Independent of Danny being white, the Iron Fist writers plainly didn't do any fucking research on Asian cultures. Even the other Asian characters just recite American pop culture versions of cultural concepts.
And it's a big problem, because a core part of Danny's character is that he's really internalized a lot of cultural beliefs that are very foreign to where he is now. And occasionally the show actually tries to explore that, but it usually undercuts itself through its own lack of research.
I actually think the actors have done a good job considering the scripts they're working with, but the writers and showrunners of this show are a fucking embarrassment. They just don't seem to have given a shit.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+6
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Independent of Danny being white, the Iron Fist writers plainly didn't do any fucking research on Asian cultures. Even the other Asian characters just recite American pop culture versions of cultural concepts.
And it's a big problem, because a core part of Danny's character is that he's really internalized a lot of cultural beliefs that are very foreign to where he is now. And occasionally the show actually tries to explore that, but it usually undercuts itself through its own lack of research.
I actually think the actors have done a good job considering the scripts they're working with, but the writers and showrunners of this show are a fucking embarrassment. They just don't seem to have given a shit.
I'll have you know I spent hours watching Golden Harvest films, and I am now a cultural master of Kung Thai Do.
jungleroomx on
+1
Options
WarcryI'm getting my shit pushed in here!AustraliaRegistered Userregular
edited March 2017
I thought my reason was obvious? Having an Asian or non-white Danny is good for minority representation, and having another minority-centric POV show like Luke Cage's. Or didn't you think having a black character's POV in Luke Cage was a good thing to have?
If it had been suggested that Luke Cage be played by a white or Asian actor, there would have been rioting. Changing Danny's ethnicity is no better. Swamping television and movies with minority actors just for the sake of it accomplishes nothing. You do not bring about any from of social change by doing this. The actors gain nothing by doing this. If a production requires an Asian actor, they will write a role that requires an Asian actor.
The thing with having a minority or Asian Danny Rand is that the sting's of cultural appropriation which has been inherent in IF since the start as well as taking an interesting angle on the franchise we haven't had yet. Before IF the majority of the fans for the character were very small, he was very obscure and doing this with him would not have been as detrimental to gaining a wider fanbase than you think.
Cultural appropriation is progress. If cultures didn't take from each, we'd still be a tribal society, instead of the globalist one we have now. Gunpowder is a Chinese invention. Should we stop using it because they invented it? No, because Europeans made firearms with it, and technology advanced. That is actual progress, not the illusion of it. Cultures adopting practices and technologies from one another is the lifeblood of civilization, and to say that we must all stick to our own traditions and methods only creates further division.
It's not like people don't like watching shows from a minority's POV, as JJ and LC proved. How is this 'progress' btw? It's giving a bigger opportunity for representation for minority's I'd hardly call that fake progress.
I'd like to know how it can be classified as progress. They aren't anything new. TV shows have been starring black men and white women for decades. The reason there hasn't been a black man in a starring role in a superhero TV show is because none of the comic studios had the kind of money to throw around that they do now, and the TV studios saw it as a massive risk, which it was. Both Luke Cage and Jessica Jones coasted in on the Marvel brand, and in the wake of Daredevil, which was extremely well-received. Had they been entirely new characters not owned by Marvel, I doubt either would have been the success they became.
Is there a reason why revenge and a claim on inheritance are limited to a white Danny Rand? Those concepts could easily be done with an Asian character. Why would an Asian actor undermine that?
I specifically said those themes would would work with either.
An Asian Danny would be able to have a similar relationship with Luke Cage. It wouldn't be identical, I'll grant, but hardly unrecognizable. There's plenty to plumb with his relationship with Luke from a classism stance as well as the dynamic of being a wealthy, Asian man who would clash with him from that angle. It's not like the Asian community doesn't have depths to explore with their relationship with the black community, and this way the audience can learn about both and not make Danny merely a surrogate for minorities he'd be a minority himself showing them how they live. They don't need to use metaphors with a white man like in the 70's anymore. Adaptions don't have to be 1 = 1 with the comics to be good, faithful or educational. Luke Cage is a master class on how do this in the Netflix frame work.
Luke and Danny's relationship works because Danny is from a life of privilege, but also tragedy. His wealth is his privilege, but he earned his power. Luke came from a life of poverty and violence, and he got his powers by chance. He's never really left that life, and continues to fight for people still living it. He struggles because he is a minority, and he's judged for his past actions. Both of their ethnicities play heavily into their identities. It's about the culture that both live in, and how they deal with it. Writers write what they know. The reason you don't see shows about wealthy Asian families is because the writers have no idea how a wealthy Asian family operates. That is where culture comes in, and why ethnicity is a major part of any character. They operate mostly in those social circles. If you want to change Danny to a wealthy Asian guy, fine. But then you need to change his family into a wealthy Asian one, and that can change the plot and they way scenes play out. Tradition, respect and loyalty can be a major part of Asian culture, and you have to respect that if you want to write about an Asian man and his family. Otherwise you're misrepresenting the culture.
But he has to have Peter Parker to be super interesting to me. I'm not super into Agent Venom.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
But he has to have Peter Parker to be super interesting to me. I'm not super into Agent Venom.
It would be interesting to have them lay the groundwork for both Eddie and Flash Venoms starting with the first Spiderman movie in a way that is not dumb or butts.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Agent Venom only works after you establish villain Venom. It informs all the tension in the storyline and how other Marvel Universe characters react to him.
I mean, I somewhat agree, but c'mon Venom's mythos is pretty ingrained into the cultural gestalt at this point. Does the whole black suit thing really matter that much? If you asked a random person about who he is, I'm pretty sure most of them would be able to identify that he is a gooey villain who rips and tears. And fights spiderman. You can build from there, without bothering with secret wars or whatever the hell was going on in spiderman 3
If you asked a truly random person who Venom was they'd go "Who?". The movie is doomed unless they get Spideman in it.
Edit: Or they spend $Texas in marketing. Or both.
Eh I think if I ask the average person who gives a fuck about going to see a Spider-Man movie most of them are going to at least have an idea of who Venom is.
Sure my 99 year old grandpa or my roommate that thinks comic book movies are "dumb kids things" are going to look at me funny but they were never buying a ticket in the first place.
There's a very good reason why 9/10 superhero movies are origin stories. Moviegoers don't know shit about supers outside few memes like "My spider-sense is tingling" or "Is it a plane, bird or superman?" level of stuff. Bit players like Venom don't even register on their Radar.
+3
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
If you asked a truly random person who Venom was they'd go "Who?". The movie is doomed unless they get Spideman in it.
Edit: Or they spend $Texas in marketing. Or both.
Eh I think if I ask the average person who gives a fuck about going to see a Spider-Man movie most of them are going to at least have an idea of who Venom is.
Sure my 99 year old grandpa or my roommate that thinks comic book movies are "dumb kids things" are going to look at me funny but they were never buying a ticket in the first place.
For a movie of the scope and budget we are discussing here to succeed, they need to bring in a fucking massive crowd.
do you think most people who go see an iron man or an "avengers" film have comics back home, or talk about comic book stuff on the regular?
You aren't marketing to the niche; you are marketing to as much of the mainstream as you can, knowing the niche is already in pocket.
This isn't to say they can't make a venom movie and make a good one; but it means that the marketing will have to be really clever and smart to draw people in to something they very likely know little to nothing about (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I mean, Venom has already been in a mainstream movie (most people just call him 'Black Spider-Man' which, I mean, sorry Miles). Most kids do have a pretty good idea who most heroes are thanks to lots of hero cartoons on air these days. And if kids are aware of certain characters, their parents are too.
I think from a story perspective you have to have Spidey there to tell the story right. It would also put more asses in seats if he features heavily in the trailer. But I would wager a guess that more folks know about B-tier characters like Venom than you would expect. Hell, ten years ago the idea of an Avengers or Ant-Man movie making bank was laughable and now we're here.
There's a very good reason why 9/10 superhero movies are origin stories. Moviegoers don't know shit about supers outside few memes like "My spider-sense is tingling" or "Is it a plane, bird or superman?" level of stuff. Bit players like Venom don't even register on their Radar.
I think you're severely underestimating the market penetration of Spider-Man.
The reason 9/10 superhero movies are origin stories is because they aren't Spider-Man. People already know who Spider-Man is, and they've known it since the 70s.
Sony just regularly has no clue what to do with their properties and no real respect for the movie going audience to understand the story behind one of the most recognized comic based characters of all time. So they thought they had to keep doing origin stories in order to make sure the audience knew who he was. The thing is though, Spider-Man had a live-action TV show on a major network when there were only a handful of channels in existence. He's had one of the longest running newspaper strips. He's a regular staple of children's TV programming in both live and animated forms.
People know who Spider-Man is. And when Venom hit in the 90s, people knew who venom was. Because since then, venom has become a staple of every Spider-Man series.
You slap Venom up on screen, you give it the Marvel pre-roll opening, and people will go see it.
To be fair, as a non-comics type who is 42, I have always known who Spiderman was but I had no idea about Venom. When he showed up in Marvel Puzzle Quest i had to look him up in the Marvel Encyclopedia that a forum secret santa got me.
I'm a lifelong Spider-Man fan, but I probably won't see a Venom movie in the theater
Because Sony is just clownshoes with their licensed properties at this point, and there is just no sense in making a Venom movie right now.
I've been tracking the production of the Dark Tower project since it was announced, and that alone worries me for the likelihood of any Sony tentpole being any good. This not a company that has a clue what it's doing.
I think they could do well, if they really work with Marvel to make it a part of the MCU and not just fire from the hip. The Marvel movies have this tempo and language to them that let's them tie together to nicely. I don't want Sony mucking with it wantonly, and neither does Marvel, likely.
Most of what I knew of Venom came from the 90's show (which has the best/easiest origin story for him btw), but I don't think he has much cultural penetration despite being Spider-man's biggest enemy for like ages. But then I don't think most people know Green Goblin is his arch nemesis either. Spider-Man has the second best rogues gallery in comics after Batman, but there is a WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE margin between them and for some reason none of his enemies seem to have half the impact of Batman's.
If I had to take a complete guess, I'd say Doctor Octopus probably is the best known?
A standalone Venom film will flop partly on it being a villain film that isn't about the Joker, but also because as FroThulhu says, there is a serious issue with quality at Sony, as in they don't give a shit at all.
Spider-Man just has a lot of goofy villians that they have to really work on updating or they seem really dumb. They had to update Green Goblin so he looked menacing and not like a Halloween store mask. They had to turn Electro into a Smurf so he didn't look like cereal mascot. They had to turn Vulture into a badass robot so he wasn't a geriatric balding man who flaps his arms as a means of transportation.
But Venom could be done well in the right hande, and that's if they learn anything from the giant success of Homecoming...
Green Goblin with a decent set of prosthetics being portrayed as a mask would look a lot better than generic sci-fi guy though.
Also while it was nice of them to try and create their own supervillain, I never want to see Macy Gray again. And I don't just mean in Spider-Man films.
Green Goblin with a decent set of prosthetics being portrayed as a mask would look a lot better than generic sci-fi guy though.
Also while it was nice of them to try and create their own supervillain, I never want to see Macy Gray again. And I don't just mean in Spider-Man films.
Green Goblin with a decent set of prosthetics being portrayed as a mask would look a lot better than generic sci-fi guy though.
Also while it was nice of them to try and create their own supervillain, I never want to see Macy Gray again. And I don't just mean in Spider-Man films.
Leprechaun 12: Back in New York
+9
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
If they used normal eyes instead of those stupid visors and just made the earns normal sized with points, and not pea soup coloured skin, that would probably look ok with a good and accompanying costume.
Most of what I knew of Venom came from the 90's show (which has the best/easiest origin story for him btw), but I don't think he has much cultural penetration despite being Spider-man's biggest enemy for like ages. But then I don't think most people know Green Goblin is his arch nemesis either. Spider-Man has the second best rogues gallery in comics after Batman, but there is a WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE margin between them and for some reason none of his enemies seem to have half the impact of Batman's.
If I had to take a complete guess, I'd say Doctor Octopus probably is the best known?
The thing is, calling Goblin and Venom his arch-nemesis is bit of a stretch. Norman Osborn died back at the end of Marvel's Silver Age (IE it's original classic run starting with the the first F4 comic and ending, well, with the death of Gwen Stacy) and was gone from the series for decades, getting resurrected in the early 90s in a widely hated story, and then no writer really knew what to do with him for another decade after that. Venom, meanwhile, was something of a flash-in-the-pan villain in the late 80s early 90s.
Doc Ock, meanwhile, was the main Spidey villain during the intervening period. I've always felt he had a better claim to the title, just due to how long he was in the limelight.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Most of what I knew of Venom came from the 90's show (which has the best/easiest origin story for him btw), but I don't think he has much cultural penetration despite being Spider-man's biggest enemy for like ages. But then I don't think most people know Green Goblin is his arch nemesis either. Spider-Man has the second best rogues gallery in comics after Batman, but there is a WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE margin between them and for some reason none of his enemies seem to have half the impact of Batman's.
If I had to take a complete guess, I'd say Doctor Octopus probably is the best known?
The thing is, calling Goblin and Venom his arch-nemesis is bit of a stretch. Norman Osborn died back at the end of Marvel's Silver Age (IE it's original classic run starting with the the first F4 comic and ending, well, with the death of Gwen Stacy) and was gone from the series for decades, getting resurrected in the early 90s in a widely hated story, and then no writer really knew what to do with him for another decade after that. Venom, meanwhile, was something of a flash-in-the-pan villain in the late 80s early 90s.
Doc Ock, meanwhile, was the main Spidey villain during the intervening period. I've always felt he had a better claim to the title, just due to how long he was in the limelight.
Doc Ock is just a more interesting villain.
+4
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
Most of what I knew of Venom came from the 90's show (which has the best/easiest origin story for him btw), but I don't think he has much cultural penetration despite being Spider-man's biggest enemy for like ages. But then I don't think most people know Green Goblin is his arch nemesis either. Spider-Man has the second best rogues gallery in comics after Batman, but there is a WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE margin between them and for some reason none of his enemies seem to have half the impact of Batman's.
If I had to take a complete guess, I'd say Doctor Octopus probably is the best known?
The thing is, calling Goblin and Venom his arch-nemesis is bit of a stretch. Norman Osborn died back at the end of Marvel's Silver Age (IE it's original classic run starting with the the first F4 comic and ending, well, with the death of Gwen Stacy) and was gone from the series for decades, getting resurrected in the early 90s in a widely hated story, and then no writer really knew what to do with him for another decade after that. Venom, meanwhile, was something of a flash-in-the-pan villain in the late 80s early 90s.
Doc Ock, meanwhile, was the main Spidey villain during the intervening period. I've always felt he had a better claim to the title, just due to how long he was in the limelight.
Doc Ock is just a more interesting villain.
I like Osborn a lot, personally, because he's one of the few supervillains whose mental illness is a genuine handicap that he feels ashamed of. I just like Doc Ock more.
I think I never took to Ock as much because he always comes across as inferior to Spider-Man, he can't keep up and it's just his jealousy that drives him. Goblin ranks higher only because he's genuinely fucked with Spider-Man's life, I'm not sure what Ock has done. He was pretty successful when he was dying and had nothing left to lose but even then he ended up losing because Spider-Man for some reason in that scenario was just better.
Despite having lost and being dead.
Granted maybe there are better stories I'm just not remembering (note I'm not saying those Goblin stories are good, just that they shaped Spider-Man's life, typically by removing someone from it).
There's a good direction you could go with the character where the mask is a cheap dime store version with some dude's crazy eyes peaking out beneath - more horror movie monster than supervillain.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I think I never took to Ock as much because he always comes across as inferior to Spider-Man, he can't keep up and it's just his jealousy that drives him. Goblin ranks higher only because he's genuinely fucked with Spider-Man's life, I'm not sure what Ock has done. He was pretty successful when he was dying and had nothing left to lose but even then he ended up losing because Spider-Man for some reason in that scenario was just better.
Despite having lost and being dead.
Granted maybe there are better stories I'm just not remembering (note I'm not saying those Goblin stories are good, just that they shaped Spider-Man's life, typically by removing someone from it).
Ock's jbeen a more constant thorn in Spidey's side than Osborn. He was behind almost all of the different iterations of the Sinister Six, he killed Captain Stacy, he dated Aunt May, he was behind the elaborate Master Planner plotline that gave us that famous moment of Spidey buried under rubble, started several gang wars, nearly beat Black Cat to death, stole Peter's body, etc, etc, etc.
Osborn's main claim to the title of arch-enemy stems from killing Gwen and fucking up Harry, while with Ock it's just that he's always there making life harder for Peter.
I think I never took to Ock as much because he always comes across as inferior to Spider-Man, he can't keep up and it's just his jealousy that drives him. Goblin ranks higher only because he's genuinely fucked with Spider-Man's life, I'm not sure what Ock has done. He was pretty successful when he was dying and had nothing left to lose but even then he ended up losing because Spider-Man for some reason in that scenario was just better.
Despite having lost and being dead.
Granted maybe there are better stories I'm just not remembering (note I'm not saying those Goblin stories are good, just that they shaped Spider-Man's life, typically by removing someone from it).
Ock's jbeen a more constant thorn in Spidey's side than Osborn. He was behind almost all of the different iterations of the Sinister Six, he killed Captain Stacy, he dated Aunt May, he was behind the elaborate Master Planner plotline that gave us that famous moment of Spidey buried under rubble, started several gang wars, nearly beat Black Cat to death, stole Peter's body, etc, etc, etc.
Osborn's main claim to the title of arch-enemy stems from killing Gwen and fucking up Harry, while with Ock it's just that he's always there making life harder for Peter.
Ock is the most formidable of Spider-Man's animal themes rogues gallery. He's versatile enough that you can do silly stories, menacing horror, battles of wit, and full-on battle royales with him as the leader of a villain gang.
The Goblins are the chief soap opera villains. They always have ties to Peter's personal life and threaten his friends and family. They tend to be the hooks for years-long arcs, while Ock generally comes and goes.
+1
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I think I never took to Ock as much because he always comes across as inferior to Spider-Man, he can't keep up and it's just his jealousy that drives him. Goblin ranks higher only because he's genuinely fucked with Spider-Man's life, I'm not sure what Ock has done. He was pretty successful when he was dying and had nothing left to lose but even then he ended up losing because Spider-Man for some reason in that scenario was just better.
Despite having lost and being dead.
Granted maybe there are better stories I'm just not remembering (note I'm not saying those Goblin stories are good, just that they shaped Spider-Man's life, typically by removing someone from it).
Ock's jbeen a more constant thorn in Spidey's side than Osborn. He was behind almost all of the different iterations of the Sinister Six, he killed Captain Stacy, he dated Aunt May, he was behind the elaborate Master Planner plotline that gave us that famous moment of Spidey buried under rubble, started several gang wars, nearly beat Black Cat to death, stole Peter's body, etc, etc, etc.
Osborn's main claim to the title of arch-enemy stems from killing Gwen and fucking up Harry, while with Ock it's just that he's always there making life harder for Peter.
Ock is the most formidable of Spider-Man's animal themes rogues gallery. He's versatile enough that you can do silly stories, menacing horror, battles of wit, and full-on battle royales with him as the leader of a villain gang.
The Goblins are the chief soap opera villains. They always have ties to Peter's personal life and threaten his friends and family. They tend to be the hooks for years-long arcs, while Ock generally comes and goes.
Although, again, Norman proper was absent from the comics for 20+ years while Ock is and always has been a staple. It's no wonder he's often the villain a lot of people first think of when they think of Spidey's rogues.
I think I never took to Ock as much because he always comes across as inferior to Spider-Man, he can't keep up and it's just his jealousy that drives him. Goblin ranks higher only because he's genuinely fucked with Spider-Man's life, I'm not sure what Ock has done. He was pretty successful when he was dying and had nothing left to lose but even then he ended up losing because Spider-Man for some reason in that scenario was just better.
Despite having lost and being dead.
Granted maybe there are better stories I'm just not remembering (note I'm not saying those Goblin stories are good, just that they shaped Spider-Man's life, typically by removing someone from it).
Ock's jbeen a more constant thorn in Spidey's side than Osborn. He was behind almost all of the different iterations of the Sinister Six, he killed Captain Stacy, he dated Aunt May, he was behind the elaborate Master Planner plotline that gave us that famous moment of Spidey buried under rubble, started several gang wars, nearly beat Black Cat to death, stole Peter's body, etc, etc, etc.
Osborn's main claim to the title of arch-enemy stems from killing Gwen and fucking up Harry, while with Ock it's just that he's always there making life harder for Peter.
Ock is the most formidable of Spider-Man's animal themes rogues gallery. He's versatile enough that you can do silly stories, menacing horror, battles of wit, and full-on battle royales with him as the leader of a villain gang.
The Goblins are the chief soap opera villains. They always have ties to Peter's personal life and threaten his friends and family. They tend to be the hooks for years-long arcs, while Ock generally comes and goes.
Although, again, Norman proper was absent from the comics for 20+ years while Ock is and always has been a staple. It's no wonder he's often the villain a lot of people first think of when they think of Spidey's rogues.
Norman yes, but there are few periods where you didn't have a Hobgoblin or Green Goblin or other Goblin running around or being teased. Characters with the mask and glider who are actually long-running "normal" characters have been staples of Spider-Man for decades.
It's the reason Hollywood likes to go with the Goblins in adaptations. The intertwining of personal life/costumed life makes for efficient storytelling.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I think I never took to Ock as much because he always comes across as inferior to Spider-Man, he can't keep up and it's just his jealousy that drives him. Goblin ranks higher only because he's genuinely fucked with Spider-Man's life, I'm not sure what Ock has done. He was pretty successful when he was dying and had nothing left to lose but even then he ended up losing because Spider-Man for some reason in that scenario was just better.
Despite having lost and being dead.
Granted maybe there are better stories I'm just not remembering (note I'm not saying those Goblin stories are good, just that they shaped Spider-Man's life, typically by removing someone from it).
Ock's jbeen a more constant thorn in Spidey's side than Osborn. He was behind almost all of the different iterations of the Sinister Six, he killed Captain Stacy, he dated Aunt May, he was behind the elaborate Master Planner plotline that gave us that famous moment of Spidey buried under rubble, started several gang wars, nearly beat Black Cat to death, stole Peter's body, etc, etc, etc.
Osborn's main claim to the title of arch-enemy stems from killing Gwen and fucking up Harry, while with Ock it's just that he's always there making life harder for Peter.
Ock is the most formidable of Spider-Man's animal themes rogues gallery. He's versatile enough that you can do silly stories, menacing horror, battles of wit, and full-on battle royales with him as the leader of a villain gang.
The Goblins are the chief soap opera villains. They always have ties to Peter's personal life and threaten his friends and family. They tend to be the hooks for years-long arcs, while Ock generally comes and goes.
Although, again, Norman proper was absent from the comics for 20+ years while Ock is and always has been a staple. It's no wonder he's often the villain a lot of people first think of when they think of Spidey's rogues.
Norman yes, but there are few periods where you didn't have a Hobgoblin or Green Goblin or other Goblin running around or being teased. Characters with the mask and glider who are actually long-running "normal" characters have been staples of Spider-Man for decades.
It's the reason Hollywood likes to go with the Goblins in adaptations. The intertwining of personal life/costumed life makes for efficient storytelling.
I'd hesitate to grant the rest of them the same sort of "arch villain" status being discussed here, though. They're part of Nomran's legacy but he's the one people mean when they say the Green Goblin is Spidey's #1 foe. They don't mean Bart Hamilton or Phil Urich.
Posts
And it's a big problem, because a core part of Danny's character is that he's really internalized a lot of cultural beliefs that are very foreign to where he is now. And occasionally the show actually tries to explore that, but it usually undercuts itself through its own lack of research.
I actually think the actors have done a good job considering the scripts they're working with, but the writers and showrunners of this show are a fucking embarrassment. They just don't seem to have given a shit.
I'll have you know I spent hours watching Golden Harvest films, and I am now a cultural master of Kung Thai Do.
Cultural appropriation is progress. If cultures didn't take from each, we'd still be a tribal society, instead of the globalist one we have now. Gunpowder is a Chinese invention. Should we stop using it because they invented it? No, because Europeans made firearms with it, and technology advanced. That is actual progress, not the illusion of it. Cultures adopting practices and technologies from one another is the lifeblood of civilization, and to say that we must all stick to our own traditions and methods only creates further division.
I'd like to know how it can be classified as progress. They aren't anything new. TV shows have been starring black men and white women for decades. The reason there hasn't been a black man in a starring role in a superhero TV show is because none of the comic studios had the kind of money to throw around that they do now, and the TV studios saw it as a massive risk, which it was. Both Luke Cage and Jessica Jones coasted in on the Marvel brand, and in the wake of Daredevil, which was extremely well-received. Had they been entirely new characters not owned by Marvel, I doubt either would have been the success they became.
I specifically said those themes would would work with either.
Luke and Danny's relationship works because Danny is from a life of privilege, but also tragedy. His wealth is his privilege, but he earned his power. Luke came from a life of poverty and violence, and he got his powers by chance. He's never really left that life, and continues to fight for people still living it. He struggles because he is a minority, and he's judged for his past actions. Both of their ethnicities play heavily into their identities. It's about the culture that both live in, and how they deal with it. Writers write what they know. The reason you don't see shows about wealthy Asian families is because the writers have no idea how a wealthy Asian family operates. That is where culture comes in, and why ethnicity is a major part of any character. They operate mostly in those social circles. If you want to change Danny to a wealthy Asian guy, fine. But then you need to change his family into a wealthy Asian one, and that can change the plot and they way scenes play out. Tradition, respect and loyalty can be a major part of Asian culture, and you have to respect that if you want to write about an Asian man and his family. Otherwise you're misrepresenting the culture.
But he has to have Peter Parker to be super interesting to me. I'm not super into Agent Venom.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
It would be interesting to have them lay the groundwork for both Eddie and Flash Venoms starting with the first Spiderman movie in a way that is not dumb or butts.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I mean, I somewhat agree, but c'mon Venom's mythos is pretty ingrained into the cultural gestalt at this point. Does the whole black suit thing really matter that much? If you asked a random person about who he is, I'm pretty sure most of them would be able to identify that he is a gooey villain who rips and tears. And fights spiderman. You can build from there, without bothering with secret wars or whatever the hell was going on in spiderman 3
Edit: Or they spend $Texas in marketing. Or both.
Eh I think if I ask the average person who gives a fuck about going to see a Spider-Man movie most of them are going to at least have an idea of who Venom is.
Sure my 99 year old grandpa or my roommate that thinks comic book movies are "dumb kids things" are going to look at me funny but they were never buying a ticket in the first place.
There's a very good reason why 9/10 superhero movies are origin stories. Moviegoers don't know shit about supers outside few memes like "My spider-sense is tingling" or "Is it a plane, bird or superman?" level of stuff. Bit players like Venom don't even register on their Radar.
For a movie of the scope and budget we are discussing here to succeed, they need to bring in a fucking massive crowd.
do you think most people who go see an iron man or an "avengers" film have comics back home, or talk about comic book stuff on the regular?
You aren't marketing to the niche; you are marketing to as much of the mainstream as you can, knowing the niche is already in pocket.
This isn't to say they can't make a venom movie and make a good one; but it means that the marketing will have to be really clever and smart to draw people in to something they very likely know little to nothing about (see: Guardians of the Galaxy).
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I think from a story perspective you have to have Spidey there to tell the story right. It would also put more asses in seats if he features heavily in the trailer. But I would wager a guess that more folks know about B-tier characters like Venom than you would expect. Hell, ten years ago the idea of an Avengers or Ant-Man movie making bank was laughable and now we're here.
Cottonmouth
Shades
NYPD (hands up don't shoot hands up dont shoot)
The Councillor
Diamondback
Guy who was sticking up Method Man
That show was really fun!!!
The reason 9/10 superhero movies are origin stories is because they aren't Spider-Man. People already know who Spider-Man is, and they've known it since the 70s.
Sony just regularly has no clue what to do with their properties and no real respect for the movie going audience to understand the story behind one of the most recognized comic based characters of all time. So they thought they had to keep doing origin stories in order to make sure the audience knew who he was. The thing is though, Spider-Man had a live-action TV show on a major network when there were only a handful of channels in existence. He's had one of the longest running newspaper strips. He's a regular staple of children's TV programming in both live and animated forms.
People know who Spider-Man is. And when Venom hit in the 90s, people knew who venom was. Because since then, venom has become a staple of every Spider-Man series.
You slap Venom up on screen, you give it the Marvel pre-roll opening, and people will go see it.
I still saw all three in theaters!
Because Sony is just clownshoes with their licensed properties at this point, and there is just no sense in making a Venom movie right now.
I've been tracking the production of the Dark Tower project since it was announced, and that alone worries me for the likelihood of any Sony tentpole being any good. This not a company that has a clue what it's doing.
If I had to take a complete guess, I'd say Doctor Octopus probably is the best known?
A standalone Venom film will flop partly on it being a villain film that isn't about the Joker, but also because as FroThulhu says, there is a serious issue with quality at Sony, as in they don't give a shit at all.
But Venom could be done well in the right hande, and that's if they learn anything from the giant success of Homecoming...
Also while it was nice of them to try and create their own supervillain, I never want to see Macy Gray again. And I don't just mean in Spider-Man films.
But I meant like an actual mask, but one that uses movie magic to fit to the face and be emotive like the Deadpool one, without the muffling.
Leprechaun 12: Back in New York
That's exactly what they actually did with Willem's Goblin, before deciding it was too goofy and going with the 'cool' mask.
If they used normal eyes instead of those stupid visors and just made the earns normal sized with points, and not pea soup coloured skin, that would probably look ok with a good and accompanying costume.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The thing is, calling Goblin and Venom his arch-nemesis is bit of a stretch. Norman Osborn died back at the end of Marvel's Silver Age (IE it's original classic run starting with the the first F4 comic and ending, well, with the death of Gwen Stacy) and was gone from the series for decades, getting resurrected in the early 90s in a widely hated story, and then no writer really knew what to do with him for another decade after that. Venom, meanwhile, was something of a flash-in-the-pan villain in the late 80s early 90s.
Doc Ock, meanwhile, was the main Spidey villain during the intervening period. I've always felt he had a better claim to the title, just due to how long he was in the limelight.
Doc Ock is just a more interesting villain.
I like Osborn a lot, personally, because he's one of the few supervillains whose mental illness is a genuine handicap that he feels ashamed of. I just like Doc Ock more.
Granted maybe there are better stories I'm just not remembering (note I'm not saying those Goblin stories are good, just that they shaped Spider-Man's life, typically by removing someone from it).
Ock's jbeen a more constant thorn in Spidey's side than Osborn. He was behind almost all of the different iterations of the Sinister Six, he killed Captain Stacy, he dated Aunt May, he was behind the elaborate Master Planner plotline that gave us that famous moment of Spidey buried under rubble, started several gang wars, nearly beat Black Cat to death, stole Peter's body, etc, etc, etc.
Osborn's main claim to the title of arch-enemy stems from killing Gwen and fucking up Harry, while with Ock it's just that he's always there making life harder for Peter.
Ock is the most formidable of Spider-Man's animal themes rogues gallery. He's versatile enough that you can do silly stories, menacing horror, battles of wit, and full-on battle royales with him as the leader of a villain gang.
The Goblins are the chief soap opera villains. They always have ties to Peter's personal life and threaten his friends and family. They tend to be the hooks for years-long arcs, while Ock generally comes and goes.
Although, again, Norman proper was absent from the comics for 20+ years while Ock is and always has been a staple. It's no wonder he's often the villain a lot of people first think of when they think of Spidey's rogues.
Norman yes, but there are few periods where you didn't have a Hobgoblin or Green Goblin or other Goblin running around or being teased. Characters with the mask and glider who are actually long-running "normal" characters have been staples of Spider-Man for decades.
It's the reason Hollywood likes to go with the Goblins in adaptations. The intertwining of personal life/costumed life makes for efficient storytelling.
I'd hesitate to grant the rest of them the same sort of "arch villain" status being discussed here, though. They're part of Nomran's legacy but he's the one people mean when they say the Green Goblin is Spidey's #1 foe. They don't mean Bart Hamilton or Phil Urich.