Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Ternaugh]

43 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Another theory is that there are copyright concerns because Fox owns the Namor from the comics, but I am not certain how accurate that is.

 

Universal, not Fox, owned the movie rights. There are varying accounts about the character, but Kevin Feige said that Namor belonged to Marvel as far back as 2014, but admitted that the rights were "complicated".

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

I have to admit, I'm just not that fond of Namor as a character. I would have been perfectly happy never seeing him on the screen. But I'm hearing good things about him (and the whole movie) so I'm optimistic. 

[Old Man]

51 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Keep in mind that the great majority of moviegoers aren't comic readers and will not know who Namor is, so for them, the version they get in this movie will be who they think of whenever Namor comes up.

 

If I'm perfectly honest, original Namor is kind of lame.  Any of you reading this can come up with a better naming inspiration than "Roman spelled backwards" and a better origin story than "ruler of Atlantis".  I never did get the ankle wings.

 

I get that characters should be modified sparingly and with respect paid to the original IP.  But sometimes the original IP can be improved upon.  For example, a fictional race of Caucasian-only superbeings that were once worshipped by the Nazis is a teeny bit more problematic in 2022 A.D., over and above the usual inclusivity and representation concerns.

[slikmar]

Funnily, and I know the background supposedly comes from the roman/greek Atlantis, I have always seen Namor as Asiatic. He has sharp features with apparently slanted eyes. I never really associated a race with him other then that.

[Starlord]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

But changing Heimdall, perfectly reasonable!

 

As I said, it also matters how much you personally care about Heimdall.  He was a nothing character in the comics so no big woop to me.  MCU changed the Asgardians to multiracial characters who were apparently co-opted by Earth's Scandinavian population.  I was personally more annoyed that they didn't make an effort to give Thor his comic book personality and manner of speech - they could have even explained it by having Thor appear on Earth most recently in Shakespeare's time and that's wheren he learned English.

 

I should point out something though about Heimdall's skin color.  You only have to look at the MASSIVELY positive reaction by African-Americans to the Black Panther movie that representation absolutely matters.  Nearly all the most popular heroes were created before 1970 by white men to represent themselves.  The suggestion that the movies should create their own minority heroes can only go so far.  There are constant criticisms online against the so-called agenda of  representation.  However, it seems to me that when they are pointing and complaining "Agenda!" that there are 4 fingers pointing back at them saying, "Maybe you have your own agenda!" - whether it's a conscious one or otherwise....

[Christopher R Taylor]

I really like Namor, but he was very, very weird originally.  He had a very strange looking face, very alien with a huge cranium and triangular shape with elf ears and very tilted eyes.  He developed to be a lot better over time but he was always very interesting.  He was the first anti-hero; a guy who didn't really care much about people or the rules, but would fight bad guys.

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

But changing Heimdall, perfectly reasonable!

 

As a character, the change to Heimdall from comic to movie was literally purely cosmetic. Far less than the change to the Ancient One, but even that didn't fundamentally alter the role of the character to the origin of Dr. Strange.

[Pattern Ghost]

36 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

As a character, the change to Heimdall from comic to movie was literally purely cosmetic.

 

Yeah, seemed pretty much the same to me. Plus, if I can get Ildris Elba into a movie, he's in. I'd cast him as Thor, TBH, and let the rage commence. He's a great catch for a movie.

[Old Man]

The bigger problem with Idris Elba as Heimdall is that the role is kind of a waste of Idris Elba.  I suppose he could pull a Brolin and play more than one MCU part...

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

As a character, the change to Heimdall from comic to movie was literally purely cosmetic.

 

Sure but cast Shuri as a blonde white girl and you get the same effect.  Except that's blasphemy and would call down the fury of hell on everyone involved.  Its ludicrous, Norwegian people would have, you know NOTICED if Heimdall was black as coal and said something about it.  Like the Greeks did with Hephaestus.  There's no reason to do this other than "there's too many honkeys in this cast" which always, always bothers me: that fixation on race and color to the point of pandering.

 

Instead of the tediously brainless Kat Dennings, cast a black girl.  Or instead of Stellan Skarsgard (who I like as much as Idris Elba) cast a black guy who is just a professor fixated on Norse mythology.  But turning one of the Asgardians into a black dude?  It was ludicrous and out of place.

[Lord Liaden]

Well, if you insist on bringing up specific examples within the context of "reality" within the MCU: cast a blonde white girl as the champion and symbol of an African nation? Yeah, I'd expect that to call down the fury of hell on everyone involved, and it would be well justified.

 

Asgardians aren't Norwegians. Heimdall is the guardian of the Bifrost, it's very possible he was never even on Earth for humans to see. Even if they did, there are so many departures from myth in the MCU -- Loki being Thor's brother only the biggest one -- it seems obvious that the Scandinavians embellished what they heard about the "gods" in whatever manner they preferred. Heck, Thor in all their stories is a redhead.

[Bazza]

On 11/14/2022 at 3:54 PM, Bazza said:

When you take an existing character and change his ethnicity and culture to something entirely different, but keep said character’s appearance, can it be the same character? At what point do these changes become drastic? 

 

 

From subsequent discussion the answer to the above question is not universal, nor unanimous, and depends on each individual to their investment in the character. Another element mentioned is that of personality, as this is a bit part of what make the character, THAT character. 

#GeneralComment #moreToFollow

 

 

 

 

 

[Bazza]

16 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

So, you're mad because of the erasure of Atlantean culture? "Imperious rex!" isn't a culture. Marvel Atlantis didn't really have a distinctive culture that I've ever noticed. They're just basing Namor on another culture's version of Atlantis. If they do it well, it's fine IMO. As long as he's got a similar personality and little wings on his feet, I don't care too much, personally.

 

No, I’m disappointed that Marvel had the opportunity to celebrate one of the defining & enduring myths of the Occident and not too. They chose to keep its “name” and use a non-Occidental culture instead. As a fan of the Occidental culture, it would be nice if Marvel would celebrate it like it has with other Phase 4 projects. 

 

16 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Yeah, I think they dropped the ball with the Elders in the MCU. They just don't have the same impact, IMO.

 

The Collector is a good & faithful interpretation; but calling Ego a celestial is a mistake. Replacing “elder” for “celestial” would be better for the plot of that film (as he is eons old) and would be comics accurate. It also means that the subsequent introduction of The Celestials are without the baggage of being linked with Ego. As for impact, we really have seen only two and to be sure, they have had an impact, but as you say, not the same impact they have in the comics. Maybe one day, when more of them show up.  

[Bazza]

15 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I am convinced that they saw Aquaman as a hit and realized that if they used Namor's original background and persona, which DC basically ripped off, they'd seem like they were just copying Aquaman.  So they looked down their diversity slate and picked an ethnic group they wasn't being "included" enough, then turned them all blue and got rid of everything that makes them their ethnic group.  I mean, if they do the king of Atlantis who is a half breed human strong guy from the ocean it sounds like they're just stealing from DC even though Namor came out a while before Aquaman in comics history.

 

I’m sure you are right. If Marvel just went with its South American undersea kingdom without referencing Namor or Atlantis, they should have done that. Wait next year or the year after and introduced Namor – The Sub-Mariner faithfully. Since there has been numerous interpretations of Atlantis, Marvel would be free to give theirs without the appearance of copying DC’s Aquaman. The debate (and it would be a debate not a discussion) would be who did it best. I’m sure the superhero movie media already has articles comparing the Avengers and the Justice League, so Marvel could – if they were inclined – to put Namor’s Atlantis on the big screen. They chose not to.

 

One point alluded to is this discussion, but not specifically mentioned is that Namor is one of Marvel’s first Golden Age superheroes and have chosen to superficially adapt that character to the MCU. It is basically a homage or pastiche of the original.  

 

15 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Another theory is that there are copyright concerns because Fox owns the Namor from the comics, but I am not certain how accurate that is.

 

If this is the case, then changing (reimaging) the character in a distinctive way would be Marvel’s way of not being sued by the (co-)owner* of the character’s IP. I accept that if it was the case. If so, then if Marvel wanted to use the Namor IP in Wakanda Forever they would need to make distinctive changes to avoid risking a lawsuit. Again, if so, Marvel should have waited until the IP was free of complications and then faithfully put Namor’s Atlantis on the big screen.

 

(*as was the case with Fox & Marvel Studios with Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver.) 

[Bazza]

15 hours ago, Starlord said:

For me - changing race/ethnicity matters less than personality.  The only exception being if the characters whole background is tied up into a race/culture/ethnicity.  This why you can't significantly change a Thor or a Captain America.

 

Thank you for your answer and addressing my question.

 

15 hours ago, Starlord said:

Also, how important is the character to each one of us?  I enjoy certain stories about Namor but I'm not overly invested in him.  I dont care if you change Atlantis but I think I would be irritated if you removed Namor's arrogance and self-righteousness.  Those are his key personality traits.

Fair enough. Again thanks. 

 

[Bazza]

16 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Keep in mind that the great majority of moviegoers aren't comic readers and will not know who Namor is, so for them, the version they get in this movie will be who they think of whenever Namor comes up.

 

This then applies to the vast majority of comic-book adaptions. It also gives producers & directors vast poetic licence to reinterpret any character unknown to the non-comic book mainstream audience. Would you concur with this assessment?

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Some of your examples of other character changes are, with respect, misleading. Steve Rogers is a product of America's New Deal and WW II. That particular brand of idealism shapes who he is and what he stands for, and without that background he isn't Captain America. The Black Panther is a symbol of African culture and aspirations, and drawing him from another milieu greatly alters his impact. Namor's Atlantis is a sketchy comic-book background for a particular character, and outside of echoes of literary Atlantis, and the "threat from the sea" trope, has little relevance except as the place Namor comes from. Changing the land's cultural reference to Meso-American doesn't alter that role for Namor, but it does add a dimension rarely seen in comics.

 

With equal respect, I acknowledge & accept your rebuttal regarding Steve Rogers tied to that era of America and FDR’s New Deal, to a degree, but not the other two. They rely on comic-book fiction, which you said, paraphrasing, the average non-comic book moviegoer will not care as to the faithfulness of adaption, if they have no preconceived knowledge concerning Wakanda or Atlantis. However, I’ll grant that you are right in that society would swing in the way you state with Captain America and Black Panther, because both are important to their cultures, and if Marvel did attempt to drastically change them there would be media outrage. With Atlantis, nope, no media outrage, likely due to the number of existing interpretations.   

As you state: “Steve Rogers is a product of America's New Deal and WW II. That particular brand of idealism shapes who he is and what he stands for, and without that background he isn't Captain America.” My suggestion is, does he have to be? That is my reason for using it as an example (above post). I agree with you, and others that it is intrinsic to Steve Rogers and we all would like that to continue. However, the New Deal economics is not unique to the FDR era; and has been used in earlier time periods in America (eg Civil War); and also including other nations. Therefore I think it is reasonable that the patriot superhero type with similarity to the New Deal ethos would also produce another character like Captain America. 

(As an aside, historically there is already a character similar to Bucky. If you gave Brig. Gen. Ivan "John Basil" Turchin a metal arm, you’d have a ‘Winter Soldier’ in the Union Army. He is known as the "Mad Cossack" but arguably his wife was more badass, a comic-book "Black Widow". The Congressional Record (pg 6701) states: "Have you ever heard of Madame Turchin, the immigrant from Russia, symbol of foreign aid, who went with her husband, a colonel in the Union Army, and served as nurse and mother confessor to the regiment. And, once when her husband became ill, she took over and led the regiment into battle with confidence and poise and won the skirmish." She also kept a war diary.) 
 

[Lord Liaden]

In case it hasn't come through, I want to highlight that I respect your opinion and am not trying to change your mind. I consider this just a friendly debate.

 

Comic creators are always trying to come up with new characters, hero and villain, whom they hope will be compelling to an audience. Most of them fall by the wayside and are soon forgotten. Only a fraction of them stand the test of time and become iconic. It's really hard to say why. The same talented creators can come up with a winner and a loser. There's an unpredictable magic to it. If you mess too much with who and what a character is, you risk losing the magic that made them iconic.

 

Captain America having a measure of super strength isn't much of a change -- in the comics he's had that at times in the past, and as I say, his normal feats are effectively superhuman anyway. Giving him a Civil War origin would be a big risk. No super-soldier serum, so you have to come up with an entirely different path for him to gain powers. His enemies would not be Nazis, they'd be fellow Americans. Sure, you can work up something for all of that, but will it connect with audiences the same way?

 

The first Wonder Woman movie made an interesting choice, setting her emergence in the world against WW I rather than WW II. But that actually worked for the character, because she isn't about fighting for any of the ideals of "man's world." She's about the "feminine" virtues of compassion and love, and contrasting those with the gruesomeness and moral muddiness of the first war made her character arc more challenging, and ultimately shine brighter. But that choice could easily have fallen flat. OTOH everything else about her origin, personality, powers, stayed pretty much true to the comic precedents.

 

Zack Snyder's Superman is a bigger problem for me, because he isn't Superman. The Man of Steel is a figure of hope and compassion, bright and inspirational. Snyder's mopey, angsty, angry and conflicted Kal-El misses the point of the character. But I could forgive Zack if Superman's character arc in the movies brought him to the kind of hero we know. Only it never did. The scene from Snyder's Justice league in which Superman beats Steppenwolf particularly stands out for me. Supes has 'Wolf down, then uses his heat vision to cut off one of his head bones, disfiguring him. Then Superman pounds on Steppenwolf, repeatedly, while his opponent is clearly unable to defend himself. That kind of Superman is one the world would be right to fear.

 

To me, Namor's undersea kingdom not being Atlantis isn't consequential, if the other dynamics of the character stay true to the precedents that have worked for nearly eight decades. For you that particular line may be too far, and that's fair.

[Hermit]

I think Captain America for the movie was influenced by the Ultimate line of comics ability wise, but with the 616 personality (Thank God)

[Christopher R Taylor]

Right, they did that with pretty much all the first run of movies.  They took the personality and background of the original comics run for the characters, then gave them the Ultimate line of comics for their look and abilities.  Captain American originally was "maximum human potential" and in the Ultimates had like Spider-Man level of Strength and toughness.  They gave them uniforms that somewhat resembled their comic book costumes, and because of the much more gifted writing and character creation ability of guys like Stan Lee, they were memorable and likable.

 

Not so much these days.

[Lord Liaden]

Recent MCU Hulk and Thor depictions are the biggest and most painful departures for me. Big green mellowed-out Bruce Banner, and Thor as a dumb himbo, just grate on me. Conceptually they aren't bad characters, they just have almost nothing of what made Thor and Hulk memorable.

[Hermit]

26 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Recent MCU Hulk and Thor depictions are the biggest and most painful departures for me. Big green mellowed-out Bruce Banner, and Thor as a dumb himbo, just grate on me. Conceptually they aren't bad characters, they just have almost nothing of what made Thor and Hulk memorable.

 

IMO MCU Thor is pretty much Modern Comics Hercules. Ironic given the end credits scene for Love and Thunder

[Pattern Ghost]

I think the Namor/Atlantis question comes down to one of two factors for people:

 

1. How much they like Comics Accurate Namor. The character has been around a very long time, and is one of Marvel's oldest. To me, he's not that interesting of a character, so I'm not greatly bothered by changing up his city due to Aquaman calling dibs on Atlantis (for practical purposes: we all know studios are going to shy away from making the two too similar whether it's a viable option or not).

 

2. How they feel about the erasure of European culture to make way for other cultures to have room in the genre (or any media, really). When it's done poorly, or just to tick a diversity checkbox, it seriously annoys me. When it fits into the story, and is executed well, I think it's great. I haven't seen Wakanda Forever  yet (waiting for D+ release), but it looks to me like this version of Namor is a good fit for the MCU Wakanda milieu. If they keep Namor hot headed, stubborn and arrogant -- at least at first -- but with a noble streak, then they've pretty much got enough of Namor to satisfy me if the story is good.

 

I think it's a great idea for original characters from different races and ethnicities to be created, and that it should be done when feasible. We've gotten Static, Miles Morales Spider-Man, and Kamala Khan Ms. Marvel in more recent (I'm a bit old, so that definition of "recent" may be a bit off) history. In the years since they've been introduced, I think they've all made their mark on the mythos as more modern iterations on ethnic characters, coming from diverse creators. But I can only name those three of the top of my head. Does it hurt to present some of the more important side characters (Namor has never been an A-lister IMO, so fits) reimagined as coming from different backgrounds? Nah. Just do it well, as with anything, and I'll be entertained.

 

As LL said, Thor and Hulk are bigger offenders in the reimagining category. I can't remember who had the idea of explaining Thor's Shakespearan English being due to that being the last time he was hanging out on Earth, and how he learned English, but that would have been great, IMO. Thor can still be funny sometimes, but he doesn't have to be a clown. Banner had better start having problems with his rage monster soon,  IMO. Simply having him handwave away his major character complication was BS IMO. Even Professor Hulk (which MCU is *not*) didn't have it this easy, and quickly succumbed to Banner's damaged psyche.

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

IMO MCU Thor is pretty much Modern Comics Hercules

 

Which is a huge mistake because Hercules could have been a fun, hilarious addition to the MCU, I loved his miniseries (the gift!).  Now they cannot do it because he's just Thor with dark hair.

[Starlord]

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 I can't remember who had the idea of explaining Thor's Shakespearan English being due to that being the last time he was hanging out on Earth, and how he learned English, but that would have been great, IMO.

 

[slikmar]

7 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Recent MCU Hulk and Thor depictions are the biggest and most painful departures for me. Big green mellowed-out Bruce Banner, and Thor as a dumb himbo, just grate on me. Conceptually they aren't bad characters, they just have almost nothing of what made Thor and Hulk memorable.

Was funny, I was just telling someone how I missed smart Thor from the first 2 movies and avengers. 

 

Just got back, and enjoyed it immensely. Everyone was fantastic. Not having seen the D+ series, is Dreyfus basically Marvel's answer to Amanda Waller? Also, take your tissues, the movie does a great job of paying tribute to Boseman.

I fall on the don't mind the change to Namor and thought the actor did a good job.