Should the MCU kill off characters?


Movies

151 to 176 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Thomas Seitz wrote:
Thank you Jeff for helping me out with Kirth's memory problems.

You guys really don't get it, do you.

The casual viewer does not follow every movie and TV show. In fact, the casual viewer may see one in three, or one in a hundred, and still expect them to make sense.
Likewise, the casual viewer does not memorize every character and then go Google their backstory and research them.

So, if I'm presented with a guy who, in one movie, seems like a mind-controlled frat boy who's into archery, that's all I'm going by. It doesn't matter if he's similar to some other character from some other show. It doesn't matter if there's more information in a sequel, or in some other related movie, or in a series of comic books. And that's true of probably 50% of the rest of the audience. It has nothing to do with "memory problems" and everything to do with not being obsessed with comics. And to keep making these things massive profit machines, Marvel need to take that into account.

Currently, it seems like they're erring on the side of appealing to you guys -- the 50% of the audience who watch every show and movie and read all the comics and do know everything about all the characters. And that's great for you while it lasts, but it means a shorter-lived franchise in the long run, when other people can no longer walk into the theatre and have any idea what's going on or who anyone is.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Thank you Jeff for helping me out with Kirth's memory problems.

You guys really don't get it, do you.

No, they probably just don't care about the opinions of viewers who can't be bothered to be as culturally literate as they are yet want to participate in the conversation.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Thank you Jeff for helping me out with Kirth's memory problems.

You guys really don't get it, do you.

The casual viewer does not follow every movie and TV show. In fact, the casual viewer may see one in three, or one in a hundred, and still expect them to make sense.
Likewise, the casual viewer does not memorize every character and then go Google their backstory and research them.

So, if I'm presented with a guy who, in one movie, seems like a mind-controlled frat boy who's into archery, that's all I'm going by. It doesn't matter if he's similar to some other character from some other show. It doesn't matter if there's more information in a sequel, or in some other related movie, or in a series of comic books. And that's true of probably 50% of the rest of the audience. It has nothing to do with "memory problems" and everything to do with not being obsessed with comics. And to keep making these things massive profit machines, Marvel need to take that into account.

Currently, it seems like they're erring on the side of appealing to you guys -- the 50% of the audience who watch every show and movie and read all the comics and do know everything about all the characters. And that's great for you while it lasts, but it means a shorter-lived franchise in the long run, when other people can no longer walk into the theatre and have any idea what's going on or who anyone is.

No, more that I didn't grasp your "they're not superheroes" objection at first. Didn't understand what distinction you were making.

That's why I pointed at Green Arrow, not "You should know Hawkeye's just like this other hero", but an example of a hero with essentially the same abilities who's apparently superheroic enough to carry a show of his own.

As I understand it now, your objection isn't so much that they don't have powers, but that they weren't presented as heroic enough in the movie itself? Which is a fair objection, especially for Hawkeye. As I said a couple of times earlier, he wasn't presented well in the movies.


thejeff wrote:
As I understand it now, your objection isn't so much that they don't have powers, but that they weren't presented as heroic enough in the movie itself? Which is a fair objection, especially for Hawkeye.

Exactly so. If Hawkeye is actually a superhero on the par of Thor or Iron Man, then Joss Whedon dropped the ball. I can't recall him actually having any powers at all, in A1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
No, they probably just don't care about the opinions of viewers who can't be bothered to be as culturally literate as they are yet want to participate in the conversation.

You seriously think Marvel is doing this, and would keep doing it at a loss, just for the art? Get real. These aren't cheap indy flicks intended only for the fanbase. All those viewers who aren't "culturally literate" enough for you -- they're exactly the ones who enable studios to rake in big $ for summer popcorn flicks so they can keep making more of them. And those viewers' opinions are exactly what dictates whether those viewers keep going to spend more $ to see more movies.

The longer Marvel can keep making profitable movies, the longer you snobs can keep sneering down your noses at the people who make it possible. If you're against that, well, so be it.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
As I understand it now, your objection isn't so much that they don't have powers, but that they weren't presented as heroic enough in the movie itself? Which is a fair objection, especially for Hawkeye.
Exactly so. If Hawkeye is actually a superhero on the par of Thor or Iron Man, then Joss Whedon dropped the ball. I can't recall him actually having any powers at all, in A1.

And we circle round again:

No, Hawkeye doesn't have any actual powers. Is that your objection?
This is where I list a whole bunch of other superheroes without any actual powers, starting with Batman, whom I assume even you have heard of, and Green Arrow - who's currently headlining another superhero TV show, whether you're paying attention to it or not. The point of that isn't to be a snob and demonstrate my superior knowledge of comics, but to try to find the root of the difference.

Non-powered heroes have always been part of superhero teams and when done well they find ways to make them effective. If everyone has to be on par with Thor or Iron Man, then basically none of the others need apply - not Cap or most of those in Avengers 2 or Civil War.

Now, if the objection is that Hawkeye wasn't handled well in Avengers, then I can agree. Having him controlled for most of the movie might have worked as a plot point, but it certainly didn't help establish him as a valid hero.


Beyond that, Marvel is doing surprisingly well with movies and shows featuring second string characters the casual viewer has never heard of. They might have fallen down with Hawkeye and maybe some other secondary characters in the ensemble movies, but they made Guardians of the Galaxy into a smash movie hit. Jessica Jones and Luke Cage seem to have been successful shows.

I'm pretty sure those aren't getting by just on comic book fans. I'm pretty sure they're not trying to appeal just to "us guys". They're trying to win the larger audience by appealing to it with their quirkier less mainstream characters. Partly because they didn't have the rights to go with their biggest hits: X-Men & Spiderman. Partly I think they've been so successful because using these characters lets them cut loose and not just rehash the same movie again and again.
Like another version of Spiderman or like DC keeps rehashing Batman & Superman.


I think part of it is that at this point Marvel has shown that they can consistently deliver a decent movie regardless of how well known the superhero is. DC is in a much murkier place right now. Overall their TV is decent, but they have seriously messed up a lot of movies recently.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Thank you Jeff for helping me out with Kirth's memory problems.
You guys really don't get it, do you.

No I don't since when people ask me if I know about sports I can at least say "The ball goes into the net" for most things. That doesn't mean when someone presents me with actual facts about the things I just randomly ignore it and say "My team won."


thejeff wrote:
Beyond that, Marvel is doing surprisingly well with movies and shows featuring second string characters the casual viewer has never heard of. They might have fallen down with Hawkeye and maybe some other secondary characters in the ensemble movies, but they made Guardians of the Galaxy into a smash movie hit.

I can't argue against that, and I believe they should get credit where it's due. But then again, I'm certainly not trying to argue that they aren't successful now. I am arguing that:

(a) throwing in "moar is better" in later movies does seem to appeal to the actual comics fans, but may turn off the more casual viewer;
(b) appealing to BOTH demographics is probably smart if they want to continue their remarkable success; and
(c) Declining revenues from later "moar is better" movies (A2, CA3, etc.) seems to imply that point (a) and (b) are not stuff that I'm pulling out of the air.

I don't actually need to be a comics fan to point that out, regardless of what Tom and Bill are telling me.


Hawkeye is a side conversation that's largely unrelated, except as another example of the disconnect between fan perception vs. popcorn movie presentation (and hence everyone else's perception). There are a lot of good reasons to include a character like that, but unfortunately none of them seem to be the case:

  • If he's like the God of Archery and he's mind-controlled as an example of how fearsomely awesome the villains' powers are, that's one thing -- but that doesn't seem to be the case.
  • If he's actually a normal guy who's just good at archery, you could use him as a POV character and contrast the more superhuman characters -- he tries to save the world, and can't cut it because he's not in that league, but he's someone we relate to, maybe.
  • He could be used as comic relief; after all, no one expects C3PO to be a jedi -- but that obviously wasn't the intent.
  • Maybe he's important for some other reason (in which case Whedon should have shown us that).

    As it is, though, there's no indication of why people like Thor even say hello to him, and no reason why he should even be included as a character -- except as fan-service that needlessly distracts from the story at hand by introducing yet another character who has no real role and no influence on events, so they might as well be omitted so that we can keep track of the "real" heroes -- the ones who actually matter to the abridged story the movie is trying to tell. It still worked out fine for that movie, but if you keep adding enough characters to get enough of a glut of ones like that, the fan-service oucome and financial outcome might eventually prove to be at odds.


  • Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Hawkeye is a side conversation that's largely unrelated, except as another example of the disconnect between fan perception vs. popcorn movie presentation (and hence everyone else's perception). There are a lot of good reasons to include a character like that, but unfortunately none of them seem to be the case:

  • If he's like the God of Archery and he's mind-controlled as an example of how fearsomely awesome the villains' powers are, that's one thing -- but that doesn't seem to be the case.
  • If he's actually a normal guy who's just good at archery, you could use him as a POV character and contrast the more superhuman characters -- he tries to save the world, and can't cut it because he's not in that league, but he's someone we relate to, maybe.
  • He could be used as comic relief; after all, no one expects C3PO to be a jedi -- but that obviously wasn't the intent.
  • Maybe he's important for some other reason (in which case Whedon should have shown us that).

    As it is, though, there's no indication of why people like Thor even say hello to him, and no reason why he should even be included as a character -- except as fan-service that needlessly distracts from the story at hand by introducing yet another character who has no real role and no influence on events, so they might as well be omitted so that we can keep track of the "real" heroes -- the ones who actually matter to the abridged story the movie is trying to tell. It still worked out fine for that movie, but if you keep adding enough characters to get enough of a glut of ones like that, the fan-service oucome and financial outcome might eventually prove to be at odds.

  • There are answers to your questions about Hawkeye, some of which appear in subsequent movies, but you seem intent on remaining proudly ignorant of them. That's my complaint in this thread. If you've got the time and curiosity to post about Hawkeye's presence being mysterious to you, you've got enough time to dispel your ignorance with a little google-fu.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Hawkeye is a side conversation that's largely unrelated, except as another example of the disconnect between fan perception vs. popcorn movie presentation (and hence everyone else's perception). There are a lot of good reasons to include a character like that, but unfortunately none of them seem to be the case:

  • If he's like the God of Archery and he's mind-controlled as an example of how fearsomely awesome the villains' powers are, that's one thing -- but that doesn't seem to be the case.
  • If he's actually a normal guy who's just good at archery, you could use him as a POV character and contrast the more superhuman characters -- he tries to save the world, and can't cut it because he's not in that league, but he's someone we relate to, maybe.
  • He could be used as comic relief; after all, no one expects C3PO to be a jedi -- but that obviously wasn't the intent.
  • Maybe he's important for some other reason (in which case Whedon should have shown us that).

    As it is, though, there's no indication of why people like Thor even say hello to him, and no reason why he should even be included as a character -- except as fan-service that needlessly distracts from the story at hand by introducing yet another character who has no real role and no influence on events, so they might as well be omitted so that we can keep track of the "real" heroes -- the ones who actually matter to the abridged story the movie is trying to tell. It still worked out fine for that movie, but if you keep adding enough characters to get enough of a glut of ones like that, the fan-service oucome and financial outcome might eventually prove to be at odds.

  • Well, his role was to be the guy on the inside who gets mind controlled and causes the problems. Plotwise, I'd say it would have been easier to drop Black Widow than him. They're both also the connection to SHIELD, as badass normals, much better than the elite SHIELD agents, but not actually powered.

    Of course, since his role is to be mind-controlled, that leaves him with less of an active heroic role than she gets.

    Honestly, I'd say the biggest problem with both of them is that they didn't get their own intro movie. Regardless of powers, that pushes them into the background just because we know so much less about them.


    Bill Dunn wrote:
    There are answers to your questions about Hawkeye, some of which appear in subsequent movies, but you seem intent on remaining proudly ignorant of them. That's my complaint in this thread. If you've got the time and curiosity to post about Hawkeye's presence being mysterious to you, you've got enough time to dispel your ignorance with a...

    Yeah, but I shouldn't have to, for a popcorn movie. That's the point. You can watch Transformers XXVI and enjoy the explosions and never need to Google why the truck robot turns into a terrarium. You can watch Temple of Doom and not have any idea who Marion is. Etc.

    Ignorance of deep comics lore is the baseline for a franchise that's successful in the long term. You keep sneering at it, and you keep refusing to accept that people who make summer popcorn flicks do not, as a general rule, expect a large amount of research on the part of the audience. And there's a good reason they don't, even if you don't want to accept it.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Bill Dunn wrote:
    There are answers to your questions about Hawkeye, some of which appear in subsequent movies, but you seem intent on remaining proudly ignorant of them. That's my complaint in this thread. If you've got the time and curiosity to post about Hawkeye's presence being mysterious to you, you've got enough time to dispel your ignorance with a little google-fu.

    If the movie doesn't answer the basic questions about its characters, that's a flaw with the movie. Somethings can be left as mysteries for sequels (or just as mysteries in general), but if viewers who don't already know the characters are left going "Who is this bozo and what's he doing here?", that's pretty much on the movie.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Bill Dunn wrote:
    There are answers to your questions about Hawkeye, some of which appear in subsequent movies, but you seem intent on remaining proudly ignorant of them. That's my complaint in this thread. If you've got the time and curiosity to post about Hawkeye's presence being mysterious to you, you've got enough time to dispel your ignorance with a...

    Yeah, but I shouldn't have to, for a popcorn movie. That's the point. You can watch Transformers XXVI and enjoy the explosions and never need to Google why the truck robot turns into a terrarium. You can watch Temple of Doom and not have any idea who Marion is. Etc.

    Ignorance of deep comics lore is the baseline for a franchise that's successful in the long term. You keep sneering at it, and you keep refusing to accept that people who make summer popcorn flicks do not, as a general rule, expect a large amount of research on the part of the audience. And there's a good reason they don't, even if you don't want to accept it.

    You can do that, yes, but then you sort of lose the right to ask "Wait, what?" when Marion pops up in the 4th movie. That's why these movies are part of a universe and series, much like Star Trek, Star Wars and more. If you wander into The Force Awakens and ask, "Wait, who's the old guy and the giant monkey?" then that is on you. Popcorn movie -- if that is what this is supposed to be and I'm not sure it is -- doesn't mean that you just turn off your brain and zone out.

    Heck, it's even easier in this day and age to minimally educate yourself while standing in line at the theater! With the plethora of youtube videos leading up to the movies, sites dedicated to information or just a plain google search the information is there if you want it.

    Personally, I enjoy it when the show/movie doesn't have to give the origin story over and over again. One of my great delights was the ScyFy mini-series for Dune and Children of Dune that just went and said "catch up or don't."


    Kirth Gersen wrote:


    I have no idea who Green Arrow is.

    Haven't been watching CW for the last couple of years, I take it.


    Callous Jack wrote:
    Tacticslion wrote:
    Scythia wrote:
    Does any hero ever die permanently in comics?
    Yes. (It's rare, though.)

    Captain Mar-Vell is one of the few that has stayed dead and even he was resurrected briefly. I can't think of too many others now that Bucky and Jason Todd are off the list. I guess there are some original Invaders and Golden Age DC guys that have stayed dead but that's about it.

    Oh and Thunderbird!

    Mar-Vell was never truly resurrected. He's made cameos as the occasional spirit-guide. The only living incarnation was a deep cover Skrull who buried himself in the part.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    I can't recall him actually having any powers at all, in A1.

    And yet he disabled the carrier after Loki led him to it, practically by himself.


    thejeff wrote:
    Bill Dunn wrote:
    There are answers to your questions about Hawkeye, some of which appear in subsequent movies, but you seem intent on remaining proudly ignorant of them. That's my complaint in this thread. If you've got the time and curiosity to post about Hawkeye's presence being mysterious to you, you've got enough time to dispel your ignorance with a little google-fu.
    If the movie doesn't answer the basic questions about its characters, that's a flaw with the movie. Somethings can be left as mysteries for sequels (or just as mysteries in general), but if viewers who don't already know the characters are left going "Who is this bozo and what's he doing here?", that's pretty much on the movie.

    I can't see where anyone would have a problem with Hawkeye or any of the other Avenger's "place" in the movie. It's established early on that Hawkeye and Black Widow are black operatives, each with a particular style. Hawkeye is your ranged assasin and Widow is your infiltrator and upclose killer if needs be. If you can't get it why Widow "belongs" from her initial introduction scene, than I can't explain it to you.

    Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

    CA3 was a little less profitable than A2, but it was a huge step up from CA2, so I'm not sure it really works as an argument against adding more heroes.

    -

    As to Hawkeye, I think the part you're missing is that he's not just an archery guy, he's an archery themed super-spy--and lest you accuse me of using comic nerd knowledge to make that point, we see that in The Avengers:

    -Mind-controlled Hawkeye manages to get Loki so far off the grid that they have to turn to Banner to find him.

    -He uses spy contacts to assemble the scientists and equipment Loki needs for his portal machine (Remember his line about how SHIELD has a lot of enemies?)

    -He plays a crucial role in the attack that cripples (and nearly destroys) the helicarrier.

    -Even when he's just a guy shooting his bow, he's got crazy high-tech trick arrows that explode or hack into computer systems and whatnot.

    Yes, he's not at the same level as the norse god or the robot man, but he's hardly just a frat boy with an archery club membership.


    Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

    CA3 was a little less profitable than A2, but it was a huge step up from CA2, so I'm not sure it really works as an argument against adding more heroes.

    -

    As to Hawkeye, I think the part you're missing is that he's not just an archery guy, he's an archery themed super-spy--and lest you accuse me of using comic nerd knowledge to make that point, we see that in The Avengers:

    -Mind-controlled Hawkeye manages to get Loki so far off the grid that they have to turn to Banner to find him.

    -He uses spy contacts to assemble the scientists and equipment Loki needs for his portal machine (Remember his line about how SHIELD has a lot of enemies?)

    -He plays a crucial role in the attack that cripples (and nearly destroys) the helicarrier.

    -Even when he's just a guy shooting his bow, he's got crazy high-tech trick arrows that explode or hack into computer systems and whatnot.

    Yes, he's not at the same level as the norse god or the robot man, but he's hardly just a frat boy with an archery club membership.

    -Holds his own in a fight against Black Widow, another martial arts based super spy.

    -Holds his own in a fight against multiple aliens that would do Legolas proud.

    -Is a keen observer, both early on (notes that the doorway goes both ways) as well as tracks multiple flying and moving opponents for the guy in the high tech armour later in the movie.


    Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
    Callous Jack wrote:
    Tacticslion wrote:
    Scythia wrote:
    Does any hero ever die permanently in comics?
    Yes. (It's rare, though.)

    Captain Mar-Vell is one of the few that has stayed dead and even he was resurrected briefly. I can't think of too many others now that Bucky and Jason Todd are off the list. I guess there are some original Invaders and Golden Age DC guys that have stayed dead but that's about it.

    Oh and Thunderbird!

    Mar-Vell was never truly resurrected. He's made cameos as the occasional spirit-guide. The only living incarnation was a deep cover Skrull who buried himself in the part.

    Actually Drah, that's not 100% accurate. As a tie-in for Avengers versus X-men, the Phoenix Force DID briefly resurrect/reconstitute Mar-vell. However you're correct that he went back to being dead before the end of the mini-series.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    knightnday wrote:
    Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

    CA3 was a little less profitable than A2, but it was a huge step up from CA2, so I'm not sure it really works as an argument against adding more heroes.

    -

    As to Hawkeye, I think the part you're missing is that he's not just an archery guy, he's an archery themed super-spy--and lest you accuse me of using comic nerd knowledge to make that point, we see that in The Avengers:

    -Mind-controlled Hawkeye manages to get Loki so far off the grid that they have to turn to Banner to find him.

    -He uses spy contacts to assemble the scientists and equipment Loki needs for his portal machine (Remember his line about how SHIELD has a lot of enemies?)

    -He plays a crucial role in the attack that cripples (and nearly destroys) the helicarrier.

    -Even when he's just a guy shooting his bow, he's got crazy high-tech trick arrows that explode or hack into computer systems and whatnot.

    Yes, he's not at the same level as the norse god or the robot man, but he's hardly just a frat boy with an archery club membership.

    -Holds his own in a fight against Black Widow, another martial arts based super spy.

    -Holds his own in a fight against multiple aliens that would do Legolas proud.

    -Is a keen observer, both early on (notes that the doorway goes both ways) as well as tracks multiple flying and moving opponents for the guy in the high tech armour later in the movie.

    And when he goes to Chipolte, he gets free guac.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Yeah, but I shouldn't have to, for a popcorn movie. That's the point. You can watch Transformers XXVI and enjoy the explosions and never need to Google why the truck robot turns into a terrarium. You can watch Temple of Doom and not have any idea who Marion is. Etc.

    Ignorance of deep comics lore is the baseline for a franchise that's successful in the long term. You keep sneering at it, and you keep refusing to accept that people who make summer popcorn flicks do not, as a general rule, expect a large amount of research on the part of the audience. And there's a good reason they don't, even if you don't want to accept it.

    Wait... what?? Even for a Popcorn movie, ever Transformers has been less comprehensible then the one before... One of my biggest complaints is how none of the decepticons have actual names... and how you can't tell one character from the other.

    Most of that is revealed on the TOYS for heavens sake... but those movies are MUCH worse than anything involving Hawkeye.. At least we see a name, can tell the actor, see him do stuff. There are unexplained things maybe.. and not as satisfying as it could be... but there's enough there to work with as a baseline. Transformers?? I've seen them all, and 1) they each build off the one before... and 2) are a confusing jumble of cgi.

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    You guys really don't get it, do you.

    The casual viewer does not follow every movie and TV show. In fact, the casual viewer may see one in three, or one in a hundred, and still expect them to make sense.
    Likewise, the casual viewer does not memorize every character and then go Google their backstory and research them.

    So, if I'm presented with a guy who, in one movie, seems like a mind-controlled frat boy who's into archery, that's all I'm going by. It doesn't matter if he's similar to some other character from some other show. It doesn't matter if there's more information in a sequel, or in some other related movie, or in a series of comic books. And that's true of probably 50% of the rest of the audience. It has nothing to do with "memory problems" and everything to do with not being obsessed with comics. And to keep making these things massive profit machines, Marvel need to take that into account.

    Currently, it seems like they're erring on the side of appealing to you guys -- the 50% of the audience who watch every show and movie and read all the comics and do know everything about all the characters. And that's great for you while it lasts, but it means a shorter-lived franchise in the long run, when other people can no longer walk into the theatre and have any idea what's going on or who anyone is.

    It's entirely too late for that. Marvel has OWNED the franchise.. if it failed tomorrow, they still won. They are 14 movies in with two more already showing trailers.

    That's 16!!That's already an epic Franchise. Star Wars has 8. Star Trek has 13. Nightmare on Elm Street 8. Harry Potter what? 8? 9 if you count Fantastic Beast? James Bond has 24 and Godzilla is around 30, so far and are the only one really beating Marvel right now. They've already surpassed everyone else. and in only a fraction of the time.

    And yes... They REALLY don't care about the 'casual' viewer. They started that in the very first MCU movie Iron Man with that 'Avengers Protocol' teaser. They WANT that connective tissue that runs through every show leading up to the Avengers... and then Infinity Gauntlet. They have made a butt-load of money convincing people that EVERY movie ties into EVERY other one... and if you MISS a show, then you'll miss something about the 'big picture.' I didn't know ANYONE who was interested in seeing a raccoon with a big gun... but they all went to see Guardians JUST because of the 'combined univere' concept and fear they'd miss out on some Infinity Gem stuff... and there was a lot of big picture exposition in that one!! The fact that it was an amazing movie was irrelevant. They went to see it becaue they felt they had to.

    That was the entire strategy, and it worked fantastic for them. What it took Star Trek 37 years to accomplish... they did in only 8... There is no way that anyone can consider Marvel's 'franchise' to be either short lived OR a failure.


    The reason Hawkeye is in the movies... is because he's an avenger. A solid leading Avenger who has been a part of the team since the 60's... Issue number 16. He's been there almost continually and even leading the team and getting his own spin-off teams. He's right up there with Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man as 'Iconic' Avengers. NOT having him in the movie would have been weird.

    THAT said.. Movie Hawkeye is in a weird place. He's not REALLY Hawkeye. Comic book Hawkeye has had multiple changes, retcons and alternate universe crash in to make him just a jumbled mess. Comic Hawkeye was NOT a Shield Agent, he was NOT a killer. He was an acrobat and sharpshooter trained in a circus, Ex-criminal turned good and consistently flipped from hot head of the team to breaking it up over his 'no-killing (even aliens) mentality. He was proud of his costume and his 'super hero ' life. The man had skills and leadership qualities to the point that when he butted heads with Captain America, Cap offered to step down as leader and he recognized clint's leadership ability.

    THAT was not the Hawkeye we got on screen. Zero costume. Black ops operative, Kind of an easy going mellow guy... Just... NOT clint. Now it was closer to 'ultimate' Hawkeye... and now they're dragging that over to the regular comics... and everything is getting shoehorned to match the movies... but that's part of Hawkeye's problem. They like having the archer on the team... but can't really nail down WHO they want him to be. That indecision really seemed to play on the screen.

    151 to 176 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Should the MCU kill off characters? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in Movies
    Dune - Part 2