Is Disney Ruining Marvel?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not saying yes or no but certain things have happened to make me think. First off is the animated cartoons, two in particular. First is Ultimate Spider-Man. It is probably one of the weirdest and stupidest Marvel cartoons to exist, with it's fourth wall jokes, cutaways and fantasies. Seriously this isn't what Spider-Man is about. At first I thought I could get use to this but it's not doing good for me. All that stuff may work on something like Teen Titans but it doesn't work here. The other show is Hulk and the Agents of Smash. I will admit I've only seen like 4 or 5 episodes and from those episodes it's not really that good. I don't like the fact that Hulk is sorta this team leader type person and that he's less of the rampaging monster and angry member of the Avengers. Plus those stupid camera moments. Before both these shows aired there was The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes and in my opinion, probably the best suprhero team up show since Bruce Timm's Justice League. How ever it only lasted two seasons and was replaced by another Avengers cartoon which to be fair isn't all that bad. It's not as good as EMH but it's growing on me a little tiny bit. It doesn't have any of those cutaways and fantasies you see in USM and HATAOS but what is distracting at times is that at times the screen keeps going from letterbox and then widescreen, plus there are a few silly "comical" moments such as Falcon's mother baking cookies and the Avengers fighting over them or the Avengers turning into Hulks and fighting over pizza bagalls.

But what I would really love to talk about is the movies. The first movie is The Avengers which in my opinion is a fantastic movie from start to finish so we'll skip and then there's Iron Man 3. When I first saw it in the cinema I thought yeah I liked it despite the twist and the ending but months later when I got the blu ray and I sorta have a different opinion. It's not that the movie is bad because it's kinda enjoyable a times but it can be really silly and unfunny. First off some of the dialogue is hard to hear because at time it feels like one person is talking at the same time as another. Second some moments like say Tony going into that tv van and that guy starts going all weird is kinda annoying. Third the villain is no way as memorable as Loki or Red Skull. But mostly it just too much comedy and not all that funny. I never did like Gweneth Paltrow that much and even at time RDJ can be a little weird and unfunny plus was he complete dick? I mean he announced to the Mandarin come and get me this is where I live I'm sure my unfunny girlfriend won't mind. I dunno but I think maybe I was having an off day and will need to watch it again. It just makes me think that Disney is to blame. I'm not saying I want a big dramatic marvel superhero flick from them we're not talking about Christopher Nolan here, but it wouldn't hurt to take itself a little seriously and if they're gonner do humour please do it right.

The main reason because of all of this is because of the new Thor movie which I've heard is positive but Iron Man 3 had positive reviews as well. I heard Thor 2 has it's share of humour but hopefully it will actually be enjoyable. I haven't really been keen to see Thor 2 that much and I guess I blame Iron Man 3 for that or maybe Disney. It was months ago and trust me I'll definately be in line to see it. I loved the first movie by the way. But the days leading up to it and the day I go I probably won't have that keen feeling I always get from going to see a movie. Maybe it's a good thing if I turn out to love the movie in the end. To be fair after Iron Man 3 I've been more keen to see the next Captain America movie more than Thor 2 and I hope Disney doesn't ruin that one.

I blame Shane Black for "Iron Man 3", more than the Disney execs. It was really foolish to get the guy who created "Lethal Weapon" for a mostly-serious superhero franchise. I like comedies with abrupt twists, but the way Black handled the Mandarin was horrible. Jon Favreau said the main reason he didn't use that character in the first two was because he always saw the Mandarin as an allegory for Communist Russia, thus irrelevant for a story set in the modern day. Its a ridiculous reason, I know.

What made me even more angry about the twist though, was the fact that Disney and Marvel outright LIED with their marketing campaign. Most of the trailers strongly implied that Tony would get to fight this badass global terrorist...but instead, we get an egotistical businessman with an affinity for fire? Don't get me wrong, the Extremis story was a cool aspect, and I like they're including it in the "Agents of SHIELD" TV series...but lying about such a major plot point creates false expectations, which then result in lots of angry fans.

I was disappointed by how Mandarin was done in Iron Man 3 as well, but then I heard something interesting...the actor who played the lame fake-out Mandarin will be showing up again, and there's a Dr Strange movie in the works which will add supernatural aspects to the MCU. Combined with the potential of what Ultron might do in Avengers 2, there's a chance we might end up getting the true Mandarin from the comics...

I do have to agree about the cartoons though. I only bother with SMASH because of Eliza Dushku as She-Hulk...and Ultimate Spider-Man bugs me ( I miss Spectacular Spider-Man...and the 90's Spider-Man series that I want a resolution to dammit ) but it has its moments ( Deadpool episode FTW! ). I miss Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Great Avengers cartoon, and it had Jennifer Hale voicing Ms Marvel!

Am I only one around here that thought they handled the Mandarin situation well? The character honestly isn't as incredible as angry fanboys make him out to be (don't get me wrong, he would still be great in a movie done the 'right way' too). As for the advertising, I think it was handled correctly. I wouldn't want to see ads about Fight Club prominently featuring the twist in that movie.

As far as Disney's ownership of Marvel, I was very concerned at first. I thought that Disney might start sort of dumbing things down and making it even more 'family friendly', but I haven't really noticed anything like that too much yet. Iron Man 3 was actually a bit less family friendly than it's predecessors at some parts. If you took someone that had no idea that Disney owns Marvel and you sat them down to watch all of the Marvel universe films I would bet they couldn't figure out any difference between the pre/post Disney films. I think Disney knew well enough to let the people running the Marvel films to largely keep doing what they were doing. I don't know a whole lot about the behind the scenes politics of it, though, so I could be quite wrong. I just know it hasn't been as bad as I thought.

I can't think of the last thing I saw Disney touch that wasn't perverted by their world-view and marketing agenda.

I've come around to liking the way they handled the Mandarin in Iron Man 3, myself. I mean, I've gotten used to the notion that they don't transplant everything from the comics to the movies in its original form, and I don't think they should, either.

On top of that, I'm going to have to play devil's advocate when it comes to Iron Man 3. I saw both IM3 and Man Of Steel at the theatre this summer, and Iron Man is my preferred movie. Don't get me wrong, I liked Man Of Steel a lot, but I like my superhero movies with a big chunk of humour thrown in. Nothing too silly or absurd, but just enough to remind the audience that this is a story about people who dress up in outlandish costumes and spend their off-work hours catching criminals with impossible powers.
I saw The Dark Knight again yesterday, and while I enjoyed it, I also think that, as a superhero movie, the Nolan Batman trilogy takes itself a tad TOO seriously. That's my same problem with Man Of Steel. It's too much "what if Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent were actual living, breathing people in a Gotham or Metropolis that could be right outside your own window?" They're fine films, nothing too remarkable in terms of storyline or acting, but what Iron Man has that these films don't have is the big fat tongue-in-cheek. The Iron Man movies don't forget that these superhero stories are a boys fantasies of getting into that suit and fly around in chase of the bad guys. The recent DC movies have that sometimes, but then they whiplash back into the "but actually fighting crime and saving the world is serious business and a heavy burden and not really all that fun at all".

Long story short, if Iron Man 3, the Avengers Assemble cartoon, and Ultimate Spider-Man are not to your taste because there's silliness in it, it's probably not Disney's fault, it's just that you are trying to pin things that you don't like about it on Disney's recent purchase of Marvel. I don't see you turning it around and attributing all the good stuff that's come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Disney's takeover. I think that the extent of the influence that Disney has on the creative process in making the movies and cartoons should not be overestimated.

My main problem with comedy in superhero films is that its rarely consistent from one to the next.

For example, look at the original "Superman" film, from 1978. The whole thing is pretty serious until Clark arrives in Metropolis, then it turns into a farce with the introduction of Otis. Lex's plan of destroying California is "bad to the bone", but his reasons are utterly stupid. Mrs. Tessmacher was clearly added to the film for her curves, even asking Superman at one point, "Why can't I get it on with a good guy?"

For a viewer who has no idea of the history behind that film, it would seem like an insult to the character at first glance...until you realize Richard Donner was largely kept at bay by greedy producers (mostly Alexander Salkind) and a cheesy script that was extensively rewritten by "creative consultant" Tom Mankiewicz (the WGA wouldn't even give him a proper writing credit). Both Donner and "Mank" wanted to do the character seriously, but their superiors saw it as a cash grab, and little else. The only reason it succeeded at all is because of all the hard work from "lower level" folks like the actors, cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth, John Williams, etc.

Now, compare that effort with "Superman III", where the Salkinds ran the whole show without any connection to Donner or Mankiewicz's intention for honesty with the character. Aside from Chris Reeve's scenes with Annette O'Toole and the junkyard sequence, the third one is total garbage. The villain is a cheap Luthor clone, and Richard Pryor's inclusion made everything completely crazy. That kind of style works for deliberate satire like "Ferris Bueller", but most comic books stopped being childish decades ago.

I was very hesitant about "Man of Steel", mostly because of Zack Snyder and Chris Nolan's involvement. David Goyer's written both good films and bad, but he's a huge comic fan, and "Secret Origins" looked pretty sweet (never read the whole thing). I'd seen the trailers for "Watchmen", and was a little impressed...but after reading how dark and disgusting that movie was, I skipped it. Even after all the trailers, I was worried it wouldn't live up to what I wanted from Superman: a courageous hero whose not politically correct, and knows when to be both peaceful and strong, with everyone. He plays by his own rules, respecting human justice systems when applicable, but is willing to make the tough choices we'd rather avoid.

Though I like the show overall, "Smallville" had major disappointments on so many levels through ten years. I wanted to see Clark actually throw more than one punch, win a battle without any help, against a dead-serious villain with zero fourth-wall content...and "Man of Steel" pleasantly surprised me. Henry Cavill was great in the role, and Michael Shannon played Zod with such conviction you knew it would take a lot to stop him. Amy Adams' version of Lois was intelligent, brave, and compassionate; Kevin Costner and Diane Lane gave the Kents an inner wisdom in spite of very little screen time. I also liked the slight reference to Supergirl, and I'm hoping adding Ben Affleck as Batman doesn't lower the sequel's story quality.

I don't mind them switching stuff up, as long as the result is as interesting as the original... otherwise what's the point?
The main problem I have with Mandarin is that the movie didn't make that whole thing out to be nearly as interesting as it is in the comics. In the comics he's got 10 magical rings that give him some pretty crazy powers. Imagine how cool it would have been to see Iron Man versus the real Mandarin using the special effects of today. Instead we just get some lame guy who can light himself on fire, big whoop. And I didn't think the guy was even remotely as interesting as the comic Mandarin in terms of his storyline or character either. On top of that, Mandarin is like Tony Stark's main adversary, so it was basically the equivalent of Magneto being made into a hoax in an X-Men movie and replaced by someone who can't even control mangetism.
I think it's perfectly understandable why anyone who's read the comics would be upset about Iron Man 3. It's fine if they want to try to switch stuff up, but if they're going to change stuff drastically, they need to at least try to make it seem worth it.

I've been hearing that Thor 2 is doing quite well critically but that's what I heard about Iron Man 3. All I know is that when I go see it I won't be too excited. I heard it has humour of course, but then again Iron Man and Thor despite existing in the same universe are pretty different from each other maybe it will work. I feel like the MCU movies are going down hill like Pixar is sort of. I mean the last film that Pixar has made that is on the 5 star level was Toy Story 3. Cars 2 sucked, Brave was not bad but not fantastic, I haven't even seen Monsters University but it didn't get the Toy Story treatment and I'm not too keen on The Good Dinosaur.

...or, ya know, turning the Juggernaut into a mutant who is only unstoppable once he's made momentum.

...or, feature Callisto, but instead of her usual peak-human senses, strength, and agility, give her Caliban's mutant tracking powers and Quicksilver's superspeed.

...or, create a love triangle involving Rogue, Iceman, and Shadowcat (admittedly, Ultimate X-Men did it).

...or, have the Hellfire Club as the main villains, using only Shaw and Frost, ignore the 19th century fashion theme, and round the ensemble off with Azazel and Riptide ('cause when you think Hellfire Club, you think Azazel and frickin' RIPTIDE), AND give Shaw the power to not only absorb ANYTHING that hits him, but also to blast the energy right back. 'Cause who cares about Sebastian Shaw?

And don't get me started on what the X-Men movies did to the Dark Phoenix Saga. AND God Loves, Man Kills. And they're set to adapt Days Of Future Past.

So yeah, that's why the whole Mandarin deal didn't phase me that much, as a casual reader of Iron Man, after having seen X-Men get a rather loose adaptation in cinema. Not following these things by the letter is what helped make the Dark Knight Trilogy stand out to begin with.

No. Disney is making Marvel accessible to the masses, who are usually priced out and don't have time to follow the stories either. Then add that their films are actually really, really good.

I would agree that going from a Mandarin level threat (ten magic rings, each of which is formidable) to the Extremis threat (Mostly one guy with a few inconsistent fire powers and strange regeneration) is an underwhelming transition, but I don't think that's necessarily a good reason for the Mandarin to have been the villain. The Mandarin is also no where near Magneto in terms of classic arch-foe status. I'm a huge fan of comic books, Marvel and DC, and I can't say the Mandarin has really had much impact on Iron Man recently (I'm willing to be wrong, I'm just really unaware of any big story arcs prominently making [good] use of The Mandarin). Don't get me wrong, he's had some cool moments, but he isn't really iconic, even to many in the fan base. At his core The Mandarin too easily comes off as tinged with racism (even if you change which race he's being portrayed as).
So could the actual villain in Iron Man 3 have been more threatening? Yes. Could the villain have been a bit more compelling? Yeah. Does that mean they should have gone with a strict interpretation of The Mandarin and foregone an interesting twist? Eh, not necessarily. Maybe some day The Mandarin will be on the big screen as he is in the comics, but it's no injustice that he isn't by now.

As for Man of Steel, I think that movie was carried by Michael Shannon. He was almost every ounce of likability in that movie, and he was the nigh on compassion-less General Zod. I disliked the way Snyder crafted that movie, and I think a lot of the movie mistakes 'Drain color, vibrancy, and fun' for 'This makes the movie serious and dark'. The Christian imagery was overdone (to the point that it seriously doesn't make sense within the story at one point i.e.: the scene where he goes to a priest), the attempts to make the costume he wears more serious actually made it more laughable (at least to me. I mean really, he's essentially wearing the long underwear of one of his long dead ancestors and we're supposed to think that's cool), and Superman doesn't even come off as being Superman at any point in the film. If any film studio is ruining a comic book company, I'd say it's Warner Brothers ruining DC. Disney would have a film that changes everything about one villain. Warner Brothers would decide to not even make a film because there haven't really been any big female led Superhero movies yet.

Don't forget what they did to everybody's favorite Merc With A Mouth, Deadpool....

Or how they shoehorned a dumbed down Gambit into X-Men origins...

Or emo Peter Parker...

Or that atrocity Sam Raimi had the nerve to call Venom...

Or whatever Ang Lee's Hulk was supposed to be....

Or the lack of an Incredible Hulk 2 ( they set up the Leader! ...plus, I want She-Hulk )

Now that I totally agree with. MoS2 is slated for release after Avengers 2. Think how far away a Justice League film is!

I generally like Disney's Marvel movie adoptions.

The best being - of course - Mark Ruffalo, widely acclaimed for his Banner/Hulk performance.

I noticed that the Dark Phoenix in the X-Men movies does not represent her how she was in the comics. But the comics have a tendency to produce ridiculously overpowered characters (Rogue, for instance, if one does not impose some sort of limit to her power accumulation).

Anyway, the combined power of every single other character featured in the X-Men movies is infinitely inferior to Jean Grey at her full strength (Dark Phoenix).

If one looks at the power Dark Phoenix had in the comics, she could probably instantly kill Galactus with the lift of an eyebrow. Several sites list her as the most powerful character in the entire Marvel universe. I'm not even sure that the combined power of the Space Gods - one of which turned Thor into a frog with a snap of a finger - could even defeat her.

I much prefer the movie version of her. Would have been a short movie if she just wiped out the entire planet/solar system/galaxy/universe in the first 2 minutes...

From what I heard, Avi Arad pressured Raimi into putting Venom in "Spider-Man 3". Ang Lee's take on the Hulk was an attempt to examine the character's psychology. The lack of an "Incredible Hulk" sequel was mostly due to Edward Norton's ego. I'm not sure who made the call on Deadpool being Weapon XI.