Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Büge]

To be fair, Tony would say "I saw your stuff Pym. I improved it." Pym would get all flustered and angry and Banner would stare at the numbers or something boring. That's basically what happens anytime they get together in the comics.

They could pretty much have every one of his scenes like that, and then bam!

they can show him building Ultron after the credits, and then Avengers 3 writes itself.

[Thad]

I heard that and wanted to check it out, but I'm kind of in the mindset to not reward DC for dumbass moves.

Hm, you mean the relaunch?  I still maintain that the ideas behind the relaunch (jettison continuity, diversify the lineup, attract new readers) were noble, but yes the execution was utterly boneheaded because the same fucking people are in charge as before.

Frankenstein is a great damn book, though.

But if you choose not to reward one ray of sunshine for an overall dumbass corporate direction, well, this is hardly the thread for me to tell you you're wrong.

And I prefer Ryan Choi as an Atom anyway.

Palmer's not actually Atom in Frankenstein -- at least, not yet.  I expect it'll happen.

No word on where Choi is post-relaunch, if anywhere.

Anyhow.  Adding: I mentioned Eric O'Grady earlier in the thread, and for those who don't know, he's the latest Ant-Man in the comics.  He's a small-time thug who stole Pym's tech, which I think is actually a great setup -- not for an Avengers movie, necessarily, but for a story all its own.  Shrinking is a perfect small-time thug power.

I could see Wright having fun with that, but it'd be even better with Guy Ritchie.

[Bal]

Reed's the one who does that usually. Stark isn't as smart as Pym, except at making robot suits.

[Thad]

Tom Spurgeon, who's done a great job on the whole "Let's acknowledge Kirby" thing, has a couple of good posts up at The Comics Reporter.

These Men Created the Avengers recognizes Lee, Kirby, Heck, Lieber, Simon, Millar, Hitch, Bendis, Finch, Rico, Allred, Ditko, and Starlin -- he misses Granov in that list (possibly because, unlike most of those other names, Granov actually got hired on for the movies and gets credit and compensation for them) and I've E-Mailed him about that, but it's really a very good long list and worth reading all the way through.

And he also documents the donations to the Hero Initiative and the Jack Kirby Museum, which are around $3000 and $1300 at present -- not bad, but a pretty small damn fraction of what the movie's made.  (I'm not judging, mind -- money's tight and I haven't had a chance to donate either.)

[Royal☭]

Avengers is a huge, multi-million dollar blockbuster, with three prominent female characters and helmed a director noted for his series with Feminist themes. So why does it fail the Bechdel test? It's not that I didn't like the movie or thought it was great affront to women, it just seems odd that Whedon would stick two prominent female characters on the same set, and then not give them some dialogue together. What's more troubling is that the three, named female characters still end up being defined the men around them.

But, overall I enjoyed the film. I'm still sitting here stupefied that it even got made. When they made the announcement around the time of Iron Man, I wrote the thing off as either going to be in development hell, or going to be some film tossed to a C-list director to hold on to the rights. So it's quite a surprise that ends up being a tight, entertaining action film, that brings together all its different threads and weaves them together pretty successfully. It's audacious just in its existence, so now we get to see if they can hold it together through the second story arc.


Now, on the subject of Ant-Man, I have to admit to having my entire opinion of him changed by Earth's Mightiest Heroes. My initial impressions of Hank Pym came from Mark Millar's Ultimates books, where he was more of a pathetic joke character than anything, defined mostly by bad choices and impulsive violence. It wasn't really a watershed moment for the character. But in EMH, they really get a good grip on the character. Not only do they take advantage of his powers to showcase just how creative and successful a shrinking/growing character can be (see the episode where thugs try to steal from his lab for a good example of the environment just warping around him), but they develop him as an intelligent, thoughtful character.

This wasn't the rash, petty Hank Pym from the Ultimates. The EMH Hank Pym was philosophically a pacifist, who joins the Avengers not to fight crime, but to try and rehabilitate it.  He frequently designs his weapons for non-violent take downs, prefers not to get in fist-fights, and even balks when the other Avengers suggest he reprogram Ultron to fight. The show constantly portrays him as a scientist who, while not as brilliant, can still hold his own against Tony Stark and Bruce Banner (although Banner is limited in the show). And the failure of his inventions comes not from hubris or ill-thought, but more from just the corrupting nature of the world. Ultron would never have been allowed to been just a guard robot, because the people around Pym can only see him as a weapon. And, as Thad noted, the Ant-Man equipment is perfect set of tools for a bank robber or petty thief, even if they were designed only to help. It's good stuff, and shows that the writers have reached back into the character's history and pulled out and refined what's good. Plus, he can get into arguments with Jan and never look like he's going to, well...

[Büge]

This wasn't the rash, petty Hank Pym from the Ultimates. The EMH Hank Pym was philosophically a pacifist, who joins the Avengers not to fight crime, but to try and rehabilitate it.  He frequently designs his weapons for non-violent take downs, prefers not to get in fist-fights, and even balks when the other Avengers suggest he reprogram Ultron to fight. The show constantly portrays him as a scientist who, while not as brilliant, can still hold his own against Tony Stark and Bruce Banner (although Banner is limited in the show). And the failure of his inventions comes not from hubris or ill-thought, but more from just the corrupting nature of the world. Ultron would never have been allowed to been just a guard robot, because the people around Pym can only see him as a weapon. And, as Thad noted, the Ant-Man equipment is perfect set of tools for a bank robber or petty thief, even if they were designed only to help. It's good stuff, and shows that the writers have reached back into the character's history and pulled out and refined what's good.

It's funny you should mention all that, because the defining Pym moment for me was an Avengers West Coast issue back in the early '90s where the entire team was brainwashed into trying to kill him and Hank had to non-lethally defeat all of them using only the (shrunken) contents of his pockets.

[Thad]

Will Edgar Wright Shoot ‘The World’s End’ or ‘Ant-Man’ This Year?

So as not to jinx things, I am going to remain spectacularly vague on this. Let’s just say I hope to shoot some Antman & World’s End this year.

Fingers crossed.

[Thad]

Hero Complex interviews Starlin; the entire thing is one gigantic spoiler of the end-credits reveal, so, you know, if you've somehow gotten this far without seeing the movie or finding out what the reveal in question is, you probably shouldn't click.  Assuming my mere name-drop of Jim Starlin hasn't already given it away.

HC: I spoke to Jerry Robinson once and I congratulated him on the billion-dollar success of “The Dark Knight” and he winced like I had poked him in the eye. Of course I instantly realized that watching Alfred, the Joker, Two-Face, etc. fill the coffers of Warner Bros. was like watching a son raised in another house with another family’s name. I don’t know the arrangements on this film, but has this project and its success been a mixed experience in any way?

JS: Very mixed. It’s nice to see my work recognized as being worth something beyond the printed page, and it was very cool seeing [spoiler]      Thanos      [/spoiler] up on the big screen. Joss Whedon and his crew did an excellent job on “The Avengers” movie and I look forward to the sequel, for obvious reasons. But this is the second film that had something I created for Marvel in it — the Infinity Gauntlet in “Thor” being the other – and both films I had to pay for my own ticket to see them. Financial compensation to the creators of these characters doesn’t appear to be part of the equation.

So just to be perfectly clear:

*I* got a free ticket to see The Avengers...which means I have received more compensation from the film than Jim Starlin.

[Büge]

Apparently the same thing happened with Stan Lee. But then, he's got that golden parachute.

[Royal☭]

So the same thing did not happen to Stan Lee.

[Thad]

Yeah, I wish Marvel made me buy MY own movie ticket out of MY million-dollar-a-year stipend.

[Royal☭]

In a bold attempt to continue justifying why I don't read PVP, Scott Kurtz weighs in on why we should stop bitching about Marvel's treatment of Jack Kirby because he's dead, you know.

[Classic]

Man Constantine, if a creator's other batshit and insensitive ideas made it so that you couldn't enjoy or appreciate their other work we wouldn't have Sherlock Holmes, Cerebus the Aardvark, or the Ender's Series.
...
...
Actually, I've come to regret reading all of those. So never fucking mind.

[Ted Belmont]

To be fair, the terribleness of PvP makes it hard enough to enjoy without Scott Kurtz's assholeishness.

[Thad]

The other thing that's infuriating is the constant "Well the movie was also based on the work of X, Y, and Z; therefore Kirby doesn't deserve any money for it" argument.

Yes, the movie was based on the work of maybe 15 different easily-identifiable writers and artists.

That doesn't mean Kirby's heirs shouldn't get money, it means that there are 14 other guys who should ALSO get money.

[Mongrel]

Man Constantine, if a creator's other batshit and insensitive ideas made it so that you couldn't enjoy or appreciate their other work we wouldn't have Sherlock Holmes, Cerebus the Aardvark, or the Ender's Series.
...
...
Actually, I've come to regret reading all of those. So never fucking mind.

Appropriately, Conan Doyle's wacky nonsensical ideas bother me the least of those three and Sherlock is the only one of those three I like without any qualification (the first two-to-four volumes of Cerebus are some of the finest comics ever... too bad about the other dozen+ being among the all-time worst. The less said about Ender, the better).

[Lottel]

Speaking as one who worked on AVENGERS after Kirby, @evandorkin -- I couldn't have done it without someone creating the characters and book.

[Thad]

I sure do love Kurt Busiek.

...I love Dorkin, too.  I assume he said something stupid?  That's a pity.

(EDIT: No, wait, he said this:

So, others worked on The Avengers et al after Kirby et al. That's your answer? Really? Buildings without foundations collapse, assholes.

So Kurt wasn't admonishing him, he was agreeing with him.  Freakin' sweet; go Dorkin.)

And if Bill and Ted 3 turns out to be based on the comic series, then yes, I absolutely believe that Evan Dorkin should get a cut.



(I also believe the part of Rufus should be played by Ringo Starr.)

[Rico]

Fantastic Four, Avengers, and X-Men were also pretty pioneering in showing a superhero team in conflict, even if the Justice League did predate any of the big teams by a year or three.

Though speaking of Thor just being Norse myth, I do absolutely love that the comic was so popular they actually did do a spin-off that was just straight retellings of Norse myth. Tales of Asgard, I think. I have a TPB or two somewhere.

[Thad]

Fantastic Four, Avengers, and X-Men were also pretty pioneering in showing a superhero team in conflict, even if the Justice League did predate any of the big teams by a year or three.

I think it was really X-Men that nailed it.  Fantastic Four -- well, Ben was the tragic character but I don't think there was really THAT much strife within the team; most of it was horseplay between him and Johnny, and that love triangle with Reed, Sue, and Namor.  Avengers -- well, Hulk quit immediately because he's Hulk, but most everybody else got along, even after Hawkeye tied up the butler and shot arrows at him.

X-Men did a lot of the same light horseplay stuff too, but both Cyclops and Beast quit the team pretty early on.  Only lasted one issue, but still.

Certainly Marvel nailed the Heroes with Problems stuff -- Hulk and Thing both struggling with their monstrous appearance, Iron Man constantly fearing his heart would stop, Cap coming back suffering from PTSD after losing his sidekick, and Peter Parker having pretty much any problem you could reasonably expect a guy to have and some you couldn't.

And the X-Men -- the allegory wasn't as pronounced as it became during Claremont's years, but it was there pretty early on; Beast quits the team because he's tired of protecting people only to have them turn around and call him "filthy mutie", and I believe the Sentinel/Master Mold arc was Kirby's swan song on the book.

X-Men was the book that really deepened the "strife within the team" idea under Claremont, and then The Authority and X-Statix each kinda took the premise to its logical extreme around the turn of the century.  And pretty much every superhero team book (or toon) since has cribbed from them to some extent or other.

I'm skipping over a lot, of course, but those are all fairly important data points I should think.

Though speaking of Thor just being Norse myth, I do absolutely love that the comic was so popular they actually did do a spin-off that was just straight retellings of Norse myth. Tales of Asgard, I think. I have a TPB or two somewhere.

Yeah, that's where Thor really hit its stride; the Don Blake stuff wasn't as much fun as Stan-and-Jack Do Norse Mythology.  (Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the series where the Warriors Three debuted, right?  Man I love the Warriors Three.)

Tangentially: Anybody ever read Horus?  It was one of the Moore/Veitch 1963 books.  It's pretty much what you'd expect from the context I'm bringing it up in: it's a pastiche of Thor, except instead of being a Silver Age superhero take on Norse mythology, it's a faux-Silver Age superhero take on Egyptian mythology.  Really a great damn book.

Quick background: 1963 was a series Moore, Veitch, Bissette, and Totleben did in 1993, made up of tributes to Silver Age Marvel (and, to a lesser extent, DC) books.  It was fun as hell, and it was never completed; it was all supposed to lead to a big team-up issue where all the characters traveled to 1993 and met the Image superheroes.  Which should probably explain why it was never completed, because it's 20 years later and the Image founders STILL can't finish a fucking project together.

Anyhow, 1963 is easy to find; it's a product of the 1990's boom, lots of copies got printed, and it frequently shows up in dollar bins.

Also, since Alan Moore has actively fucking sandbagged Veitch and Bissette's attempts to get the series reprinted, as far as I'm concerned it's okay to pirate it.  Especially if you buy some new Veitch and Bissette books so they get some money in their pockets.

...wow, that's one hell of a tangent.

But still, yeah, 1963 is great, and Horus in particular is a thoroughly enjoyable takeoff of those Asgard stories.