Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 612131415161718 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 264
  1. #226
    IRON MAN Tony Stark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Avengers Mountain.
    Posts
    6,062

    Default

    My opinion is that Tony Stark and Matt Murdock are the 2 most complex and compelling characters in Marvel.
    " This is why you're the head of S.H.I.E.L.D, Stark. Because you're stronger than anyone. It's not the armor....and you know it. Your here because impossible things happen, and when they do, They call on you to deal with them. You see the angles, Tony. You always have. You see the possible solutions to things that shouldn't be happening." CAROL DANVERS

  2. #227
    IRON MAN Tony Stark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Avengers Mountain.
    Posts
    6,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    The Illuminati were right to shoot the Hulk into space.
    Agreed. If Miek didn’t blow that ship up. The Hulk would be at peace surrounded by family.
    " This is why you're the head of S.H.I.E.L.D, Stark. Because you're stronger than anyone. It's not the armor....and you know it. Your here because impossible things happen, and when they do, They call on you to deal with them. You see the angles, Tony. You always have. You see the possible solutions to things that shouldn't be happening." CAROL DANVERS

  3. #228
    Spectacular Member macjr33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Mine would be that Bendis' run on Daredevil is better than Miller's original run. With that said Born Again is still the single greatest Daredevil story overall. Perhaps another somewhat related and controversial opinion is that I think Born Again is Frank Miller's best work and that includes Batman: Year One. In fairness, that may also be that I find Matt to be a much more compelling character than Batman.

  4. #229
    Spectacular Member macjr33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
    My opinion is that Tony Stark and Matt Murdock are the 2 most complex and compelling characters in Marvel.
    From my perspective, I wouldn't say that is controversial at all. I would agree, especially regarding Matt.

  5. #230
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    It feels weird how most of the superheroes were just based in NYC as though it were the only place in the world. Naturally, this has started to die down, though I think they're starting to overuse San Francisco.

  6. #231
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    It feels weird how most of the superheroes were just based in NYC as though it were the only place in the world. Naturally, this has started to die down, though I think they're starting to overuse San Francisco.
    They really need to spread them out more.

  7. #232
    Fantastic Member Maniacal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    351

    Default

    I appreciate they’re using Jersey more. But there IS something inspiring, mysterious, exciting, imposing about Manhattan, Brooklyn etc. Walking around the city, you feel like “something” is about to happen. The only city that feels close to that for me is Chicago.

  8. #233
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    242

    Default

    In hindsight, the X-Men as we know them come off race-reductionist and are no longer a good metaphor for marginalized groups. Most people that belong to a marginalized group don't live in a mansion or have access to a safe space and community the way the X-Men do. They also don't take into account class differences among mutants or humans, but instead paint a simplistic and immaterialist view of the world that can be boiled down to "humans oppress mutants". I think the X-Men work fine in the context of a genocide or in a world where minorities lack basic legal rights, but the metaphor starts to break down once you get to more subtle and less obvious forms of racism. Miles Morales and Kamala Khan are much better metaphors for marginalized groups in 2020, and not just because they are not white (their experiences are far closer to that of real-life minorities). Even MLK Jr. eventually moved on to addressing classism after the passing of the Civil Rights Act.

    616/Ultimate Miles Morales is a stronger character than when he started out, but is still a token character. "Honeymoon Tokening" are the words that come to mind when I think of Miles. Marvel is so excited he exists that they have yet to pay attention to his core character traits (or lack of), similar to a first boyfriend or girlfriend. The Miles from Into the Spider-Verse is so far the only version of Miles with a clear vision. Marvel would be wise to import that version into 616 similar to how they imported aspects of Downey's Iron Man into 616.

    Norman Osborn is evil and sane. If he is insane or has a split-personality, there is no reason for him to be Peter's archenemy. Archenemies aren't archenemies just because they're powerful, they're archenemies because they have thematic ties to their heroes. A Norman with a split-personality has more in common with The Lizard than he does with Peter Parker.

    MCU Hawkeye is a boring letdown. It was a mistake to base the MCU version of Hawkeye on the Ultimate version while the Ultimate version was just on its way out the door. Meanwhile, 616 Hawkeye was just taking off and continues to be popular. It is possibly the best example of the MCU playing safe and having it backfire with a long-term character.

    Scarlett Johannson's Black Widow was a bit bland, and not all of Marvel's poor treatment of the character can be attributed to sexism. Black Widow was never as solid of a choice for main female lead as Janet or Carol would have been. The actress might be up there with Downey/Evans/Hemsworth in fame and status, but the character itself was always closer to Hawkeye than the Big Three. No equal treatment of Black Widow to the Big Three this past decade? No surprise.

    I won't go in-depth into MCU Spider-Man because it is a frequent topic already. What I will add is that the biggest problems with MCU Spider-Man aren't adaptation things, per se (i.e. Michelle Jones). The biggest problems are the ageist and classist undertones, the romanticization of youth dependence on the rich, and the white-washing of Miles Morales.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 08-13-2020 at 07:01 PM.

  9. #234
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    23,723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    In hindsight, the X-Men as we know them come off race-reductionist and are no longer a good metaphor for marginalized groups. Most people that belong to a marginalized group don't live in a mansion or have access to a safe space and community the way the X-Men do. They also don't take into account class differences among mutants or humans, but instead paint a simplistic and immaterialist view of the world that can be boiled down to "humans oppress mutants". I think the X-Men work fine in the context of a genocide or in a world where minorities lack basic legal rights, but the metaphor starts to break down once you get to more subtle and less obvious forms of racism. Miles Morales and Kamala Khan are much better metaphors for marginalized groups in 2020, and not just because they are not white (their experiences are far closer to that of real-life minorities). Even MLK Jr. eventually moved on to addressing classism after the passing of the Civil Rights Act.

    Norman Osborn is evil and sane. If he is insane or has a split-personality, there is no reason for him to be Peter's archenemy. Archenemies aren't archenemies just because they're powerful, they're archenemies because they have thematic ties to their heroes. A Norman with a split-personality has more in common with The Lizard than he does with Peter Parker.
    These two I agree with.

    Scarlett Johannson's Black Widow was a bit bland, and not all of Marvel's poor treatment of the character can be attributed to sexism. Black Widow was never as solid of a choice for main female lead as Janet or Carol would have been. The actress might be up there with Downey/Evans/Hemsworth in fame and status, but the character itself was always closer to Hawkeye than the Big Three. No equal treatment of Black Widow to the Big Three this past decade? No surprise.
    Black Widow has a much better track record in over history than Carol or Jan has. I don't see why they'd be treated any better than Natasha given their overall histories, especially in the Avengers comics. Carol's push as the answer to DC's Wonder Woman is only recently proving a success and Jan has never really escaped the shadow of being Hank Pym's ex-wife while other adaptations have them happily married.

    I won't go in-depth into MCU Spider-Man because it is a frequent topic already. What I will add is that the biggest problems with MCU Spider-Man aren't adaptation things, per se (i.e. Michelle Jones). The biggest problems are the ageist and classist undertones, the romanticization of youth dependence on the rich, and the white-washing of Miles Morales.
    Ageism?

  10. #235
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,294

    Default

    I’d like to see a Dr Strange run where Stephen is incapacitated in some way. And Clea has to be the Sorceress Supreme for a while.

  11. #236
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    It's annoying how it seems like the people that want Peter to grow up are also the same ones that are terrified of him passing the age of 30. What good is him aging if if he isn't allowed to change?

    Blaming "he can't be teenager anymore" feels like scapegoating.

  12. #237
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    2,294

    Default

    I honestly thought he was 29 going on 30, back in the clone saga, when Ben replaces him, and Peter/Mj moved to Seattle.

  13. #238
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Ok Here's my controversial opinion. I actually like Jane Foster - not as Thor - I hated that, though I don't mind her as Valkyrie. I just want her to become Thor's love interest again.

  14. #239
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Black Widow has a much better track record in over history than Carol or Jan has. I don't see why they'd be treated any better than Natasha given their overall histories, especially in the Avengers comics. Carol's push as the answer to DC's Wonder Woman is only recently proving a success and Jan has never really escaped the shadow of being Hank Pym's ex-wife while other adaptations have them happily married.
    Historically, Janet and Carol had longer and more significant ties to the Avengers. Janet has been portrayed as the heart of the Team since the Lee/Kirby era, while Carol has been a powerhouse since her Ms. Marvel days even if she only recently started getting marketed as Marvel's Wonder Woman. Black Widow on the other hand didn't become an ongoing Avenger until the 1980s, and probably wouldn't have been in the top 10 most recognizable Avengers until Millar made her a founding member of the Ultimates.

    The problem with Black Widow as "one of the Main Five" is that she is too grounded of a character to be on the same mythic level as Cap, Iron Man, Thor, or Hulk. She is conceptually closer to Mockingbird or Black Canary from DC than she is to someone who can fill that void. A lot of Black Widow's female-lead status in the MCU boils down 1) Marvel playing it safe and 2) her being in the right place at the right time. Jan was off-limits due to Edgar Wright while Carol still had a lot of unknown variables at the time preventing her from being adapted, like how to reinvent her origin without Mar-Vell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Ageism?
    The explanation given by the Russos and other figures of the MCU on why this Spider-Man has blind loyalty to Iron Man and the Avengers is simply that he is a kid. Given that Spider-Man was the first independent teen superhero and that he was meant to challenge ageist notions about teens, this is the equivalent of sexism in Wonder Woman.

  15. #240
    Extraordinary Member TheCape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Venezuela
    Posts
    7,580

    Default

    The explanation given by the Russos and other figures of the MCU on why this Spider-Man has blind loyalty to Iron Man and the Avengers is simply that he is a kid. Given that Spider-Man was the first independent teen superhero and that he was meant to challenge ageist notions about teens, this is the equivalent of sexism in Wonder Woman
    This is pretty much my main issue with MCU Spider-Man. And to clarify, i don't think that his movies are bad and i think that Holland is clearly putting a lot of effort into his wich i appreciate and i completly understand why people like him, but that particular change had made impossible for me to enjoy it as much as the other.
    "Wow. You made Spider-Man sad, congratulations. I stabbed The Hulk last week"
    Wolverine, Venom Annual # 1 (2018)
    Nobody does it better by Jeff Loveness

    "I am Thou, Thou Art I"
    Persona

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •