Domination for domination's sake is a boring motivation.
But does that really matter? The Joker causes chaos and death for its own sake but he's still an interesting villain.
Controlling something and destroying something are different things, and pretty much the Joker's whole shtick is how little anything matters.
The Joker doesn't "cause death for its own sake." He causes chaos. Different things.
Thanos doesn't cause death for its own sake either. He is a fanatic, motivated by an insane lust for an anthropomorphized concept.
Darkseid doesn't cause domination for domination's sake either. He, as the God of all Evil, is motivated to control and corrupt all life in the universe, in order to remake the universe in the image of his own twisted soul.
Domination for domination's sake is a boring motivation.
But does that really matter? The Joker causes chaos and death for its own sake but he's still an interesting villain.
Controlling something and destroying something are different things, and pretty much the Joker's whole shtick is how little anything matters.
The Joker doesn't "cause death for its own sake." He causes chaos. Different things.
Thanos doesn't cause death for its own sake either. He is a fanatic, motivated by an insane lust for an anthropomorphized concept.
Darkseid doesn't cause domination for domination's sake either. He, as the God of all Evil, is motivated to control and corrupt all life in the universe, in order to remake the universe in the image of his own twisted soul.
How is Darkseid's motivation not domination?
Thanos is obsessed with death and powerful trinkets but he can do other things without thinking about those activities 24/7. He's become a farmer to atone for his sins. It was temporary, of course. It wasn't the only time he's taken time off to have a life or having goals not related to them.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Thanos doesn't cause death for its own sake either. He is a fanatic, motivated by an insane lust for an anthropomorphized concept.
Darkseid doesn't cause domination for domination's sake either. He, as the God of all Evil, is motivated to control and corrupt all life in the universe, in order to remake the universe in the image of his own twisted soul.
And neither of those things, as writ, are compelling fodder for a 2-hour movie. Especially if you have to shoehorn it into the framework of an already existing concept.
Again, not saying it CAN'T be done, but it would take a good deal of Chris Nolan-level retooling to put those characters into a more credible and relevant framework.
Thanos doesn't cause death for its own sake either. He is a fanatic, motivated by an insane lust for an anthropomorphized concept.
Darkseid doesn't cause domination for domination's sake either. He, as the God of all Evil, is motivated to control and corrupt all life in the universe, in order to remake the universe in the image of his own twisted soul.
And neither of those things, as writ, are compelling fodder for a 2-hour movie. Especially if you have to shoehorn it into the framework of an already existing concept.
Again, not saying it CAN'T be done, but it would take a good deal of Chris Nolan-level retooling to put those characters into a more credible and relevant framework.
maybe for you
most regular folk will be just fine with it, I'm pretty sure
Thanos doesn't cause death for its own sake either. He is a fanatic, motivated by an insane lust for an anthropomorphized concept.
Darkseid doesn't cause domination for domination's sake either. He, as the God of all Evil, is motivated to control and corrupt all life in the universe, in order to remake the universe in the image of his own twisted soul.
And neither of those things, as writ, are compelling fodder for a 2-hour movie. Especially if you have to shoehorn it into the framework of an already existing concept.
Again, not saying it CAN'T be done, but it would take a good deal of Chris Nolan-level retooling to put those characters into a more credible and relevant framework.
I can see Thanos prospering under a Whedon script. I'm fascinated in how they'll execute his obsession with Death.
0
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
Since a lot of the films take influence from the Ultimate comics line, it should be mentioned...
...that Ultimate Thanos is even more like Darkseid - he seeks the Cosmic Cube to dominate the wills of all living things, the same reason Darkseid seeks the Anti-Life equation. His love for Death in the Ultimate comics comes from Death bringing an end to the chaos and uncertainty of life, seeming to have grown out of his desire for control, rather than in the regular comics where his dark nature originated from his fascination with Death.
That said, Ultimate Thanos doesn't really look like regular Thanos at all, who seems to be the one showing up at the end of the film.
I think Thanos's fascination/infatuation with Death as a being is what can potentially make him far more interesting than a two dimensional conquering overlord - the element that his whole empire isn't about conquest, power, or control, but giving him the means to create misery and death on a wide scale - essentially a bouquet for Death, since Thanos frequently equates causing death on a wide scale as being a tribute to her. One of the reason he wants cosmic-level power and treasures in the first place was to use them to elevate himself to Death's level and grant her gifts - he started gathering the Infinity Gems specifically to kill half the life in the universe as a favor to her.
Domination for domination's sake is a boring motivation.
But does that really matter? The Joker causes chaos and death for its own sake but he's still an interesting villain.
Controlling something and destroying something are different things, and pretty much the Joker's whole shtick is how little anything matters.
The Joker doesn't "cause death for its own sake." He causes chaos. Different things.
Thanos doesn't cause death for its own sake either. He is a fanatic, motivated by an insane lust for an anthropomorphized concept.
Darkseid doesn't cause domination for domination's sake either. He, as the God of all Evil, is motivated to control and corrupt all life in the universe, in order to remake the universe in the image of his own twisted soul.
How is Darkseid's motivation not domination?
Because domination is only a tool for him to get what he wants, besides that his form of domination is much more insidious than a conquering warlord. He corrupts and controls, because he shows people the pointlessness of their lives and gives them one purpose: To die for Darkseid.
I had a thought on the way to this movie. Cap's shield is vibranium alloy and absorbs the energy from kinetic and energy hits so he isn't pulverised, correct? So when he hits someone with it, how do they feel anything? It should be like being hit with a feather duster. And when he throws it at someone/thing, it shouldn't bounce off, it should just stop and fall to the ground.
Thanos doesn't cause death for its own sake either. He is a fanatic, motivated by an insane lust for an anthropomorphized concept.
Darkseid doesn't cause domination for domination's sake either. He, as the God of all Evil, is motivated to control and corrupt all life in the universe, in order to remake the universe in the image of his own twisted soul.
And neither of those things, as writ, are compelling fodder for a 2-hour movie. Especially if you have to shoehorn it into the framework of an already existing concept.
Again, not saying it CAN'T be done, but it would take a good deal of Chris Nolan-level retooling to put those characters into a more credible and relevant framework.
I agree that the concept is almost too big for one film, but Chris Nolan barely did anything like "retooling" with Batman. He jettisoned some of the more sci-fi or supernatural stuff, but there's hardly any difference between his Batman or Joker and the Batman and Joker of the comics.
Domination for domination's sake is a boring motivation.
But does that really matter? The Joker causes chaos and death for its own sake but he's still an interesting villain.
Controlling something and destroying something are different things, and pretty much the Joker's whole shtick is how little anything matters.
The Joker doesn't "cause death for its own sake." He causes chaos. Different things.
But the point is that the Joker has a simple motivation but he's still an interesting character.
There's no reason why a villain with the simple motivation of seeking power or domination can't be interesting. Look at the Party in "1984."
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites."
"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science."
And speaking of Darkseid, does anyone else think that this movie is actually written a lot like the DCAU shows? All the witty quips and retorts, the way the characters played off each other, the running jokes and subplots, it feels like if Bruce Timm and Paul Dini had done this movie or if they made a Justice League movie, it would turn out to be pretty similar.
Since a lot of the films take influence from the Ultimate comics line, it should be mentioned...
...that Ultimate Thanos is even more like Darkseid - he seeks the Cosmic Cube to dominate the wills of all living things, the same reason Darkseid seeks the Anti-Life equation. His love for Death in the Ultimate comics comes from Death bringing an end to the chaos and uncertainty of life, seeming to have grown out of his desire for control, rather than in the regular comics where his dark nature originated from his fascination with Death.
That said, Ultimate Thanos doesn't really look like regular Thanos at all, who seems to be the one showing up at the end of the film.
I think Thanos's fascination/infatuation with Death as a being is what can potentially make him far more interesting than a two dimensional conquering overlord - the element that his whole empire isn't about conquest, power, or control, but giving him the means to create misery and death on a wide scale - essentially a bouquet for Death, since Thanos frequently equates causing death on a wide scale as being a tribute to her. One of the reason he wants cosmic-level power and treasures in the first place was to use them to elevate himself to Death's level and grant her gifts - he started gathering the Infinity Gems specifically to kill half the life in the universe as a favor to her.
I really need to check out some of the Ultimate stuff. It seems like it has more polished versions of the old characters.
Edit: Eh. I had the wrong idea. After looking at Ultimate Spiderman, Ultimate X-Men, and The Ultimates, they went off in a drastically different direction.
Since a lot of the films take influence from the Ultimate comics line, it should be mentioned...
...that Ultimate Thanos is even more like Darkseid - he seeks the Cosmic Cube to dominate the wills of all living things, the same reason Darkseid seeks the Anti-Life equation. His love for Death in the Ultimate comics comes from Death bringing an end to the chaos and uncertainty of life, seeming to have grown out of his desire for control, rather than in the regular comics where his dark nature originated from his fascination with Death.
That said, Ultimate Thanos doesn't really look like regular Thanos at all, who seems to be the one showing up at the end of the film.
I think Thanos's fascination/infatuation with Death as a being is what can potentially make him far more interesting than a two dimensional conquering overlord - the element that his whole empire isn't about conquest, power, or control, but giving him the means to create misery and death on a wide scale - essentially a bouquet for Death, since Thanos frequently equates causing death on a wide scale as being a tribute to her. One of the reason he wants cosmic-level power and treasures in the first place was to use them to elevate himself to Death's level and grant her gifts - he started gathering the Infinity Gems specifically to kill half the life in the universe as a favor to her.
I really need to check out some of the Ultimate stuff. It seems like it has more polished versions of the old characters.
Carey did a wonderful job with Thanos Darkseid in Ultimate Fantastic Four.
Domination for domination's sake is a boring motivation.
But does that really matter? The Joker causes chaos and death for its own sake but he's still an interesting villain.
Controlling something and destroying something are different things, and pretty much the Joker's whole shtick is how little anything matters.
The Joker doesn't "cause death for its own sake." He causes chaos. Different things.
But the point is that the Joker has a simple motivation but he's still an interesting character.
There's no reason why a villain with the simple motivation of seeking power or domination can't be interesting. Look at the Party in "1984."
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites."
"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science."
And speaking of Darkseid, does anyone else think that this movie is actually written a lot like the DCAU shows? All the witty quips and retorts, the way the characters played off each other, the running jokes and subplots, it feels like if Bruce Timm and Paul Dini had done this movie or if they made a Justice League movie, it would turn out to be pretty similar.
The thing about the Joker is he's also charming, charismatic, unpredictable mad man. Those things to make up for his very simple motivations. With Darkseid, you know what the punch line is before he even gets going.
I really do think Darkseid is too simple and generic and prefer Thanos to him. Just another win Marvel has in the villains column.
The shield absorbs kinetic energy directed at it, but that doesn't mean it can't transmit kinetic energy to a target quite well.
Thing is, unless the shield has narrative sensitivity, both of those situations are the same thing aren't they? The shield doesn't know if it is moving forwards to hit an object, or if it is still and the object is hitting it. This is fun to think about. Bullets shouldn't bounce off it either, they should just stop and drop to the ground, Neo style.
Since a lot of the films take influence from the Ultimate comics line, it should be mentioned...
...that Ultimate Thanos is even more like Darkseid - he seeks the Cosmic Cube to dominate the wills of all living things, the same reason Darkseid seeks the Anti-Life equation. His love for Death in the Ultimate comics comes from Death bringing an end to the chaos and uncertainty of life, seeming to have grown out of his desire for control, rather than in the regular comics where his dark nature originated from his fascination with Death.
That said, Ultimate Thanos doesn't really look like regular Thanos at all, who seems to be the one showing up at the end of the film.
I think Thanos's fascination/infatuation with Death as a being is what can potentially make him far more interesting than a two dimensional conquering overlord - the element that his whole empire isn't about conquest, power, or control, but giving him the means to create misery and death on a wide scale - essentially a bouquet for Death, since Thanos frequently equates causing death on a wide scale as being a tribute to her. One of the reason he wants cosmic-level power and treasures in the first place was to use them to elevate himself to Death's level and grant her gifts - he started gathering the Infinity Gems specifically to kill half the life in the universe as a favor to her.
I really need to check out some of the Ultimate stuff. It seems like it has more polished versions of the old characters.
Carey did a wonderful job with Thanos Darkseid in Ultimate Fantastic Four.
It does seem like Ultimate Fantastic Four stays faithful to the old version, but adds more plausibility (albeit loosely) to the story. I'll probably check that one out.
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
Yes, Evans' played Human Torch in Fox Fantastic Four movies. Cross-overs won't be an issue if Marvel gets the license back they'd simply recast the group and reboot it.
sigh.
if only...
It's not impossible. FF isn't a major franchise like Spider-man or X-men. There's less motivation for Fox to keep them, though it depends on how much they want to keep it from Disney/Marvel.
After Avengers? I would think they are holding on to FF as if their life depended on it. Even a weaker franchise is better then no franchise and a hell of a lot better then giving back to your rival so they can integrate FF into their awesome Avengers franchise(Making it even more awesome). Movie making is a business and a FF with the tagline "from the people who created the Avengers" is a moneymaker now.
And I like Evans' a lot better as Cap, then I did as Torch. Of course that may have something to do with the FF movie sucking balls.
I thought Evans did really well with the character. Torch and the Thing were the best parts of those movies. The rest... eh.
Steam and CFN: Enexemander
0
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
Since a lot of the films take influence from the Ultimate comics line, it should be mentioned...
...that Ultimate Thanos is even more like Darkseid - he seeks the Cosmic Cube to dominate the wills of all living things, the same reason Darkseid seeks the Anti-Life equation. His love for Death in the Ultimate comics comes from Death bringing an end to the chaos and uncertainty of life, seeming to have grown out of his desire for control, rather than in the regular comics where his dark nature originated from his fascination with Death.
That said, Ultimate Thanos doesn't really look like regular Thanos at all, who seems to be the one showing up at the end of the film.
I think Thanos's fascination/infatuation with Death as a being is what can potentially make him far more interesting than a two dimensional conquering overlord - the element that his whole empire isn't about conquest, power, or control, but giving him the means to create misery and death on a wide scale - essentially a bouquet for Death, since Thanos frequently equates causing death on a wide scale as being a tribute to her. One of the reason he wants cosmic-level power and treasures in the first place was to use them to elevate himself to Death's level and grant her gifts - he started gathering the Infinity Gems specifically to kill half the life in the universe as a favor to her.
I really need to check out some of the Ultimate stuff. It seems like it has more polished versions of the old characters.
Carey did a wonderful job with Thanos Darkseid in Ultimate Fantastic Four.
It does seem like Ultimate Fantastic Four stays faithful to the old version, but adds more plausibility (albeit loosely) to the story. I'll probably check that one out.
The main thing the Ultimate books tried to when creating a new universe was to make it seem more plausible - as if the stories were written today rather than decades ago. Hence Ultimate Peter gets bitten by a genetically modified spider rather than a radioactive one. Because the idea that radioactivity could give you super-powers is just silly these days - it's all about the DNAs now, they give you the real super-powers!
Also having SHIELD assemble a superhuman task force to combat superhuman threats, rather than just a bunch of the freaks thrown together by chance.
The Ultimate FF storyline involving Ultimate Thanos is called God War, so yeah, they were clearly doing it as a whole New Gods tribute - Thanos and his evil empire even have a heroic counter-point empire that are blatantly the heroic gods of New Genesis, who oppose Darkseid in the DC comics.
Speaking of Ult. Thanos, the Chitauri of the film resemble his empire's forces much more than the Chitauri of the comics - Thanos's forces even use giant cyborg alien whales as ships, while the comic Chitauri use purely mechanical ships.
The shield absorbs kinetic energy directed at it, but that doesn't mean it can't transmit kinetic energy to a target quite well.
Both of those are the same thing though, that's just physics.
"Every action causes an equal and opposite reaction", relative motion, and all that...
Yes, well, comic book physics. In theory every time someone gets 'saved' like Gwen Stacy the bodycount should increment, but that would be rather tedious.
I had a thought on the way to this movie. Cap's shield is vibranium alloy and absorbs the energy from kinetic and energy hits so he isn't pulverised, correct? So when he hits someone with it, how do they feel anything? It should be like being hit with a feather duster. And when he throws it at someone/thing, it shouldn't bounce off, it should just stop and fall to the ground.
Domination for domination's sake is a boring motivation.
But does that really matter? The Joker causes chaos and death for its own sake but he's still an interesting villain.
Controlling something and destroying something are different things, and pretty much the Joker's whole shtick is how little anything matters.
The Joker doesn't "cause death for its own sake." He causes chaos. Different things.
But the point is that the Joker has a simple motivation but he's still an interesting character.
There's no reason why a villain with the simple motivation of seeking power or domination can't be interesting. Look at the Party in "1984."
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites."
"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science."
And speaking of Darkseid, does anyone else think that this movie is actually written a lot like the DCAU shows? All the witty quips and retorts, the way the characters played off each other, the running jokes and subplots, it feels like if Bruce Timm and Paul Dini had done this movie or if they made a Justice League movie, it would turn out to be pretty similar.
The thing about the Joker is he's also charming, charismatic, unpredictable mad man. Those things to make up for his very simple motivations. With Darkseid, you know what the punch line is before he even gets going.
I really do think Darkseid is too simple and generic and prefer Thanos to him. Just another win Marvel has in the villains column.
Well, Darkseid is pretty much Darth Vader before Darth Vader existed.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The shield absorbs kinetic energy directed at it, but that doesn't mean it can't transmit kinetic energy to a target quite well.
Both of those are the same thing though, that's just physics.
"Every action causes an equal and opposite reaction", relative motion, and all that...
Yes, well, comic book physics. In theory every time someone gets 'saved' like Gwen Stacy the bodycount should increment, but that would be rather tedious.
Well, in that case,
it did
0
Options
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
Also, the bullets DID stop and drop to the ground in Cap:TFA. At least, before it was painted.
Domination for domination's sake is a boring motivation.
But does that really matter? The Joker causes chaos and death for its own sake but he's still an interesting villain.
Controlling something and destroying something are different things, and pretty much the Joker's whole shtick is how little anything matters.
The Joker doesn't "cause death for its own sake." He causes chaos. Different things.
But the point is that the Joker has a simple motivation but he's still an interesting character.
There's no reason why a villain with the simple motivation of seeking power or domination can't be interesting. Look at the Party in "1984."
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites."
"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science."
And speaking of Darkseid, does anyone else think that this movie is actually written a lot like the DCAU shows? All the witty quips and retorts, the way the characters played off each other, the running jokes and subplots, it feels like if Bruce Timm and Paul Dini had done this movie or if they made a Justice League movie, it would turn out to be pretty similar.
The thing about the Joker is he's also charming, charismatic, unpredictable mad man. Those things to make up for his very simple motivations. With Darkseid, you know what the punch line is before he even gets going.
I really do think Darkseid is too simple and generic and prefer Thanos to him. Just another win Marvel has in the villains column.
Well, Darkseid is pretty much Darth Vader before Darth Vader existed.
Darkseid fits Palpatine better. Darth Vader was actually based on Dr. Doom IIRC.
0
Options
Psychotic OneThe Lord of No PantsParts UnknownRegistered Userregular
The best use of Darkseid was in the Justice League Unlimited cartoon. He was basically the only person in the universe that Superman could and would because he thought he had to go all out on. He's pretty much the counter part to Superman. Also...was inspiration for the "World of Cardboard" trope. It would be pretty hard for a single movie to develop Darkseid to a level of threat that a scene like that would hold the same weight.
Current Marvel movie Thor is very very obviously influenced by Ultimate Thor.
Thor spoilers
Yes he was influenced, only he was definitely faithful to 616 Thor. They kept the "is he crazy or a god" thing from Ultimates what else did they duplicate from Ultimate Thor?
The fact that Donald Blake is a reletively unrelated dude rather than an alter-ego?
They did not take that from the Ultimate Universe. In fact what they did is much closer to standard continuity.
In the Ultimate Universe Thor is reborn as Donald Blake after Ragnarok. He lives up to adulthood thinking he is just a human but when the world tree begins to grow back on earth he begins to remember. As do all reborn Asgardians among humanity. They eventually regain their powers.
So really nothing like movie Thor. Movie Thor, like standard Thor, was an arrogant monster who is sent to earth to learn kindness and humility and eventually falls in love with the world. He is a fighter first and is always up for a good fight.
Ultimate Thor was sent first of the Gods to shepherd humanity. To save them from themselves. He takes on primarily causes for the environment and the little people and fights mostly in defense of these people. Seemingly less interested in looking for a fight.
Well, until his people are slaughtered by Reed. Genocide does that to people.
Current Marvel movie Thor is very very obviously influenced by Ultimate Thor.
Thor spoilers
Yes he was influenced, only he was definitely faithful to 616 Thor. They kept the "is he crazy or a god" thing from Ultimates what else did they duplicate from Ultimate Thor?
The fact that Donald Blake is a reletively unrelated dude rather than an alter-ego?
They did not take that from the Ultimate Universe. In fact what they did is much closer to standard continuity.
In the Ultimate Universe Thor is reborn as Donald Blake after Ragnarok. He lives up to adulthood thinking he is just a human but when the world tree begins to grow back on earth he begins to remember. As do all reborn Asgardians among humanity. They eventually regain their powers.
So really nothing like movie Thor. Movie Thor, like standard Thor, was an arrogant monster who is sent to earth to learn kindness and humility and eventually falls in love with the world. He is a fighter first and is always up for a good fight.
Ultimate Thor was sent first of the Gods to shepherd humanity. To save them from themselves. He takes on primarily causes for the environment and the little people and fights mostly in defense of these people. Seemingly less interested in looking for a fight.
Well, until his people are slaughtered by Reed. Genocide does that to people.
Thor's name on Earth was Thorlief Golmen, not Dr. Donald Blake (in fact, Dr. Blake shows up as a separate entity at one point,
secretly balder
tasked with helping Thorlief once he goes all "I'm a god" crazy.) He never shared a body with another person like 616 Thor did (Blake was an already existing person before Odin put Thor in him). He was just normal Thor made mortal and with mortal memories. He never had to stamp his walking stick on the ground in order to transform into Thor and once he became Thor full time, there wasn't a Thorlief guy running around doing his own stuff. That's why I say it's closer to the Ultimate Universe: while Odin doesn't include a mortal persona, the rest of it is pretty close.
Though I haven't read the latest Ultimate Universe stuff; but the film version of Thor was written long before the current chain of events.
I'm saying it's more Ultimate based because Odin simply makes Thor himself mortal and casts him down to Earth, where he's believed to be crazy until he reclaims his power, at which point he becomes a god again, permanently. He's never stuck into Donald Blakes body and they never switch back and forth. Blake is relegated to an Easter Egg and a plot device, rather than a quintessential part of Thor's character.
EDIT: More Ultimate based may be a misnomer. Obviously there's a strong 616 influence too. I'm just saying not to discount the Ultimate versions influence.
I'm saying it's more Ultimate based because Odin simply makes Thor himself mortal and casts him down to Earth, where he's believed to be crazy until he reclaims his power, at which point he becomes a god again, permanently. He's never stuck into Donald Blakes body and they never switch back and forth. Blake is relegated to an Easter Egg and a plot device, rather than a quintessential part of Thor's character.
EDIT: More Ultimate based may be a misnomer. Obviously there's a strong 616 influence too. I'm just saying not to discount the Ultimate versions influence.
I'm trying really hard to word this right because if I do it wrong it will probably come out like I'm splitting hairs. Maybe I am.
Sorry.
Yes, the to version have those similarities but the way these things are handles feels so far from each other that I doubt there was much influence. I feel like the writer started off with the goal of writing a Thor origin story. He took the basic plot and simplified it. I feel like Thor is cast down from earth without inhabiting Donald Blake not because it takes inspiration from Ultimate Thor but for the same reason Ultimate Thor does. The Donald Blake part of the story hasn't been relevant for years and only existed in the first place because "Superheroes have secret-identities".
I don't agree with that, but it's just a difference of opinion at this point I guess. I'd just be really surprised if Marvel didn't include some Ultimate comics when they gave the writers material to read. Especially since the Ultimate universe on some levels is trying to achieve the same thing as the movie universe: a modern take on the classic superheroes.
Its obvious that Marvel drew from all their sources to help craft a setting that made sense for cinema. However, they drew as much from their main comic line as they did from their Ultimates line. The vibe of the films are much more in line with the mainstream comics then they are with Ultimates...
...thankfully. I can't stand how Millar tries so hard to make everything generically badass and macho.
The one concept I'm glad they turfed was secret identities. Throw them all out!
Its obvious that Marvel drew from all their sources to help craft a setting that made sense for cinema. However, they drew as much from their main comic line as they did from their Ultimates line. The vibe of the films are much more in line with the mainstream comics then they are with Ultimates...
...thankfully. I can't stand how Millar tries so hard to make everything generically badass and macho.
The one concept I'm glad they turfed was secret identities. Throw them all out!
Lets not go overboard here. There are plently of characters for whom secret identities make sense. Spider-man Batman and Superman for instance.
Its obvious that Marvel drew from all their sources to help craft a setting that made sense for cinema. However, they drew as much from their main comic line as they did from their Ultimates line. The vibe of the films are much more in line with the mainstream comics then they are with Ultimates...
...thankfully. I can't stand how Millar tries so hard to make everything generically badass and macho.
The one concept I'm glad they turfed was secret identities. Throw them all out!
Lets not go overboard here. There are plently of characters for whom secret identities make sense. Spider-man Batman and Superman for instance.
Well, I'm talking in the context of the Avengers film. None of them really need them, so they didn't go to the effort of giving them then.
The only Marvel hero that's really important to have the secret identity is Spider-Man. There's probably a few more, but they escape me.
Black Widow and Hawkeye are special ops soldiers and spies. They need their identities protected to some degree. The Hulk needs his identity protected. Steve Rodgers could do with his identity being protected if he ever wants to, you know, walk down the street.
Tony Stark likes being famous, so he doesn't want a secret identity, and for Thor it's just kind of irrelevant.
They never make a point to conceal the character's identities, which is nice. Nobody wears a mask but Cap, and his identity is easily blown open by a history book.
Posts
Darkseid doesn't cause domination for domination's sake either. He, as the God of all Evil, is motivated to control and corrupt all life in the universe, in order to remake the universe in the image of his own twisted soul.
Thanos is obsessed with death and powerful trinkets but he can do other things without thinking about those activities 24/7. He's become a farmer to atone for his sins. It was temporary, of course. It wasn't the only time he's taken time off to have a life or having goals not related to them.
And neither of those things, as writ, are compelling fodder for a 2-hour movie. Especially if you have to shoehorn it into the framework of an already existing concept.
Again, not saying it CAN'T be done, but it would take a good deal of Chris Nolan-level retooling to put those characters into a more credible and relevant framework.
maybe for you
most regular folk will be just fine with it, I'm pretty sure
That said, Ultimate Thanos doesn't really look like regular Thanos at all, who seems to be the one showing up at the end of the film.
I think Thanos's fascination/infatuation with Death as a being is what can potentially make him far more interesting than a two dimensional conquering overlord - the element that his whole empire isn't about conquest, power, or control, but giving him the means to create misery and death on a wide scale - essentially a bouquet for Death, since Thanos frequently equates causing death on a wide scale as being a tribute to her. One of the reason he wants cosmic-level power and treasures in the first place was to use them to elevate himself to Death's level and grant her gifts - he started gathering the Infinity Gems specifically to kill half the life in the universe as a favor to her.
I agree that the concept is almost too big for one film, but Chris Nolan barely did anything like "retooling" with Batman. He jettisoned some of the more sci-fi or supernatural stuff, but there's hardly any difference between his Batman or Joker and the Batman and Joker of the comics.
But the point is that the Joker has a simple motivation but he's still an interesting character.
There's no reason why a villain with the simple motivation of seeking power or domination can't be interesting. Look at the Party in "1984."
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites."
"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science."
And speaking of Darkseid, does anyone else think that this movie is actually written a lot like the DCAU shows? All the witty quips and retorts, the way the characters played off each other, the running jokes and subplots, it feels like if Bruce Timm and Paul Dini had done this movie or if they made a Justice League movie, it would turn out to be pretty similar.
I really need to check out some of the Ultimate stuff. It seems like it has more polished versions of the old characters.
Edit: Eh. I had the wrong idea. After looking at Ultimate Spiderman, Ultimate X-Men, and The Ultimates, they went off in a drastically different direction.
Carey did a wonderful job with Thanos Darkseid in Ultimate Fantastic Four.
I really do think Darkseid is too simple and generic and prefer Thanos to him. Just another win Marvel has in the villains column.
It does seem like Ultimate Fantastic Four stays faithful to the old version, but adds more plausibility (albeit loosely) to the story. I'll probably check that one out.
"Every action causes an equal and opposite reaction", relative motion, and all that...
I thought Evans did really well with the character. Torch and the Thing were the best parts of those movies. The rest... eh.
The main thing the Ultimate books tried to when creating a new universe was to make it seem more plausible - as if the stories were written today rather than decades ago. Hence Ultimate Peter gets bitten by a genetically modified spider rather than a radioactive one. Because the idea that radioactivity could give you super-powers is just silly these days - it's all about the DNAs now, they give you the real super-powers!
Also having SHIELD assemble a superhuman task force to combat superhuman threats, rather than just a bunch of the freaks thrown together by chance.
Speaking of Ult. Thanos, the Chitauri of the film resemble his empire's forces much more than the Chitauri of the comics - Thanos's forces even use giant cyborg alien whales as ships, while the comic Chitauri use purely mechanical ships.
Because of vibranium, or science, or whatever, fuck you!
Well, Darkseid is pretty much Darth Vader before Darth Vader existed.
Well, in that case,
Maybe the coloring screws it up a bit?
Darkseid fits Palpatine better. Darth Vader was actually based on Dr. Doom IIRC.
They did not take that from the Ultimate Universe. In fact what they did is much closer to standard continuity.
So really nothing like movie Thor. Movie Thor, like standard Thor, was an arrogant monster who is sent to earth to learn kindness and humility and eventually falls in love with the world. He is a fighter first and is always up for a good fight.
Ultimate Thor was sent first of the Gods to shepherd humanity. To save them from themselves. He takes on primarily causes for the environment and the little people and fights mostly in defense of these people. Seemingly less interested in looking for a fight.
Well, until his people are slaughtered by Reed. Genocide does that to people.
Though I haven't read the latest Ultimate Universe stuff; but the film version of Thor was written long before the current chain of events.
cast out of his home to live on earth because he's a dick
Movie or standard Continuity?
reborn on earth to guide and protect humanity because Odin is a loving God.
Ultimate Universe or Movie.
The Donald Blake stuff is similar but not in any way that would be a reference. They just wanted to make a reference to the origin.
EDIT: More Ultimate based may be a misnomer. Obviously there's a strong 616 influence too. I'm just saying not to discount the Ultimate versions influence.
I'm trying really hard to word this right because if I do it wrong it will probably come out like I'm splitting hairs. Maybe I am.
Sorry.
Yes, the to version have those similarities but the way these things are handles feels so far from each other that I doubt there was much influence. I feel like the writer started off with the goal of writing a Thor origin story. He took the basic plot and simplified it. I feel like Thor is cast down from earth without inhabiting Donald Blake not because it takes inspiration from Ultimate Thor but for the same reason Ultimate Thor does. The Donald Blake part of the story hasn't been relevant for years and only existed in the first place because "Superheroes have secret-identities".
You're right, they didn't bounce off - faulty memory
...thankfully. I can't stand how Millar tries so hard to make everything generically badass and macho.
The one concept I'm glad they turfed was secret identities. Throw them all out!
Lets not go overboard here. There are plently of characters for whom secret identities make sense. Spider-man Batman and Superman for instance.
The only Marvel hero that's really important to have the secret identity is Spider-Man. There's probably a few more, but they escape me.
Tony Stark likes being famous, so he doesn't want a secret identity, and for Thor it's just kind of irrelevant.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3