Why do some people think Marvel Studios can do no wrong?

[TooFlyToFail]

How do you explain Lex Luthor, Pa Kent, Jimmy Olsen?

And the character portrayal in GoTG fit the type of movie they were making, a comedic space opera.

You're consistantly making hypocritical statements in order to push the agenda that your opinion is superior and people who enjoy the MCU are idiots.

Simple as that.

How were Lex, Pa Kent, and Jimmy character assassinated?

Lex was an homage to the classic COMIC BOOK version that was a scientist, and antisocial. He was very similar to the Red Son and Birthright versions of Lex.

In Jimmy's case, he was hardly a character, and had CIA ties, similarly to the Red Son Jimmy.

With Pa Kent, he was written as living in our cynical, crazy, suspicious, untrusting, manipulating, shaming, fearful world. Not in the dreamland that the Donner film took place in. He was also written as an actual parent that holds their child's safety above all else. Then there's the BvS scene, in which he gives sound advice in continuing to try, even in the face of failure, because you'll always make mistakes, or there's consequences to everything, and that can't be controlled.

How about the MCU character assassination with Maleketh, Ultron, Zemo, and Ego, whom are nothing like any version of the comic characters, since you bring up "character assassination".

For the record, while I don't think the plot of CW needed Zemo, I do think he served as a great example of the natural consequences of an unregulated team of super soldiers, and gods. Then there's the fact that he could only do what he did because BW foolishly released Hydra files to the public.

[Redjack]

How were Lex, Pa Kent, and Jimmy character assassinated?

Lex was an homage to the classic COMIC BOOK version that was a scientist, and antisocial. He was very similar to the Red Son and Birthright versions of Lex.

In Jimmy's case, he was hardly a character, and had CIA ties, similarly to the Red Son Jimmy.

With Pa Kent, he was written as living in our cynical, crazy, suspicious, untrusting, manipulating, shaming, fearful world. Not in the dreamland that the Donner film took place in. He was also written as an actual parent that holds their child's safety above all else. Then there's the BvS scene, in which he gives sound advice in continuing to try, even in the face of failure, because you'll always make mistakes, or there's consequences to everything, and that can't be controlled.

How about the MCU character assassination with Maleketh, Ultron, Zemo, and Ego, whom are nothing like any version of the comic characters, since you bring up "character assassination".

For the record, while I don't think the plot of CW needed Zemo, I do think he served as a great example of the natural consequences of an unregulated team of super soldiers, and gods. Then there's the fact that he could only do what he did because BW foolishly released Hydra files to the public.

So... it's fine for you to pick and choose which character traits are okay to include or ignore but when the people who are being paid to do the same thing make different choices it's "character assassination."

Gotcha. I'll tell the others.

[SpiderClops]

How were Lex, Pa Kent, and Jimmy character assassinated?

Lex was an homage to the classic COMIC BOOK version that was a scientist, and antisocial. He was very similar to the Red Son and Birthright versions of Lex.

In Jimmy's case, he was hardly a character, and had CIA ties, similarly to the Red Son Jimmy.

With Pa Kent, he was written as living in our cynical, crazy, suspicious, untrusting, manipulating, shaming, fearful world. Not in the dreamland that the Donner film took place in. He was also written as an actual parent that holds their child's safety above all else. Then there's the BvS scene, in which he gives sound advice in continuing to try, even in the face of failure, because you'll always make mistakes, or there's consequences to everything, and that can't be controlled.

How about the MCU character assassination with Maleketh, Ultron, Zemo, and Ego, whom are nothing like any version of the comic characters, since you bring up "character assassination".

For the record, while I don't think the plot of CW needed Zemo, I do think he served as a great example of the natural consequences of an unregulated team of super soldiers, and gods. Then there's the fact that he could only do what he did because BW foolishly released Hydra files to the public.

Lex, Pa Kent and Jimmy aren't character assassinated, but Zemo and Ego are.

Oh, the things MCU haters say...

[Punjabi_Hitman]

How were Lex, Pa Kent, and Jimmy character assassinated?

Lex was an homage to the classic COMIC BOOK version that was a scientist, and antisocial. He was very similar to the Red Son and Birthright versions of Lex.

In Jimmy's case, he was hardly a character, and had CIA ties, similarly to the Red Son Jimmy.

With Pa Kent, he was written as living in our cynical, crazy, suspicious, untrusting, manipulating, shaming, fearful world. Not in the dreamland that the Donner film took place in. He was also written as an actual parent that holds their child's safety above all else. Then there's the BvS scene, in which he gives sound advice in continuing to try, even in the face of failure, because you'll always make mistakes, or there's consequences to everything, and that can't be controlled.

How about the MCU character assassination with Maleketh, Ultron, Zemo, and Ego, whom are nothing like any version of the comic characters, since you bring up "character assassination".

For the record, while I don't think the plot of CW needed Zemo, I do think he served as a great example of the natural consequences of an unregulated team of super soldiers, and gods. Then there's the fact that he could only do what he did because BW foolishly released Hydra files to the public.

I never said I had a problem with characters being different in the movies. In fact my problems with BvS had nothing to do with the characters other than Lex Luthor. I'm just pointing out the hypocricy and the confirmation biases. Defend a movie in one instance, then use that defence as a criticism for the movie they hate.

And they wonder why subjective things are likex and hated on different levels.

[Agent Z]

How do you explain Lex Luthor, Pa Kent, Jimmy Olsen?

And the character portrayal in GoTG fit the type of movie they were making, a comedic space opera.

You're consistantly making hypocritical statements in order to push the agenda that your opinion is superior and people who enjoy the MCU are idiots.

Simple as that.

Pretty sure character assassination does not mean literally killing the character. Luthor is a debatable case and Jonathan being protective of his son is not character assassination

[SpiderClops]

Pretty sure character assassination does not mean literally killing the character. Luthor is a debatable case and Jonathan being protective of his son is not character assassination

He told Clark to not help people. That's probably the worst mentor/father(figure) I've seen in any superhero movie. All I was thinking at the time watching that was, "If Uncle Ben was there, he would've punched Pa Kent in the face."

That's just bad characterization.

[Username taken]

Lex, Pa Kent and Jimmy aren't character assassinated, but Zemo and Ego are.

Oh, the things MCU haters say...

It's pretty ridiculous to be honest.

But heck, people see what they want to see.

[TooFlyToFail]

He told Clark to not help people. That's probably the worst mentor/father(figure) I've seen in any superhero movie. All I was thinking at the time watching that was, "If Uncle Ben was there, he would've punched Pa Kent in the face."

That's just bad characterization.

My understanding of character assassination is when a character of consequence is adapted from another source, but is unrecognizable in look, personality, morals, and the essence of the character.

John Kent is conflicted on if Clark should be a hero because of the world they live in, not because he's a bad person. Unlike the versions we're used to seeing, this one doesn't live a world that would automatically embrace an alien child with god-like power, masquerading as an American. Not only could he be hated, but there's people who would want to use him. His perspective is different because he resides in our world. It's very EASY to be Superman in an ideal world that accepts these guys without much question, but in a realistic world everyone has differing on opinions on various subjects. Look at our world, do you think he'd be accepted as he was in the Donner films?

Lex has traits from practically every version of the character, with the traits we're not traditionally used to seeing being emphasized over others. He's got more in common with the All-Star, Red Son, and Birthright versions of Lex, than the overly masculine, businessman version we're usually exposed to.

Jimmy was a cameo, has been irrelevant for years, in all medium. This one is connected to the CIA, like the Red Son Jimmy, and just as irrelevant.

On the MCU side, in what way are Zemo and Maleketh similar to their comic book counterparts at all? You can't even say Zemo is some super strategist, because a lot of his plan is based on convenience, or people being stupid, like not checking the interrogator before he walked into the room with the super soldier.

Ultron not being Pym's creation removes all the complexities of his character being the manifestation of the inner self-loathing, inferiority complex and rage of a hero who feels unappreciated. What we got was far more generic.

Hell, even within the context of the MCU, Scott Lang is character assassinated. While, yes, he is introduced as a flawed, and reckless, man, he's also introduced as a man strives to do right by his daughter, and her family. The latter characterization is dropped entirely in CW. How does becoming an international criminal, and fighting for a cause he's got literally no stake in, help in raising, and doing right, by Cassie? Him being a most wanted fugitive means that the government will have an iron grip on that family, making their lives an unnecessary hassle.

We should've seen both Scott, and Clint, refuse to join Cap, when showed up to free them, for the benefit of their families. It would've been a nice after-credits scene to see Stark bargain them being able to see their families with no issues, as long as they registered. We see Scott agree to do so immediately, after having time to think about all the hassle he put his family through before, and how he could jeopardize his relationship with Cassie by being a fugitive for a cause he's got no stake in, and finding out that he was just being used by Cap to save a killer he knows nothing about. Clint would grudgingly agree, because of his family and he's worked for the government before.

Speaking of Hawkeye, what changed between CW and AoU to make him so anti-government? Sure, there was WS, but he had no qualms being an assassin for a corrupt government before. Not to mention, this was a fellow Avenger that was backing the Accords. I can see him potentially disagreeing with Stark, but enough to get involved, and to demonize Stark, when he's a former government attack dog? Really?

[TooFlyToFail]

I never said I had a problem with characters being different in the movies. In fact my problems with BvS had nothing to do with the characters other than Lex Luthor. I'm just pointing out the hypocricy and the confirmation biases. Defend a movie in one instance, then use that defence as a criticism for the movie they hate.

And they wonder why subjective things are likex and hated on different levels.

It's pretty ridiculous to be honest.

But heck, people see what they want to see.

It's not being a hater, I just don't want movies so safe. I wanted to see the Demon in a Bottle storyline truly fleshed out more. Show me a Stark that no one should root for, and then have him redeem himself, but still worse for wear. Show him maybe give the Iron Man reigns to Rhodes, as he gets into rehab, and then have him figure out whether he deserves to put back on the armor, or not. They shied away from it, but have PTSD play a role, too. MN aybe he can't even get into the armor, because every time he flies, he's in that other dimension again, about to die. Focus in the fact that, unlike the other members of the Avengers, he wasn't trained to be a soldier, nor had any intention of becoming a fighter of any kind.

That what I liked about BvS so much, that being a hero, the mission, had a negative affect on the psyche of the hero; it's all consuming.

That's the appeal of the Marvel comics. Unlike the DC heroes, who are icons, the Marvel heroes are regular peopke, with regular agendas that have power, and thus some sort of responsibility. The Spider-Man movies, good, and bad, capture the fact that Spider-Man can't get his life together, because his guilt overy his uncle's death, and his mission/responsibility gets in the way, constantly.

In Civil War, don't make the civilian death blips on the radar. Make them front, and center, because the Accords are happening because the people are afraid. Cap is supposed to stand up for the voices of the people, bit the movie he literally says that the safest hands are his/their own. Even if it's true, that's fascist/dictator type of language, in a way, and he doesn’t realize that? Like the comic, the movie makes the mistake of making Cap uncompromising, but unlike the comic his uncompromising position doesn't have its faults shown.

Zemo, despite not being needed for the plot, as well as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, are a perfect exampke of the escalation that Vision spoke of, and Cap doesn't take it under consideration at all. Don't call it Civil War if the ethical, and political, complications of an unsanctioned task force of super soldiers, that invade international borders, for unsanctioned missions, is not the driving conflict. Call it Captain America: Betrayal, or something that's not totally misleading.

People can like the movies, and that's fine, but it's when people get to talking about characterization, development, and detailed stories in the MCU being at some level the other CBMs aren't at, for the stories being told, or how "innovative/new/challenging" it is, is when I balk.

I see only some of the CBMs as that, only 2-3 of them being MCU movies (IM, Avengers, and WS).

[Namor'sWrath]

The fact that this thread is 12 pages wrong kind of illustrates the OP's point.

I love X2, but when I hear someone talk about how they don't like it, who cares? I don't feel the need to constantly defend something I like.

The MCU, on the other hand, seems to have a constant need to be defended.

[SpiderClops]

The fact that this thread is 12 pages wrong kind of illustrates the OP's point.

I love X2, but when I hear someone talk about how they don't like it, who cares? I don't feel the need to constantly defend something I like.

The MCU, on the other hand, seems to have a constant need to be defended.

Uh, have you been to X-Books forum? This is nothing.

[Namor'sWrath]

Uh, have you been to X-Books forum? This is nothing.

It doesn't seem like nothing.

[Redjack]

The fact that this thread is 12 pages wrong kind of illustrates the OP's point.

I love X2, but when I hear someone talk about how they don't like it, who cares? I don't feel the need to constantly defend something I like.

The MCU, on the other hand, seems to have a constant need to be defended.

Not in the real world. In the real world they just keep making money and pleasing their fans. Which is, of course, their job.

[Namor'sWrath]

Not in the real world. In the real world they just keep making money and pleasing their fans. Which is, of course, their job.

Well, yeah. Not really sure what your point is, but you're right.

[ZoomZolomonZoom]

The fact that this thread is 12 pages wrong kind of illustrates the OP's point.

I love X2, but when I hear someone talk about how they don't like it, who cares? I don't feel the need to constantly defend something I like.

The MCU, on the other hand, seems to have a constant need to be defended.

What would you rather MCU fans do? Just not answer the OP's question at all? Defending something you're passionate about, especially if you think the criticism against it is invalid or exaggerated is absolutely not proof Marvel can do no wrong. It's proof people love this brand and dislike seeing it criticized. You don't mind when people bash the things you like, that's great. More power to you, not everyone is like that though. When BvS or MoS get unfairly criticized people defend it and rightfully so because seeing misinformation spread about projects you enjoyed is naturally frustrating. When I see people doing that to the MCU claiming that because of a few continuity errors it's a terrible universe and all of it's fans are easily appeased idiots, I'll step in. I really have a hard time believing if something you loved was talked about like that you would not incentive to defend it what so ever.