I've heard that in a few places. A double standard. That fans have an unfairly negative view of Marvel movies being produced by other companies currently owning the rights to those characters. Other production companies purchased the rights to certain characters before Marvel's film branch went solo and the entire company later bought by Disney. The results of those films have been spotty, at best. Most of them absolute garbage. Marvel
movies have a more authentic tone, even with the changes, so it's
easier to go along with them (unless your really anal about details). Marvel is making quality movies that stay true to the tone of their
titles. They've made changes, but they're essentially cosmetic. More practical changes have been explained in the stories themselves, for example:
-
Captain America's classic uniform was removed as it has no practical value in a 'real'
World War 2 setting and The First Avenger director Joe Johnston knew that, whether we like it or not. Steve Rogers needed something more practical and closely connected to the military of that era. Later, using 21st century
military concepts for the Avengers, Joss Wheddon was able to bring back a more
traditional uniform which made practical AND authentic sense. I can't
say much about James 'Bucky' Barnes other than he was physically much smaller and was essentially
a sidekick in the comics. He's nothing noteworthy until he dies. The movie makes the
practical move to change that status quo. Bucky is now on equal footing
as a friend and more elevated in his role as a soldier, only later
relying on Steve. There's a sense of real grief and tragedy when he dies in the movie. The Super Soldier Serum was a much simpler procedure
and fairly painless, pretty much just an injection. The film made it an absolutely agonizing process
for Steve, showing his resolve to join the war.
- In the Thor
comics, Asgardians use hosts when on earth. That would've taken up too
much time to explain and would probably have derailed the flow of the
story (and made it MUCH longer), as a result physician Donald Blake had no purpose
being in the story and Jane Foster had no place being one, either. But people involved had the sense to bring him up and keep Jane as a love interest. Loki is no longer a raving maniac, but jealous brother who feels overshadowed by Thor and left out when he discovers a family secret.
These changes make sense in context to the story.
They've
made some bad moves, too. Most glaringly in Iron Man 2 and the Hulk
movies. The changes in Iron Man 2 drew more attention to themselves,
but served as lead-ins to The Avengers and didn't destroy the story. Hulk had one hell of a bumpy road,
though:
- Ang Lee trying his hand with a scientist who likes to
break things when he has a temper tantrum and turns into a 'giant, green rage monster.'
One of my favorite lines from The Avengers. We got a muddled mess with Lee trying to do a
psychological breakdown of Bruce Banner. As a result, there's pretty little sense and there's no continuity going in to the second film.
- General Ross doesn't show up in The Avengers, Marvel needed an extremely clever film short (The Consultant) to explain his absence.
So,
why do we bitch about other studios bastardizing Marvel titles? It's
simple. Their main concern is making a buck from the general movie
going audience, not respecting it's original creators or the main
fanbase. That's why we get trainwrecks like Fantasic Four (1-2),
Spiderman Man 3, Xmen 3, Ghostrider and Punisher: Warzone. Doesn't it
make sense that we worry when another studio is producing a Marvel title
and we scream about it when we realize we were right?
As much as I liked
Xmen 1-2, First Class, Spiderman 1-2 and Daredevil (yes, you read that
right), other studios don't have the greatest track record of taking care
of their fans.
Marvel actually cares about their work, even if they've made mistakes.
With all of that in mind, I don't see a double standard.
No comments:
Post a Comment