Fantastic Four reboot is already screwed up...

[thunsicker]

I got here late ... why do we all hate each other now?

 

Apparently some people don't know how to just use the ignore function and move on. I'm seriously disappointed this tread hasn't died yet.

 

On the one side are the people who don't want to see any change to the comics, or the movies about the comics, ever. If you disagree with them you are labelled "Not a true fan of comics".

 

On the other side are those who are willing for comics to change and movies about them to change. If you disagree with them you are labelled a racist.

 

Both of these are hyperbole and ridiculous. So here's my plea. Can we just let this thread die?

[Logan510]

I got here late ... why do we all hate each other now?

 

 

I don't hate you. I love people from Brooklyn, it's not like I can taunt Miami about how bad their basketball team is

[Logan510]

I got here late ... why do we all hate each other now?

 

Apparently some people don't know how to just use the ignore function and move on. I'm seriously disappointed this tread hasn't died yet.

 

On the one side are the people who don't want to see any change to the comics, or the movies about the comics, ever. If you disagree with them you are labelled "Not a true fan of comics".

 

On the other side are those who are willing for comics to change and movies about them to change. If you disagree with them you are labelled a racist.

 

Both of these are hyperbole and ridiculous. So here's my plea. Can we just let this thread die?

 

I'll take it under consideration.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

person_without_enough_empathy!

 

Don't speak bad of the pretty woman

[bababooey]

I got here late ... why do we all hate each other now?

 

Apparently some people don't know how to just use the ignore function and move on. I'm seriously disappointed this tread hasn't died yet.

 

On the one side are the people who don't want to see any change to the comics, or the movies about the comics, ever. If you disagree with them you are labelled "Not a true fan of comics".

 

On the other side are those who are willing for comics to change and movies about them to change. If you disagree with them you are labelled a racist.

 

Both of these are hyperbole and ridiculous. So here's my plea. Can we just let this thread die?

We LOVE labels!!!!

[Speedy-D]

person_without_enough_empathy!

 

Don't speak bad of the pretty woman

Her beauty mocks me!!

[Logan510]

I got here late ... why do we all hate each other now?

 

Apparently some people don't know how to just use the ignore function and move on. I'm seriously disappointed this tread hasn't died yet.

 

On the one side are the people who don't want to see any change to the comics, or the movies about the comics, ever. If you disagree with them you are labelled "Not a true fan of comics".

 

On the other side are those who are willing for comics to change and movies about them to change. If you disagree with them you are labelled a racist.

 

Both of these are hyperbole and ridiculous. So here's my plea. Can we just let this thread die?

We LOVE labels!!!!

 

Especially when at least half of that never happened!

[Prince Namor]

Can I get hulagirl to read it to me?

 

No she doesn't like you

 

Ouch! Hated by a porn star!

[Unca Ben]

Money will continue to drive the casting decisions in these movies. So-called "canon" (a laughable idea in comics) will lose over profitability every time.

 

Fixed.

 

It’s kind of ironic.

 

If deviating from the original intent of comic books in order to make a profit is considered some sort of betrayal and shouldn’t be done, then these boards and the company that generously provides them wouldn’t be here. And neither would many forum members.

 

I submit that all business in the vintage back issue market is a deviation from the original intent of the comic book.

 

The original intent of comic books was a cheap disposable means of entertainment that sold for 10¢ apiece.

 

A single issue of Action #1 can now sell for more money than DC made from the combined sales of every title they published that month.

 

A single page of Ditko Spidey OA can now sell for more money than Ditko was paid for all the Spider-Man pages he drew during his Marvel tenure.

 

Publishers produce comics in order to make a profit.

Goodman’s FF was created to profit off DC’s JLA popularity. It’s all about money.

 

Hollywood invests hundreds of millions of dollars in making these movies in order to make money, yet they should be held to a different standard than everyone else involved in the business?

 

Not the point.

 

Well, then I don't get it.

 

-here are just some examples:

 

Captain America is revived in the sixties, his adventures after Simon & Kirby left the book in the '40s, not to mention the "commie-smasher" '50s, is ignored (later clumsily retconned). That was a significant change in order to maximize profit.

 

Bucky was shot and replaced by Golden Girl in the '40s; his '50s "commie-smasher" persona was ignored (later retconned).

Most of all, Bucky's death by Zemo, that provided the central core of Steve Rogers' motivation during Captain America's '60s revival, was thrown out the window for the very profitable "Winter Soldier" concept. That was a significant change in order to maximize profit.

 

Peter Parker and Mary Jane's baby - whatever happened with that? A miscarriage? Then who was the baby that was mysteriously delivered to one of Osborne's flunkies?

(I don't know if that was ever really resolved).

 

Pete and MJ's marriage? All this change for profit?

 

Gwen Stacy - Norman Osborne "Sins Past" storyline. Changing the core of a beloved character for the sake of profit?

 

Karen Page, originally envisioned as a sweet, naive, young secretary; becomes a heroin addicted porn star for the profitable "Born Again" storyline.

 

The Tony Stark of "Civil War" was nothing like the Tony Stark fighting Senator Byrd in Tales of Suspense. Changing a character for a money making big crossover event.

 

Changing moral values, marital status, parenthood, core ideals, motivations, etc. FOR PROFITABLE COMIC SALES.

 

At least they didn't turn them black?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

Money will continue to drive the casting decisions in these movies. So-called "canon" (a laughable idea in comics) will lose over profitability every time.

 

Fixed.

 

It’s kind of ironic.

 

If deviating from the original intent of comic books in order to make a profit is considered some sort of betrayal and shouldn’t be done, then these boards and the company that generously provides them wouldn’t be here. And neither would many forum members.

 

I submit that all business in the vintage back issue market is a deviation from the original intent of the comic book.

 

The original intent of comic books was a cheap disposable means of entertainment that sold for 10¢ apiece.

 

A single issue of Action #1 can now sell for more money than DC made from the combined sales of every title they published that month.

 

A single page of Ditko Spidey OA can now sell for more money than Ditko was paid for all the Spider-Man pages he drew during his Marvel tenure.

 

Publishers produce comics in order to make a profit.

Goodman’s FF was created to profit off DC’s JLA popularity. It’s all about money.

 

Hollywood invests hundreds of millions of dollars in making these movies in order to make money, yet they should be held to a different standard than everyone else involved in the business?

 

Not the point.

 

But haven't you gone on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on about how these decisions are not true to the comics and are made for money and ego?

 

And yet when somebody points out that the comics themselves were made for money - and has been previously pointed out, the comics themselves don't have an internal consistency and have changed with the times and the writers - it's now not the point?

 

Beneath all of this strenuous justification-seeking, I suspect there's one simple truth...unless any and every film conforms to your personal view of the character and all that goes with him/her, the film sucks.

 

Which is probably the saddest thing in this whole thread, because you're denying yourself some first class entertainment through your myopia.

[Prince Namor]

Seeing that clip from 'Chasing Amy' it made me think, why not make the Human Torch black AND GAY, that way it grabs an even bigger market share. Have his boyfriend be the guy from Twilight (pulling in an even bigger market share).

Have the Yancy Street Gang become the Crips and Sue wear a bikini through (no naughty bits, we're going for a hard PG-13 here, optimum market share) most of the movie and then have George Clooney play Reed Richards...

This market share stuff is easy!

Pretty soon we'll have a Fantastic Four movie as cool any of those Joel Schumacher Batman movies!

[Prince Namor]

To me, THAT is the point.

[Bio-Rupp]

Seeing that clip from 'Chasing Amy' it made me think, why not make the Human Torch black AND GAY, that way it grabs an even bigger market share. Have his boyfriend be the guy from Twilight (pulling in an even bigger market share). Have the Yancy Street Gang become the Crips and Sue wear a bikini through (no naughty bits, we're going for a hard PG-13 here, optimum market share) most of the movie and then have George Clooney play Reed Richards...This market share stuff is easy!Pretty soon we'll have a Fantastic Four movie as cool any of those Joel Schumacher Batman movies!

Now yer talkin' Chuck

piZap.com fun and easy photo editing

[Bosco685]

Seeing that clip from 'Chasing Amy' it made me think, why not make the Human Torch black AND GAY, that way it grabs an even bigger market share. Have his boyfriend be the guy from Twilight (pulling in an even bigger market share). Have the Yancy Street Gang become the Crips and Sue wear a bikini through (no naughty bits, we're going for a hard PG-13 here, optimum market share) most of the movie and then have George Clooney play Reed Richards...This market share stuff is easy!Pretty soon we'll have a Fantastic Four movie as cool any of those Joel Schumacher Batman movies!

Now yer talkin' Chuck

piZap.com fun and easy photo editing

[Prince Namor]

Seeing that clip from 'Chasing Amy' it made me think, why not make the Human Torch black AND GAY, that way it grabs an even bigger market share. Have his boyfriend be the guy from Twilight (pulling in an even bigger market share). Have the Yancy Street Gang become the Crips and Sue wear a bikini through (no naughty bits, we're going for a hard PG-13 here, optimum market share) most of the movie and then have George Clooney play Reed Richards...This market share stuff is easy!Pretty soon we'll have a Fantastic Four movie as cool any of those Joel Schumacher Batman movies!

Now yer talkin' Chuck

piZap.com fun and easy photo editing

you're quick!

[Bosco685]

Seeing that clip from 'Chasing Amy' it made me think, why not make the Human Torch black AND GAY, that way it grabs an even bigger market share. Have his boyfriend be the guy from Twilight (pulling in an even bigger market share). Have the Yancy Street Gang become the Crips and Sue wear a bikini through (no naughty bits, we're going for a hard PG-13 here, optimum market share) most of the movie and then have George Clooney play Reed Richards...This market share stuff is easy!Pretty soon we'll have a Fantastic Four movie as cool any of those Joel Schumacher Batman movies!

Now yer talkin' Chuck

piZap.com fun and easy photo editing

you're quick!

Quickest Clooney post in the west! Even though he lives in the east.

[Logan510]

Money will continue to drive the casting decisions in these movies. So-called "canon" (a laughable idea in comics) will lose over profitability every time.

 

Fixed.

 

It’s kind of ironic.

 

If deviating from the original intent of comic books in order to make a profit is considered some sort of betrayal and shouldn’t be done, then these boards and the company that generously provides them wouldn’t be here. And neither would many forum members.

 

I submit that all business in the vintage back issue market is a deviation from the original intent of the comic book.

 

The original intent of comic books was a cheap disposable means of entertainment that sold for 10¢ apiece.

 

A single issue of Action #1 can now sell for more money than DC made from the combined sales of every title they published that month.

 

A single page of Ditko Spidey OA can now sell for more money than Ditko was paid for all the Spider-Man pages he drew during his Marvel tenure.

 

Publishers produce comics in order to make a profit.

Goodman’s FF was created to profit off DC’s JLA popularity. It’s all about money.

 

Hollywood invests hundreds of millions of dollars in making these movies in order to make money, yet they should be held to a different standard than everyone else involved in the business?

 

Not the point.

 

Well, then I don't get it.

 

-here are just some examples:

 

Captain America is revived in the sixties, his adventures after Simon & Kirby left the book in the '40s, not to mention the "commie-smasher" '50s, is ignored (later clumsily retconned). That was a significant change in order to maximize profit.

 

Bucky was shot and replaced by Golden Girl in the '40s; his '50s "commie-smasher" persona was ignored (later retconned).

Most of all, Bucky's death by Zemo, that provided the central core of Steve Rogers' motivation during Captain America's '60s revival, was thrown out the window for the very profitable "Winter Soldier" concept. That was a significant change in order to maximize profit.

 

Peter Parker and Mary Jane's baby - whatever happened with that? A miscarriage? Then who was the baby that was mysteriously delivered to one of Osborne's flunkies?

(I don't know if that was ever really resolved).

 

Pete and MJ's marriage? All this change for profit?

 

Gwen Stacy - Norman Osborne "Sins Past" storyline. Changing the core of a beloved character for the sake of profit?

 

Karen Page, originally envisioned as a sweet, naive, young secretary; becomes a heroin addicted porn star for the profitable "Born Again" storyline.

 

The Tony Stark of "Civil War" was nothing like the Tony Stark fighting Senator Byrd in Tales of Suspense. Changing a character for a money making big crossover event.

 

Changing moral values, marital status, parenthood, core ideals, motivations, etc. FOR PROFITABLE COMIC SALES.

 

At least they didn't turn them black?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, they're exactly the same, I'm wrong. I'm tired of fighting the fight, thank you for turning me around on the subject.

[Logan510]

Money will continue to drive the casting decisions in these movies. So-called "canon" (a laughable idea in comics) will lose over profitability every time.

 

Fixed.

 

It’s kind of ironic.

 

If deviating from the original intent of comic books in order to make a profit is considered some sort of betrayal and shouldn’t be done, then these boards and the company that generously provides them wouldn’t be here. And neither would many forum members.

 

I submit that all business in the vintage back issue market is a deviation from the original intent of the comic book.

 

The original intent of comic books was a cheap disposable means of entertainment that sold for 10¢ apiece.

 

A single issue of Action #1 can now sell for more money than DC made from the combined sales of every title they published that month.

 

A single page of Ditko Spidey OA can now sell for more money than Ditko was paid for all the Spider-Man pages he drew during his Marvel tenure.

 

Publishers produce comics in order to make a profit.

Goodman’s FF was created to profit off DC’s JLA popularity. It’s all about money.

 

Hollywood invests hundreds of millions of dollars in making these movies in order to make money, yet they should be held to a different standard than everyone else involved in the business?

 

Not the point.

 

But haven't you gone on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on about how these decisions are not true to the comics and are made for money and ego?

 

And yet when somebody points out that the comics themselves were made for money - and has been previously pointed out, the comics themselves don't have an internal consistency and have changed with the times and the writers - it's now not the point?

 

Beneath all of this strenuous justification-seeking, I suspect there's one simple truth...unless any and every film conforms to your personal view of the character and all that goes with him/her, the film sucks.

 

Which is probably the saddest thing in this whole thread, because you're denying yourself some first class entertainment through your myopia.

 

You suspect wrong, care to try again?

 

 

[Bosco685]

Money will continue to drive the casting decisions in these movies. So-called "canon" (a laughable idea in comics) will lose over profitability every time.

 

Fixed.

 

It’s kind of ironic.

 

If deviating from the original intent of comic books in order to make a profit is considered some sort of betrayal and shouldn’t be done, then these boards and the company that generously provides them wouldn’t be here. And neither would many forum members.

 

I submit that all business in the vintage back issue market is a deviation from the original intent of the comic book.

 

The original intent of comic books was a cheap disposable means of entertainment that sold for 10¢ apiece.

 

A single issue of Action #1 can now sell for more money than DC made from the combined sales of every title they published that month.

 

A single page of Ditko Spidey OA can now sell for more money than Ditko was paid for all the Spider-Man pages he drew during his Marvel tenure.

 

Publishers produce comics in order to make a profit.

Goodman’s FF was created to profit off DC’s JLA popularity. It’s all about money.

 

Hollywood invests hundreds of millions of dollars in making these movies in order to make money, yet they should be held to a different standard than everyone else involved in the business?

 

Not the point.

 

Well, then I don't get it.

 

-here are just some examples:

 

Captain America is revived in the sixties, his adventures after Simon & Kirby left the book in the '40s, not to mention the "commie-smasher" '50s, is ignored (later clumsily retconned). That was a significant change in order to maximize profit.

 

Bucky was shot and replaced by Golden Girl in the '40s; his '50s "commie-smasher" persona was ignored (later retconned).

Most of all, Bucky's death by Zemo, that provided the central core of Steve Rogers' motivation during Captain America's '60s revival, was thrown out the window for the very profitable "Winter Soldier" concept. That was a significant change in order to maximize profit.

 

Peter Parker and Mary Jane's baby - whatever happened with that? A miscarriage? Then who was the baby that was mysteriously delivered to one of Osborne's flunkies?

(I don't know if that was ever really resolved).

 

Pete and MJ's marriage? All this change for profit?

 

Gwen Stacy - Norman Osborne "Sins Past" storyline. Changing the core of a beloved character for the sake of profit?

 

Karen Page, originally envisioned as a sweet, naive, young secretary; becomes a heroin addicted porn star for the profitable "Born Again" storyline.

 

The Tony Stark of "Civil War" was nothing like the Tony Stark fighting Senator Byrd in Tales of Suspense. Changing a character for a money making big crossover event.

 

Changing moral values, marital status, parenthood, core ideals, motivations, etc. FOR PROFITABLE COMIC SALES.

 

At least they didn't turn them black?

 

Yes, they're exactly the same, I'm wrong. I'm tired of fighting the fight, thank you for turning me around on the subject.

 

[Logan510]

Money will continue to drive the casting decisions in these movies. So-called "canon" (a laughable idea in comics) will lose over profitability every time.

 

Fixed.

 

It’s kind of ironic.

 

If deviating from the original intent of comic books in order to make a profit is considered some sort of betrayal and shouldn’t be done, then these boards and the company that generously provides them wouldn’t be here. And neither would many forum members.

 

I submit that all business in the vintage back issue market is a deviation from the original intent of the comic book.

 

The original intent of comic books was a cheap disposable means of entertainment that sold for 10¢ apiece.

 

A single issue of Action #1 can now sell for more money than DC made from the combined sales of every title they published that month.

 

A single page of Ditko Spidey OA can now sell for more money than Ditko was paid for all the Spider-Man pages he drew during his Marvel tenure.

 

Publishers produce comics in order to make a profit.

Goodman’s FF was created to profit off DC’s JLA popularity. It’s all about money.

 

Hollywood invests hundreds of millions of dollars in making these movies in order to make money, yet they should be held to a different standard than everyone else involved in the business?

 

Not the point.

 

Well, then I don't get it.

 

-here are just some examples:

 

Captain America is revived in the sixties, his adventures after Simon & Kirby left the book in the '40s, not to mention the "commie-smasher" '50s, is ignored (later clumsily retconned). That was a significant change in order to maximize profit.

 

Bucky was shot and replaced by Golden Girl in the '40s; his '50s "commie-smasher" persona was ignored (later retconned).

Most of all, Bucky's death by Zemo, that provided the central core of Steve Rogers' motivation during Captain America's '60s revival, was thrown out the window for the very profitable "Winter Soldier" concept. That was a significant change in order to maximize profit.

 

Peter Parker and Mary Jane's baby - whatever happened with that? A miscarriage? Then who was the baby that was mysteriously delivered to one of Osborne's flunkies?

(I don't know if that was ever really resolved).

 

Pete and MJ's marriage? All this change for profit?

 

Gwen Stacy - Norman Osborne "Sins Past" storyline. Changing the core of a beloved character for the sake of profit?

 

Karen Page, originally envisioned as a sweet, naive, young secretary; becomes a heroin addicted porn star for the profitable "Born Again" storyline.

 

The Tony Stark of "Civil War" was nothing like the Tony Stark fighting Senator Byrd in Tales of Suspense. Changing a character for a money making big crossover event.

 

Changing moral values, marital status, parenthood, core ideals, motivations, etc. FOR PROFITABLE COMIC SALES.

 

At least they didn't turn them black?

 

Yes, they're exactly the same, I'm wrong. I'm tired of fighting the fight, thank you for turning me around on the subject.

 

 

The Avengers is the Citizen Kane of superhero movies!