What if?! All the Marvel Movies were made in 1993?

[Mr`Orange]

No, Cameron would have gone with Patrick Stewart, because he was the best choice. He was the only option. A gritty Professor X is a silly notion in the first place. No, Patrick Stewart is the only possible answer to "Who would play Professor X?"


No, the political issues about race still existed. It's just that white people were too full of themselves to give a **** about it. That's not a positive. That is, in fact, a Bad Thing. It was the result of white people believing other races didn't matter. And I notice that your "any actor for any role" didn't apply to black characters. You didn't suggest a white person for Bishop or Storm. Why is that? Surely, if race doesn't matter, then there'd be nothing wrong with casting a white woman as Storm. Right? I mean, if it's all about ability, not race, then why does Storm need to be black?

I also notice that not a single one of the traditionally white characters was cast with a minority actor. Probably just a coincidence, right? I mean, surely, you wouldn't have a problem with someone suggesting an Asian-American actor as Cyclops. Right? I'm sure you were 100% on board with Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm in the last Fantastic Four, and you're probably the loudest proponent of Idris Elba to take over as James Bond. Because race doesn't matter, right?

But I'm sure that's totally different. Because, when it comes to a minority actor in a traditionally-white role, it's always different.


Because that **** matters. Whitewashing matters. Erasing the races of minority characters matters. And accepting that as normal and fine matters. When we say that there is nothing wrong with Asian characters being replaced by white people, we're saying that Asian people don't matter. That they're undeserving of representation. That white people are just that much more important than they are. That is the message being sent by whitewashing. "If you're not white, you don't matter, so sit down, shut up and take what you get, you irrelevant, inferior race."


Uh, non-white people did care about it. The problem was white people didn't care. Minority groups complained about the lack of representation back then, but no one was listening, because society was frigging awful. If you don't think society was divided along racial lines in 1993, then you clearly paid no attention to anything going on at the time. There were goddamn riots in LA just a year prior. Directly about race. If you think the racial dialogues going on right now are new, then you really need to do a lot more reading.

Very well said.

[dreyga2000]

Remember this is supposed to have taken place in 1993. Looong before Donald Trump divided the country along racial lines. Hollywood whitewashing was not a big issue then. Nonwhites didnt care too much about this. A good movie was a good movie and a good actor was a good actor/actress.

People of color still cared into 90's (hell they cared in the 80's) I should know seeing how me and almost everyone I know is person of color

[adameastment]

I feel like a big part of Marvel's current success is the level of detail within CGI that is being achieved. Something that practical effects would never have gotten to in the early 90's. So, in my opinion a movie relying on practical effects wouldn't have stood the test of time, as the example you gave - Terminator 2 - doesn't stand up (visually) against Terminator Genisys.

I feel that if these movies had been around in 1993, then they would have been nowhere near as good, nowhere near as detailed and ultimately, I feel that it would have just moved the "comicbook pop" of the 90's to the mid 00's. Mainly because Marvel never get much out of these deals when other companies are bought in. One of the main reasons Marvel movies are successful is because it is made by Marvel Studios.

[Pat Thomas]

If the special effects of the time were of today's quality, I believe this might have been a possibility. It was before Marvel had to sell off their biggest franchises, and that would
have been a tremendous advantage over having to start a shared universe with Iron Man. But I also think the way Marvel was forced to do it motivated them to be very careful
and deliberate with each step, and truly build a foundation for the universe. I don't know if the same care would have been taken starting off with Spidey or the X-Men, because
either of those would have been big anyway. I doubt anybody in their wildest dreams would ever have believed back then that superhero movies would approach anywhere near
$1 billion, but I still think they would be treated as a big deal. Just not with the patience of the current MCU.

The funny thing to me is that even though 1993 was 26 years ago, I remember that part of my life like it was yesterday. The special effects and picture quality of the big movies
from back then still look good to me, although I can see the improvements since then. It wasn't the stone age back then, though. I wonder what effect the internet not being
prominent at all would have had? They wouldn't have gotten the widespread advertising, but they also wouldn't have to put up with the online rumors and negativity either.

[drakk2012]

I feel like a big part of Marvel's current success is the level of detail within CGI that is being achieved. Something that practical effects would never have gotten to in the early 90's. So, in my opinion a movie relying on practical effects wouldn't have stood the test of time, as the example you gave - Terminator 2 - doesn't stand up (visually) against Terminator Genisys.

I feel that if these movies had been around in 1993, then they would have been nowhere near as good, nowhere near as detailed and ultimately, I feel that it would have just moved the "comicbook pop" of the 90's to the mid 00's. Mainly because Marvel never get much out of these deals when other companies are bought in. One of the main reasons Marvel movies are successful is because it is made by Marvel Studios.

Honestly the main point of my post was for people to give their opinions on the casting choices i made for all the characters. I made a fictional backstory to make it fun and interesting. From the way history played out i think its obvious the big studios thought it would be a big risk and so never attempted it on their own.

Whether or not a big budget Marvel movie released in 1993 could stand the test of time? I for one think it could have. Remember James Cameron is a visionary who understands movie making. Hes made the top grossing movies of all time for 20 years now. If he thinks he could have produced a successful XMen Movie in the early 90s i have faith it could have been done. Would certain sacrifices need to be made in regards to powers the characters had? Possibly, but i think very few. Just analyze each character and tell me which power they possess couldnt have been pulled off with CGI of the time? In making these casting choices i always thought Hulk and Spiderman would be the hardest. Also remember that Jurrasic Park came out in 1993 and Total Recal in 1990. The special effects in those movies seems it was highly likely that decent affordable CGI could have been pulled off to stand the test of time.

[adameastment]

Honestly the main point of my post was for people to give their opinions on the casting choices i made for all the characters. I made a fictional backstory to make it fun and interesting. From the way history played out i think its obvious the big studios thought it would be a big risk and so never attempted it on their own.

Whether or not a big budget Marvel movie released in 1993 could stand the test of time? I for one think it could have. Remember James Cameron is a visionary who understands movie making. Hes made the top grossing movies of all time for 20 years now. If he thinks he could have produced a successful XMen Movie in the early 90s i have faith it could have been done. Would certain sacrifices need to be made in regards to powers the characters had? Possibly, but i think very few. Just analyze each character and tell me which power they possess couldnt have been pulled off with CGI of the time? In making these casting choices i always thought Hulk and Spiderman would be the hardest. Also remember that Jurrasic Park came out in 1993 and Total Recal in 1990. The special effects in those movies seems it was highly likely that decent affordable CGI could have been pulled off to stand the test of time.

Ahh ok, I apologise for not quite getting the point of the thread.

But I think you do raise a good point, in terms of the X-Men if you go with the 2000 movie, Wolverine, Jean Grey, Cyclops etc then you could definitely get away with their powers because they aren't really reliant on CGI. You're absolutely right in terms of CGI would be fine at that point, I think the problems come with the likes of Iron Man, Hulk, Guardians (mostly Rocket) and potentially Fantastic Four for Thing due to the complexities of their armour and bodies, practically you could make an Iron Man suit and it would likely look a lot like the original comicbook version but I don't think that necessarily would be as cool.

Although, I think Ron Perlman as Thanos is actually amazing casting!

[Icefalcon]

The difference between those 90s Marvel movies and the ones in my scenario are that James Cameron actually DID have interest in creating an X MEN movie. Therefore i think the genre might have been taken a little more serious. The Captain America movie you present was done at a time Marvel movies were not even thought of seriously. And the Fantastic Four movie you present was known to only have been made to retain the film rights to that franchise. They didnt care if it was good or not.

That last sentence could equally apply to last years FF movie. Oh it was bad. I actually prefer the #94 version to be honest.

[gifted]

I wouldn't have been born yet.

[Michael Watkins]

Ant-Man would have been a lot more fun. but they'd have to recast Hope; probably Winona Ryder. I feel like Robert Downey jr should have still been Tony Stark.

[Michael Watkins]

Alternate timeline.

Attachment 37997Attachment 37998Attachment 37999

why not sean bean or even liam neeson as Banshee?

[Tiamatty]

why not sean bean or even liam neeson as Banshee?

If they cast Sean Bean as Banshee, they'd have to kill him off.

[Michael Watkins]

If they cast Sean Bean as Banshee, they'd have to kill him off.

he's currently dead in, both, the comics and movie-verse.

[Ascended]

Honestly, I am not sure it would matter who was cast or who wrote the script. I think we would have had some more really awesome episodes of Mystery Science Theater 3000.

This.

I think most of the casting is actually pretty good. I mean, for that time frame you're not going to get better, those were the biggest names in Hollywood with a lot of really hot up and comers in the mix.

But there's no way the films could have worked given the technological limitations of the time. I mean, the Spawn movie hit in 97 and had some of the best, most expensive CGI imaginable. It would have taken every producer and studio in Hollywood pitching together to cover the costs for all those actors (many of which are huge names with huge pay checks) and effects.

But the casting is, for the most part, pretty decent.

Though I gotta take issue with Hulk Hogan as Thor. They likely would have cast Arnold.

[Michael Watkins]

This.

I think most of the casting is actually pretty good. I mean, for that time frame you're not going to get better, those were the biggest names in Hollywood with a lot of really hot up and comers in the mix.

But there's no way the films could have worked given the technological limitations of the time. I mean, the Spawn movie hit in 97 and had some of the best, most expensive CGI imaginable. It would have taken every producer and studio in Hollywood pitching together to cover the costs for all those actors (many of which are huge names with huge pay checks) and effects.

But the casting is, for the most part, pretty decent.

Though I gotta take issue with Hulk Hogan as Thor. They likely would have cast Arnold.

I think they would have gone with Val Kilmer; w/ shoe lifts.

[drakk2012]

Not saying Harris couldn't pull it off, but dismissing Stewart for not meeting Cameron's fictional grit requirements seems like a big reach.

Attachment 38008

Well again im trying to frame this in the era of 1993. Patrick Stewart was only known for Star Trek at the time. I dont understand, just because hes bald i dont see why you guys cant see any other actor playing Professor X. If your paying attention to the direction they've taken Professor X in the last 3 X Men movies you may have noticed they've actually been making him a little more gritty (alcoholic) and not just the gentle old Grandpa he was in the first 3 X Men movies. Thanks for viewing and commenting though!