 1976-1980. That was the period when sales on the title went way up and by the end of the 70s, the X-Men was Marvel's top-selling team book, and in the decade after that they rocketed to Marvel's top title period (beating out Spider-Man) and then became top selling comics title across the industry.

But during the most of the 60s and 70s the Avengers were the “main” marvel team

I honestly don't know where you are getting your information from. But you have been consistently wrong and incorrect in almost every argument you are making. The X-Men were indeed cancelled and went into reprints in the early 70s, but Len Wein, Cockrum, Claremont and Byrne reversed that dramatically and drastically, going from lowest lows to highest highs in less than a decade.

Where are you getting your information? Like any website showing sales would help. The 70s run isn’t even the most iconic or famous X Men run. Again it was the 90s that was the X Men peak not the 80s

Fantastic Four showed up in 1961 one year after JL and that was the title intended to be Marvel's response to the Justice League. The Avengers was just a way to put together characters whose titles weren't doing well as well as other IP they had rights to, so as to bring them in the expanded continuity.

How were the Fantastic Four the answer to the justice league? The JL are solo heroes who made up a new team the Fantastic Four are not solo heroes compared to the Avengers who were solo heroes that made up a team. The Fantastic Four were scientists who got their powers in an accident at the same time the JL do no have intertwined origins and aren’t scientists. The Fantastic Four were a family while the JL was more of an organization/co workers. If anything the Fantastic Four are more similar to the Doom Patrol. Literally every clickbait DC Marvel rip offs compares the JL and the Avengers for pretty good reason. They’re superhero teams made up of solo heroes who came together to fight an alien invasion and are much less personal than the X Men or F4. The similarity to the JL the F4 have is theyre a superhero team and they fight aliens which guess what is basically all 60s superhero teams

Some issues and stories yes but on the whole it's a comedy series and that allows animation producers and other licensees to make kid friendly versions. In fact Marvel Editorial had mandate in the 80s to ensure that Spider-Man comics had a ceiling of not doing stories that go dark

You’re acting like the 90s X Men cartoon was shakespeare or something and really pushed the standards and practices

Only in the '70s under Claremont. Lee-Kirby's UXM wasn't a civil-rights allegory, it was a generic superhero adventure team.

That’s a bold face lie even the Claremont fun wasn’t a civil rights allegory until later on

Most of what people assume about the X-Men was created and inserted by Chris Claremont and wasn't there originally in Lee-Kirby's run.

Who in their right mind thinks Claremont created the X Men? He didn’t even create half the X Men himself. Wolverine was already introduced in Hulk (granted he was pretty different) and the rest were made by David Cockburn. I know the silver age has a reputation of being nothing but baby stories and overly sanitize because they’re not edgy and pretentious but there was obvious parallels. Just because it didn’t hammer it in a pretentious way doesn’t mean Claremont invented it

BTW none of this is relevant to the discussion which was about how much general audiences really know about Marvel superheroes and the why Star Lord was changed so much to be like the MCU

[Username taken]

To be fair, it’s impossible now to have a modern Fury be a leftover from World War II.

The Infinity Formula is a weak excuse. Especially since he’s not suppose to have powers or frozen like Cap and Bucky.

The MCU Fury is based on Ultimate Fury.

Ultimate Fury was already purposely drawn like Sam Jackson already. So there was literally no change to Ultimate Fury.

Now, what Marvel did that was ridiculously clunky was transforming Fury's SON into Sam Jackson. That was silly.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

great then that makes him look even more like an a hole

Yoda That is why you fail.jpg

But during the most of the 60s and 70s the Avengers were the “main” marvel team

No they weren't. Fantastic Four was the top-selling team title in the entirety of the 60s and the early 70s.

The 70s run isn’t even the most iconic or famous X Men run.

The Phoenix Saga and the Dark Phoenix Saga, among many other stories, not ranking among iconic and famous X-Men stories is quite a bold declaration to make. These were published in the late 70s. It featured iconic bits and moments including the Hellfire Club, Proteus in Scotland, Wolverine's first major appearance and early popularity.

Again it was the 90s that was the X Men peak not the 80s

It was part of the same upward curve. The 80s was when the X-Men became the benchmark for the industry. The 90s, or early 90s up to Age of Apocalypse tripled that down.

How were the Fantastic Four the answer to the justice league?

It was literally commissioned as a response to the success of the Justice League. Apparently it began in a golf game between publisher Martin Goodman (Uncle of Stan Lee) and the DC's chief (might be Donnenfeld or Leibowitz, I forget) where Goodman learned from his counterpart how successful JL was and that inspired him to bring Atlas Comics (as it was called at the time) back into superhero comics.

You’re acting like the 90s X Men cartoon was shakespeare or something and really pushed the standards and practices

I am saying that the 90s to the early 2000s was the peak age for high quality superhero cartoons for all ages with great writing and good quality animation. Nobody will seriously challenge that.

That’s a bold face lie even the Claremont fun wasn’t a civil rights allegory until later on

It evolved gradually but it was far moreso in his run than before.

Who in their right mind thinks Claremont created the X Men?

The "X-Men as we know and think of them today" was created by Claremont. Claremont is the single figure responsible for the X-Men becoming Marvel's biggest team and his 17 year run on the title was a defining moment in comics history.

BTW none of this is relevant to the discussion which was about how much general audiences really know about Marvel superheroes and the why Star Lord was changed so much to be like the MCU

Well you are the one who wanted to make this a referendum on the popularity and fame of certain characters.

Fact is that popularity comes and goes, nobody is famous all the time and in all places. That's especially the case with Marvel Comics. Iron Man is a bigger character than he ever was (and perhaps will ever be) thanks to Robert Downey Jr. The same applies to Starlord. The goofball Chris Pratt take on the character is the biggest he ever was (and perhaps will ever be).

In Marvel history, Spider-Man is the exceptional case of a character continuously being and remaining popular in multiple forms from inception to the present day. That's why he's #1 without peer and equal. The same isn't true for any other character...Captain America has had peaks and valleys, as has The Mighty Thor, in the case of Iron Man it's the movies and nothing else. The X-Men likewise had to wait for Claremont. It's like a chemical equation -- the right person at the right time with the right title and character. Change one thing, and the entire thing doesn't happen.

[Dboi2001]

No they weren't. Fantastic Four was the top-selling team title in the entirety of the 60s and the early 70s.

It traded back and forth with avengers

Here on Wikipedia the Avengers is the 6th best ongoing series behind Captain America, X Men, Spider Man, Batman and Superman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...g_comic_series

The Phoenix Saga and the Dark Phoenix Saga, among many other stories, not ranking among iconic and famous X-Men stories is quite a bold declaration to make. These were published in the late 70s. It featured iconic bits and moments including the Hellfire Club, Proteus in Scotland, Wolverine's first major appearance and early popularity.

But the X Men didn’t peak until the early 90s and hence why it went downhill from there. I still wouldn’t call the 80s and certainly not the 70s the “decade of the X Men”

It was part of the same upward curve. The 80s was when the X-Men became the benchmark for the industry. The 90s, or early 90s up to Age of Apocalypse tripled that down.

I’d say the single most sold comic issue is the benchmark

It was literally commissioned as a response to the success of the Justice League. Apparently it began in a golf game between publisher Martin Goodman (Uncle of Stan Lee) and the DC's chief (might be Donnenfeld or Leibowitz, I forget) where Goodman learned from his counterpart how successful JL was and that inspired him to bring Atlas Comics (as it was called at the time) back into superhero comics.

Ok and? Again the only similarity between F4 and the JL was being a superhero team. Once again they’re more similar to the Doom Patrol than the JL

It evolved gradually but it was far moreso in his run than before.

Yeah not until the late 80s did it really become about racism

The "X-Men as we know and think of them today" was created by Claremont. Claremont is the single figure responsible for the X-Men becoming Marvel's biggest team and his 17 year run on the title was a defining moment in comics history.

Ok that’s besides the point though. Just because it laid the foundation doesn’t mean this was the x men at its peak of popularity

Well you are the one who wanted to make this a referendum on the popularity and fame of certain characters.

No I didn’t I responded to a comment here about how iron man wasn’t well know

Fact is that popularity comes and goes, nobody is famous all the time and in all places. That's especially the case with Marvel Comics. Iron Man is a bigger character than he ever was (and perhaps will ever be) thanks to Robert Downey Jr. The same applies to Starlord. The goofball Chris Pratt take on the character is the biggest he ever was (and perhaps will ever be).

That doesn’t make Pratt’s Star Lord good. To the general audience sure Star Lord is most well known but Bendis’ attempt to bring the mcu Star lord from the screen to the page utter failed and basically is the reason why cosmic marvel is dead in the water. I also never said Iron Man was the most popular marvel character but he wasn’t a no name like Star lord. I said he was about the same level as Aquaman or Flash. I remember back when the Ultimates were coming out and I remember kids at my school talking about it all the time over X Men or F4

As another example Barry Allen is at his most popular because of the show and movie and DC just shoving him in everything yet people still argue that Wally West is better and should be the main Flash over Barry and that Barry should just die or retire to the future or something

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It traded back and forth with avengers

Not in the '60s and 70s it didn't.

Here on Wikipedia the Avengers is the 6th best ongoing series behind Captain America, X Men, Spider Man, Batman and Superman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...g_comic_series

That wikipedia list says nothing about the sales of the comics in the '60s and '70s. I said the Fantastic Four were the best-selling team title in the 60s and 70s, which is true. Nothing in that list contradicts that.

Furthermore this list is irrelevant because it doesn't make distinctions between 616 Marvel titles and other titles i.e. the non-canon Avengers comics put out for small kids and so on. It's too broad and global. Also since this is wikipedia, I am not sure how reliable this is, it seems to cobble different figures from different websites which given the different parameters used elsewhere makes it iffy.

But the X Men didn’t peak until the early 90s and hence why it went downhill from there.

The X-Men didn't go downhill from there. After Age of Apocalypse, the titles had a period of low sales, but then recovered under Grant Morrison's run in the 2000s where the title enjoyed strong sales, and sustained in Whedon's run, until dipping after that, before its current resurgence under Jonathan Hickman where it is once again Marvel's top team since 2019.

Mad Max FR I live meme.jpg

Which is actually quite literal in many ways as far as Hickman goes.

I’d say the single most sold comic issue is the benchmark

I don't think you understand what benchmark means. This video explains the meaning. And X-Men was the first ever benchmark back in the 80s when it was coined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G7Dqzwajqg

Ok and? Again the only similarity between F4 and the JL was being a superhero team.

So what? The fact is Fantastic Four were at the outset, Marvel's biggest team. Justice League were DC's biggest team at the time. How their different universes are configured is irrelevant. Spider-Man is Marvel's biggest character but in-universe he's not treated that way. In DC, Batman is the biggest character and he tends to be treated that way.

That doesn’t make Pratt’s Star Lord good.

Subjective tastes are subjective for a reason. You are welcome to dislike the character and prefer the comics take from before. But objectively Pratt's Star Lord is the most successful version of the character since his first publication. That is objective fact, objective in the same way we would say that "Chicago is a city in the state of Illinois". Your subjective feelings about Chicago or Illinois will not change the fact that Chicago is a city that exists in Illinois. Nor will your feelings about Star Lord change the fact that Pratt's version is the biggest moment in that character's history.

To the general audience sure Star Lord is most well known but Bendis’ attempt to bring the mcu Star lord from the screen to the page utter failed and basically is the reason why cosmic marvel is dead in the water.

The success of a character in another medium not always being transferred to the character in print is a known phenomenon.

[Username taken]

X-men sold massive in the 80s. Around the time of the Dark Phoenix saga, it was selling around 400k a month.

It was already Marvel's top seller before the 90s.

[Dboi2001]

Not in the '60s and 70s it didn't.

Yes it did

That wikipedia list says nothing about the sales of the comics in the '60s and '70s. I said the Fantastic Four were the best-selling team title in the 60s and 70s, which is true. Nothing in that list contradicts that.

Then how did Avengers eclipse F4 despite being 2 years later?

Furthermore this list is irrelevant because it doesn't make distinctions between 616 Marvel titles and other titles i.e. the non-canon Avengers comics put out for small kids and so on. It's too broad and global. Also since this is wikipedia, I am not sure how reliable this is, it seems to cobble different figures from different websites which given the different parameters used elsewhere makes it iffy.

I really dont think comics like an EMH tie in comic were big enough to make a significant difference. And like there haven't been non canon F4 comics. Wikipedia is correct 95 percent of the time. On top of that when Marvel launched the Ultimate Marvel imprint Fantastic 4 got an ongoing monthly series with 60 issues. Avengers got 2 12 issue limited series, 1 5 issue limit series (which also served as a crossover) and then Ultimatum which was more of an event book than an Ultimates/Avengers book. So I am pretty sure there have been more Fantastic 4 books than there have been Avengers (maybe Avengers caught up recently since F4 was cancelled for a while)

The X-Men didn't go downhill from there. After Age of Apocalypse, the titles had a period of low sales, but then recovered under Grant Morrison's run in the 2000s where the title enjoyed strong sales, and sustained in Whedon's run, until dipping after that, before its current resurgence under Jonathan Hickman where it is once again Marvel's top team since 2019.

People call the late 90s X Men the dark ages after Claremont left. Sure Morrison and Whedon helped the series and brought some quality titles but it wasn't anywhere near the height of the 90s and probably also why X Men went through what 4 animated series during that time?

I don't think you understand what benchmark means. This video explains the meaning. And X-Men was the first ever benchmark back in the 80s when it was coined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G7Dqzwajqg

How does that video explain what we were talking about?

So what? The fact is Fantastic Four were at the outset, Marvel's biggest team. Justice League were DC's biggest team at the time. How their different universes are configured is irrelevant. Spider-Man is Marvel's biggest character but in-universe he's not treated that way. In DC, Batman is the biggest character and he tends to be treated that way.

Because they have literally no connection. Your point is Marvel was inspired by DC to make a superhero team. That doesn't make the F4 the answer to the JL since again the F4 were a superhero team while the JL were an all star team of superheroes. The Avengers are an all star team of superheroes unlike the F4 or X Men who were superhero teams. I wasn't even talking about their universes

Also Batman isn't treated as a hero in the DC universe he is treated as a vigilante and one who is feared. That is Superman

Subjective tastes are subjective for a reason. You are welcome to dislike the character and prefer the comics take from before. But objectively Pratt's Star Lord is the most successful version of the character since his first publication. That is objective fact, objective in the same way we would say that "Chicago is a city in the state of Illinois". Your subjective feelings about Chicago or Illinois will not change the fact that Chicago is a city that exists in Illinois. Nor will your feelings about Star Lord change the fact that Pratt's version is the biggest moment in that character's history.

I didn't even say Chris Pratt was bad. In the context of the MCU he worked well similar to how withing the context of the 60s Batman series it worked well despite basically being nothing like the comics. But my point is you are acting like because the movie is popular it is good and better than the comics

The success of a character in another medium not always being transferred to the character in print is a known phenomenon.

And I think that is the crux of this thread. I personally am not a fan of comics shelling out to be more like recent movies even though I understand the logic. As I've said it is ok to add things to supplement the characters but not do a 180. If Star Lord had an old mix tape simply because that was the only thing from Earth he had I'd be fine with that. But I don't like them modeling Quill's design and personality off the movies

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I really dont think...

Fact is that you don't even know or care to know, the actual parameters by which to measure comics sales. You have an opinion or feeling, i.e. Avengers were always the best team and then apply that retroactively ignorant of any evidence that contradicts that.

The X-Men became Marvel's biggest team in the late 70s and went higher and higher in the decades after that. The fact or notion that the Avengers weren't always so special is bothersome to you but them's the breaks.

People call the late 90s X Men the dark ages after Claremont left.

Claremont left in 1992 but there were good runs after that under Fabian Nicieza and others. And AGE OF APOCALYPSE happened after that. So Age of Apocalypse was the high point for the X-Men in the '90s.

Sure Morrison and Whedon helped the series and brought some quality titles but it wasn't anywhere near the height of the 90s

At that point the comics market had shrunk so much that it's mathematically impossible for anyone to be at the height of the old days again. Far more eyeballs have seen a single issue of an X-Men comic in the 80s than ever will any of Hickman's run. That's sad because it's a great run and is doing well, but it's what it is.

How does that video explain what we were talking about?

It defines what a benchmark is for your benefit and confirms how successful the X-Men were in the '80s.

Also Batman isn't treated as a hero in the DC universe he is treated as a vigilante and one who is feared. That is Superman

Look up something called "Batgod". That might give you insight into the real nature of how the DC universe works.

But my point is you are acting like because the movie is popular it is good and better than the comics

In this case sure. Subjectively I do prefer Chris Pratt's Star Lord to the comics' version. I don't think inherently that's always the case one way or another.

And I think that is the crux of this thread. I personally am not a fan of comics shelling out to be more like recent movies even though I understand the logic.

That's a fair point, all things considered.

As I've said it is ok to add things to supplement the characters but not do a 180. If Star Lord had an old mix tape simply because that was the only thing from Earth he had I'd be fine with that. But I don't like them modeling Quill's design and personality off the movies

That's cool. I think as and when different writers come, they will try and do their own take and spin on the character. For comics, it's not always the best idea to always copy and chase the movies...Batman comics sales actually declined after the Adam West show went off-the-air and DC responded by allowing Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams to take the character to a darker route. More recently, Al Ewing took Hulk to a whole new direction in IMMORTAL HULK which is counter to the increasingly cuddly version of Hulk you see in the movies.

[Dboi2001]

Fact is that you don't even know or care to know, the actual parameters by which to measure comics sales. You have an opinion or feeling, i.e. Avengers were always the best team and then apply that retroactively ignorant of any evidence that contradicts that.

I didn't say they were the best team I said they were the all star team of superheroes like the JL and for a while Avengers outsold Justice League of America. The only similarity F4 and the JL have is they are teams of superheroes.

I looked up on comichron and while I will concede Fantastic Four did sell better than the Avengers for the 60s and early 70s but that doesn't mean the Avengers were any slouches and at the beginning of the 70s F4 did slum so for a fair period Avengers did outsell F4 and X Men

The X-Men became Marvel's biggest team in the late 70s and went higher and higher in the decades after that. The fact or notion that the Avengers weren't always so special is bothersome to you but them's the breaks.

you keep making claims but not backing it up. For the longest time Avengers was the 3rd best selling Marvel title and during the 2000s the Ultimates were the single best selling series

Claremont left in 1992 but there were good runs after that under Fabian Nicieza and others. And AGE OF APOCALYPSE happened after that. So Age of Apocalypse was the high point for the X-Men in the '90s.

Ok and Age of Apocalypse was retconned so that tells you the quality of 90s x men

At that point the comics market had shrunk so much that it's mathematically impossible for anyone to be at the height of the old days again. Far more eyeballs have seen a single issue of an X-Men comic in the 80s than ever will any of Hickman's run. That's sad because it's a great run and is doing well, but it's what it is.

When I say heights I mean comparatively to other titles not just pure numbers

It defines what a benchmark is for your benefit and confirms how successful the X-Men were in the '80s.

Yeah the mid 80s not the 70s

Look up something called "Batgod". That might give you insight into the real nature of how the DC universe works.

What does that have to do with anything?

[shooshoomanjoe]

To be fair, it’s impossible now to have a modern Fury be a leftover from World War II.

The Infinity Formula is a weak excuse. Especially since he’s not suppose to have powers or frozen like Cap and Bucky.

In a universe that has a talking squirrel having having adventures in outer space and an Avengers team of pets, a longevity serum isn't a weak excuse.

[Will Evans]

In a universe that has a talking squirrel having having adventures in outer space and an Avengers team of pets, a longevity serum isn't a weak excuse.

Not when you’re the face of SHIELD.

[Frontier]

The MCU Fury is based on Ultimate Fury.

Ultimate Fury was already purposely drawn like Sam Jackson already. So there was literally no change to Ultimate Fury.

Now, what Marvel did that was ridiculously clunky was transforming Fury's SON into Sam Jackson. That was silly.

More specifically he's based off Bendis' Ultimate Fury, who was more in-line with 616 Nick and wasn't a massive, flippant, and unrepentant jerk like Millar's Fury.

So in a nutshell he's basically 616 Nick Fury if he was black and not in WWII.

[Dboi2001]

I don’t remember Fury being a jerk in the Ultimates