If you posted the above, it would be fine. Saying “STFU” and racist, NO. Saying someone is racist is a BIG ORDEAL not to be taken lightly.
This forum should promote discussion, not name calling or cursing people out. That is all I am trying to say, that’s what I’ve been trying to say. Why are you making me say the same thing three times man? All I want to do is head home and prepare to be disappointed by the new episode of Smallville, leave me alone. :wasted:
maxx, Sano didn’t even attempt to assume others thought like him in his post at all. Evo didn’t talk personality, but he did say impostor, and you did point out Ultimates Fury and 616 Fury are different in personality not just color. As an isolated post, :wonder: i’m not sure racial issues were coming into play.
Just cause u dont think it does…doesnt make it true ya know?
I’ld like to give him the benefit of the doubt; and if i’m wrong about him at least i didn’t take the bait and derail the thread. I think that was all Sano was trying to keep from happening here. Discussion is one thing, flame exchange is another.
to each his own i guess…i just see things diff and i agree wit u sano on the stfu issue, just not the cause someone calls says racist doesnt mean their nessisarily wrong just cause u see things diff…but im not gonna derail the thread any longer.
Look what the [COLOR=“Black”]Ultimate[/COLOR] nick fury has done to us!
I thought it was a nice little nod to comic fans, but not something that had to be written in stone from there on out.
I mean it was an added scene after 10 minutes worth of credits that can be explained away in 3 letters. (LMD)
well it’s a darker universe…
:rolleyes: i still lol’d
hmm… I wonder who marv could be considering to play the non mutie patch as an alternate. i mean if Don Cheadle is looking at the part of Rhodes, and Sam thinks he’s out (or acting like it; he’s that good) whose Nick?
Avery can make a nice Ultimates Fury but are they even looking at him?
I’m a purist in a lot of ways regardless if it is comics/movies/games doesn’t really matter. I typically only consider 616 as the "legitmate and true"iteration for a lot of marvel mythos. I can understand some posters disagreeing with this position, but I personally always like to stay true to the source material.
but it has no place here since nothing about spider-man movies are ever 100% 616 most of its ultimates universe.
The Spider-Man movies are actually much more Stan Lee / Ditko / Romita Sr. then they are the Ultimate-verse because that’s what Raimi is familiar with. So they are more 616 really, just 60s 616 updated mostly. But yeah there’s Ultimate stuff here and there.
part 3 was def more ultimates.
A lot of marvel films do have strong ULTIMATEaspects, I try to look past it personally.
How about this? The films aren’t set in any of the comics’ universes, so they aren’t obligated to follow a specific rule set from any one of them.
If there is any saving grace to the abortion that is the superhero film genre, it’s that the better examples are almost always the result of cherry-picking the best elements from the source material. Frequently, this means lifting pieces from several different incarnations of the characters.
If the filmmakers were into the same continuity fetishism as the fans, there would be no Dark Knight, no Superman: the Movie, no Iron Man, and so on.
lol…ur avatar says otherwise.
Spidey in college, Venom’s origin being closer to ASM #300, Harry’s death close to the one he had in Spectacular, I still see a lot more 616. Just for the fact that there was way too much stuff going on. ASM Annual #1 anyone or a crap load of comics in the 90s, hell the 90s cartoon was super busy at times with way too many characters ROFL! Not that there isn’t Ultimate stuff in there because there is. But yeah Goody kind of nailed it, they do cherry pick from different things. And Ultimates really just updates a lot of 616 stuff, the same way the movies do really. 616 is still the source material for both in a way.
Samuel Jackson as Nick Fury is a really big change though. He used to represent a James Cagney (Howling Commandos) James Bondish (S.H.I.E.L.D.) type of character, now he represents a crazy MF. Imagine Samuel Jackson as James Bond, (I say James Bond because I’m gonna bet a lot of you don’t know who James Cagney is you young whipper snappers :P) that’s how big the change is. They did it in Ultimates because Nick Fury represented what was ‘cool’ back then, they think Samuel Jackson represents cool ‘now,’ but it’s a major change. It’s not about race, it’s about what the characters represent. It’s not really a change that bothers me too much though.
Weisman spoke about making Liz Alan Hispanic and Ned Leeds Asian (Ned Lee) on the Spectacular Spider-Man. He felt that way back then everyone in the comic was white and the ethnicity of Liz Alan and Ned Leeds wasn’t a big deal in the long run of things. I kind of lean more towards his way of thinking than Millar’s line of thought was with Samual Jackson / Nick Fury, but I can see both sides I suppose.
Except certain aspects have to remain about regardless of the media(books,tv shows,movies), there has to be some adherence to the source material otherwise it becomes unrecognizable(Steel movie anyone?).
The ultimate universe was always a poor comercial campaign IMO, besides I’ve always been agaisnt ethnic/gender changes regardless of the rational behind it. Just saw it a lame publicity stunt for the most part.
What part of “lifting pieces from several different incarnations of the characters” makes it sound like they’re not adhering to the source material?
… it can’t get any worse than Hasselhoff.
a certain fantastic four movie would disagree. am i the only on who wished they made a tv series outta of the gen x movie?
Gen X movie was ass though the chick playing Emma Frost was probably the only thing that sort of made it worth watching a little. The idea was pretty cool on paper given that the comic was pretty popular at the time but it was just poorly executed.