As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[MCU Movies] Spider-Man and Dr. Strange talk in their own threads!

1495052545588

Posts

  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Marvel originally had the characters age in real time in the comics.

    Which is how Spidey went from high school to college to having a job and how reed richards married sue storm and had two kids (that aged up until they….stopped)

    nr2rekwxi4nc.png
    BionicPenguinGiantGeek2020
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    If the creative heads at Marvel want to do another, alternate story about Tony Stark or a different Captain America or whatever they have to pay enough people to produce 22 pages of comics a month and for the actual printing and distribution thereof. Doing another movie about it is a couple hundred million dollars and the work of 2-3,000 people.

    The easiest stat I could find was that in February, 2017 Marvel published 104 unique title comics. I don't think that's a thing that needs emulating in film form. I don't need another Iron Man movie every 3 months with a rotating cast of Tonies Stark, along with 14 other characters and ensembles getting new films every couple of weeks, even if that were fiscally and logistically possible. People already complain about how many new offerings a year the MCU puts out.

    Also, the fact that there are never any real, lasting consequences or changes to characters and the sheer volume to be kept up with are why I gave up reading super hero comics decades ago.

    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
    Orca
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    If the creative heads at Marvel want to do another, alternate story about Tony Stark or a different Captain America or whatever they have to pay enough people to produce 22 pages of comics a month and for the actual printing and distribution thereof. Doing another movie about it is a couple hundred million dollars and the work of 2-3,000 people.

    The easiest stat I could find was that in February, 2017 Marvel published 104 unique title comics. I don't think that's a thing that needs emulating in film form. I don't need another Iron Man movie every 3 months with a rotating cast of Tonies Stark, along with 14 other characters and ensembles getting new films every couple of weeks, even if that were fiscally and logistically possible. People already complain about how many new offerings a year the MCU puts out.

    Also, the fact that there are never any real, lasting consequences or changes to characters and the sheer volume to be kept up with are why I gave up reading super hero comics decades ago.

    I gave up reading super hero comics decades ago, because they became a single shared universe, where I had to read 104 comics a month to get the big picture.

    Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
    Moridin889Schadenfreude
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    If the creative heads at Marvel want to do another, alternate story about Tony Stark or a different Captain America or whatever they have to pay enough people to produce 22 pages of comics a month and for the actual printing and distribution thereof. Doing another movie about it is a couple hundred million dollars and the work of 2-3,000 people.

    The easiest stat I could find was that in February, 2017 Marvel published 104 unique title comics. I don't think that's a thing that needs emulating in film form. I don't need another Iron Man movie every 3 months with a rotating cast of Tonies Stark, along with 14 other characters and ensembles getting new films every couple of weeks, even if that were fiscally and logistically possible. People already complain about how many new offerings a year the MCU puts out.

    Also, the fact that there are never any real, lasting consequences or changes to characters and the sheer volume to be kept up with are why I gave up reading super hero comics decades ago.

    I gave up reading super hero comics decades ago, because they became a single shared universe, where I had to read 104 comics a month to get the big picture.

    Which is what the MCU is, and without retiring characters you either end up with an ever-growing number of movies per year, an ever-growing gap between movies about any given character, or an endless parade of films about the same small set of characters.

    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
    OrcaMunkus BeaverMoridin889
  • LJDouglasLJDouglas Registered User regular
    edited December 2021
    Marvel originally had the characters age in real time in the comics.

    Which is how Spidey went from high school to college to having a job and how reed richards married sue storm and had two kids (that aged up until they….stopped)

    If I remember correctly there’s a fan theory that Franklin Richards, as a massively powerful reality warper is responsible for that. Subconsciously he’s stopped everyone in the Marvel Universe from ageing.

    LJDouglas on
    kime
  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    If the creative heads at Marvel want to do another, alternate story about Tony Stark or a different Captain America or whatever they have to pay enough people to produce 22 pages of comics a month and for the actual printing and distribution thereof. Doing another movie about it is a couple hundred million dollars and the work of 2-3,000 people.

    The easiest stat I could find was that in February, 2017 Marvel published 104 unique title comics. I don't think that's a thing that needs emulating in film form. I don't need another Iron Man movie every 3 months with a rotating cast of Tonies Stark, along with 14 other characters and ensembles getting new films every couple of weeks, even if that were fiscally and logistically possible. People already complain about how many new offerings a year the MCU puts out.

    Also, the fact that there are never any real, lasting consequences or changes to characters and the sheer volume to be kept up with are why I gave up reading super hero comics decades ago.

    I gave up reading super hero comics decades ago, because they became a single shared universe, where I had to read 104 comics a month to get the big picture.

    Which is what the MCU is, and without retiring characters you either end up with an ever-growing number of movies per year, an ever-growing gap between movies about any given character, or an endless parade of films about the same small set of characters.

    Watching 2-3 films and TV series a year is a much smaller ask than a dozen comics every month.

    autono-wally, erotibot300Gnome-Interruptus
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2021
    LJDouglas wrote: »
    Marvel originally had the characters age in real time in the comics.

    Which is how Spidey went from high school to college to having a job and how reed richards married sue storm and had two kids (that aged up until they….stopped)

    If I remember correctly there’s a fan theory that Franklin Richards, as a massive powerful reality warper is responsible for that. Subconsciously he’s stopped everyone in the Marvel Universe from ageing.

    That is a fan theory but the current ‘explanation’ for comics is that it has elastic time. Which is convoluted.

    Also the Richards kids were recently aged up from pre teen to teenagers.

    Munkus Beaver on
    nr2rekwxi4nc.png
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    -Loki- wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    If the creative heads at Marvel want to do another, alternate story about Tony Stark or a different Captain America or whatever they have to pay enough people to produce 22 pages of comics a month and for the actual printing and distribution thereof. Doing another movie about it is a couple hundred million dollars and the work of 2-3,000 people.

    The easiest stat I could find was that in February, 2017 Marvel published 104 unique title comics. I don't think that's a thing that needs emulating in film form. I don't need another Iron Man movie every 3 months with a rotating cast of Tonies Stark, along with 14 other characters and ensembles getting new films every couple of weeks, even if that were fiscally and logistically possible. People already complain about how many new offerings a year the MCU puts out.

    Also, the fact that there are never any real, lasting consequences or changes to characters and the sheer volume to be kept up with are why I gave up reading super hero comics decades ago.

    I gave up reading super hero comics decades ago, because they became a single shared universe, where I had to read 104 comics a month to get the big picture.

    Which is what the MCU is, and without retiring characters you either end up with an ever-growing number of movies per year, an ever-growing gap between movies about any given character, or an endless parade of films about the same small set of characters.

    Watching 2-3 films and TV series a year is a much smaller ask than a dozen comics every month.

    Sure. And presuming the overall production volume remains the same (2-3 films and a TV series or two per year), if you never retire characters you go longer and longer stretches between a film about any given character. Currently there are, by my count, between 17 and like 30 heroes or ensembles who have been introduced in a film and either had a film or have a film coming up.

    (spoilers for characters introduced in recent movies or only via casting/announcements of upcoming things)
    Stark, Banner, Rogers, Thor, T'Challa, Wilson, Danvers, Parker, Strange, AntMan, Black Widow, Moon Knight, Blade, and Shang-Chi. The Guardians, the Eternals, and the Avengers.
    Then you've got Hawkeye, Wanda, Loki, Vision, and Bucky who have had title roles in shows but not solo films (yet), and a handful of folks who have been in ensemble films but not had their own yet (or who have an upcoming series, e.g. Armor Wars), folks whose films are announced but haven't been introduced (the new Black Panther, whomever it is; Ms. Marvel; etc.).

    If none of those characters were ever retired and instead were resurrected and or/un-retired and re-cast to keep them in circulation, and assuming you rotated through characters to focus your 2-3 films a year on, you'd get one Tony Stark Iron Man film every 5 to 10 years. At a decade between movies you'd probably have to re-cast the role every time you shot one. And you couldn't very well take events of all the other films into account in each new one since the characters aren't aging or changing during the decade that passes between their appearances. You couldn't even flashback to previous films' events since the actors don't match up anymore.

    My point with the 104 comics a month thing was that in comics, Marvel can keep every character going forever. They can tell a story about every one of them, every month, year after year. And they can soft-reboot them every time they change writers and the new person ignores everything the last writer did, and comic readers are used to that shit and just accept it (with the usual level of grumbling). Movies can't keep telling stories about the same characters because there are too many of them and not enough movies to go around. So if they start in on the reboots of individual characters, even 'just' by replacing the actor, to keep them around they're going to bloat the roster without bloating the number of stories about each member of the roster. At which point you're going a decade between films and every one may as well be a standalone reboot of that character.

    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
    Orca
  • Snake GandhiSnake Gandhi Des Moines, IARegistered User regular
    I don't see a fundamental difference between what the MCU is doing vs what soap operas have been doing since before television and what lots of other things have managed to pull off through the years. The idea of characters getting older and leaving the 'show' while new ones take their place is nothing new.

    XBL: That Stone Dude
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    I don't see a fundamental difference between what the MCU is doing vs what soap operas have been doing since before television and what lots of other things have managed to pull off through the years. The idea of characters getting older and leaving the 'show' while new ones take their place is nothing new.

    No, but given the comics industry's outright refusal to let go of any cash crop, it's a novel thing with the movies.

    nr2rekwxi4nc.png
    Doctor DetroitSmaug6Moridin889Gnizmo
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    Comics do similar stuff all the time; they often don’t even kill a character, just find a reason to shuffle’em off ‘stage’ for a while.

    Tbh asking whether or how to recast a film character is asking the wrong question; if the story you want to tell is good then recast the character and no one cares. We already do this all the time with spider-man and Batman and nobody like, struggles to understand what’s happening.

    Hell in ten years when somebody pitches a new iron man script they can just call it ‘Ultimate Iron Man’ and off you go.

    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    They are working on a new ironman already. But it will be a legacy character and not like, a recast Tony Stark.

    nr2rekwxi4nc.png
  • WiseManTobesWiseManTobes Registered User regular
    Reznik wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Retiring and accepting the aging of characters makes them feel more real and grounded in a way franchises have never really taken the opportunity to do organically.

    Like, seeing Bruce Banner in the promos for She-Hulk being greying and middle-age kinda sells all the bullshit he’s been through. He’s got the heft of years and hard experience. The last thing I want to see is Marvel trying to convince us all these visibly aging characters are invulnerable Olympians (Eternals excluded).

    Well Spiderman has been a teen since the early 60s, Captain america since the 40s, and so on, this characters ARE ageless olympians, in the sense that they havent been tied to a single story or timeline, they have been changing with every new writter. That has made those characters famous and popular enough to become what they are, tying them to a single story, a single actor, and getting rid of them is super stupid. The MCU will have to do a universe reset sooner or later, just like comics did everytime they wanted to settle all of their properties into a single, shared universe.

    Marvel has literally thousands of characters to work with. Why is it bad to retire the heavy hitters and lift up some new names into the public consciousness?

    What's funny is this is how we got the MCU in the first place, No access to the usual characters meant iron man and thor and such got to become the heavy hitters that we know them as now. But when it all started they were the risky characters being brought into the frontline

    Steam! Battlenet:Wisemantobes#1508
    Warlock82Munkus BeaverOrcaMcFodderFencingsaxPailryderMoridin889Capt HowdyGnome-Interruptus
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Reznik wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Retiring and accepting the aging of characters makes them feel more real and grounded in a way franchises have never really taken the opportunity to do organically.

    Like, seeing Bruce Banner in the promos for She-Hulk being greying and middle-age kinda sells all the bullshit he’s been through. He’s got the heft of years and hard experience. The last thing I want to see is Marvel trying to convince us all these visibly aging characters are invulnerable Olympians (Eternals excluded).

    Well Spiderman has been a teen since the early 60s, Captain america since the 40s, and so on, this characters ARE ageless olympians, in the sense that they havent been tied to a single story or timeline, they have been changing with every new writter. That has made those characters famous and popular enough to become what they are, tying them to a single story, a single actor, and getting rid of them is super stupid. The MCU will have to do a universe reset sooner or later, just like comics did everytime they wanted to settle all of their properties into a single, shared universe.

    Marvel has literally thousands of characters to work with. Why is it bad to retire the heavy hitters and lift up some new names into the public consciousness?

    What's funny is this is how we got the MCU in the first place, No access to the usual characters meant iron man and thor and such got to become the heavy hitters that we know them as now. But when it all started they were the risky characters being brought into the frontline

    Way back in the 90s, I remember thinking it was funny that the Avengers were - in universe - S tier heroes, but in reality they were D tier (aside from like, Captain America which was a household name)

    nr2rekwxi4nc.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    Eh iron man was a Big Deal in comics for a while before the film came out; Thor less so but still a major character.

    Pushing the avengers may have been a reaction to selling the x-men rights but I kinda doubt it

    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Thor was D, Hawkeye was D

    Ironman was like, B tier. Hulk A tier, F4 A tier, X-Men S tier, Captain America A tier

    nr2rekwxi4nc.png
    OrcaWarlock82Gnome-Interruptus
  • Warlock82Warlock82 Never pet a burning dog Registered User regular
    Thor was D, Hawkeye was D

    Ironman was like, B tier. Hulk A tier, F4 A tier, X-Men S tier, Captain America A tier

    Yeah, Hulk at least had that old TV show to make him semi popular (in which I recently learned apparently they renamed "Bruce Banner" because the producers thought "Bruce" sounded too gay... lol). But yeah, I remember for the longest time it was like, X-men and Spiderman were the two huge ones (honestly Spiderman may have been even bigger than X-men). And I do remember Fantastic Four and Captain America being decently big too, though obviously no where near as popular.

    I kinda wonder how Daredevil ranked at the time, considering his rights were sold off for awhile too. I still kind of remember hearing about Marvel trying to make the MCU stuff initially and wondering how they were going to sell a bunch of unpopular characters. But I really think it worked out well for them. I've said it before but I feel like the less popular stuff gives you room to innovate and make cooler stories.

    Switch: 2143-7130-1359 | 3DS: 4983-4927-6699 | Steam: warlock82 | PSN: Warlock2282
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    Thor was D, Hawkeye was D

    Ironman was like, B tier. Hulk A tier, F4 A tier, X-Men S tier, Captain America A tier

    Captain America was B tier at best then because I knew of the Fantastic Four at least vaguely, and had watched the Hulk and X-men. Ironman, Thor, and captain America I had never heard of.

  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Orca wrote: »
    Thor was D, Hawkeye was D

    Ironman was like, B tier. Hulk A tier, F4 A tier, X-Men S tier, Captain America A tier

    Captain America was B tier at best then because I knew of the Fantastic Four at least vaguely, and had watched the Hulk and X-men. Ironman, Thor, and captain America I had never heard of.

    Captain America had a shitty movie and a shitty video game out in the 90s. He was more well known just as an idiom than a character. “Take a look at captain America over here”

    nr2rekwxi4nc.png
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Warlock82 wrote: »
    Thor was D, Hawkeye was D

    Ironman was like, B tier. Hulk A tier, F4 A tier, X-Men S tier, Captain America A tier

    Yeah, Hulk at least had that old TV show to make him semi popular (in which I recently learned apparently they renamed "Bruce Banner" because the producers thought "Bruce" sounded too gay... lol). But yeah, I remember for the longest time it was like, X-men and Spiderman were the two huge ones (honestly Spiderman may have been even bigger than X-men). And I do remember Fantastic Four and Captain America being decently big too, though obviously no where near as popular.

    I kinda wonder how Daredevil ranked at the time, considering his rights were sold off for awhile too. I still kind of remember hearing about Marvel trying to make the MCU stuff initially and wondering how they were going to sell a bunch of unpopular characters. But I really think it worked out well for them. I've said it before but I feel like the less popular stuff gives you room to innovate and make cooler stories.

    Spider-man, honestly, was S+ tier. He was their cash cow, and is why they sold the rights.

    Daredevil would be A at best, but more than likely a solid B. He didn’t have much of a multimedia presence and wasn’t a household name.

    nr2rekwxi4nc.png
    OrcaWarlock82KanakimeFencingsaxMoridin889Joolander
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    Spider-Man had a bunch of TV shows. He’s up there in my mind with the x-men for visibility in that age range.

    Warlock82MarathonShadowfireKanakimeFencingsaxPailryderbrynhrtmnMoridin889GiantGeek2020
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Orca wrote: »
    Spider-Man had a bunch of TV shows. He’s up there in my mind with the x-men for visibility in that age range.

    Yeah, Spider-man is the cream of the crop and the X-men are right behind him. I put Spider-man over the X-men simply because I think the numbers support it.

    nr2rekwxi4nc.png
    Warlock82Moridin889
  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    They are working on a new ironman already. But it will be a legacy character and not like, a recast Tony Stark.

    Most likely is that the Disney+ Ironheart series sets up Riri Williams to take the mantle for the fourth movie, likely with RDJ as her suits AI.

    Kayne Red RobeGiantGeek2020
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2021
    spider-man is definitely their biggest cash cow; it's why even in the comics they refuse to ever sideline him no matter how awkward it gets (i.e. they obviously wanna push miles morales but Original Flavor Spider-Man is still around)

    it's also why sony are desperate to make their spider-franchises work no matter how awkward and dumb they seem

    by the time the iron man film came out civil war and its attendant series were like three or four years old; iron man had been one of their headline characters for a while

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Civil War was early aughts, and even then it wasn't like, mainstream. I was referring to the 90s because there was a huge comic boom in the late 80s early 90s and that's right before Marvel decided it was time to start selling film rights to stay above water.
    S: Big cash cow, multiple multimedia properties, household name, and kids wanna be them on the playground
    A: Some multimedia properties, household name-ish, some kids wanna be them on the playground but they might not fight over it
    B: One or two multimedia properties, relatively well known by nerds, there might be a kid that wants to be them on the playground
    C: Around for some big team-ups, the hangers-on that are kind of ancillary to everything else, you might recognize them but be unable to place them, nobody wants to be them on the playground except the weird kid
    D: Not super well known stories outside of comic book fans; not even the weird kid wants to be them
    E: Guardians of the Galaxy

    nr2rekwxi4nc.png
    Xaquin
  • BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    I just want to still be alive when the X-Men return. I really want to see a badass Xavier.

    And I want to be alive to shred everyone's casting ideas for Chuck.

    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
  • McFodderMcFodder Registered User regular
    I mean clearly it's Vin Diesel right?

    Superheroes gotta be jacked, he's got the haircut, and he won't sound that much like Groot.

    Plus, X-Men are kinda like family.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-3944-9431-0318
    PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
    PailryderKayne Red RobeFoolOnTheHillJoolanderGiantGeek2020chrono_travellerGnome-Interruptus
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Eh iron man was a Big Deal in comics for a while before the film came out; Thor less so but still a major character.

    Pushing the avengers may have been a reaction to selling the x-men rights but I kinda doubt it

    They sold off the F4, X-Men (which included basically everything that started with X), and Spiderman. I haven't really kept up with the comic setting, but I'm not sure what other brand name teams they had available to work with at that point. The Avengers did have an arcade game back in the day at least.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    Fencingsax
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Marvel pushing the Avengers and making it their biggest seller was part of the Disassembled storyline where Bendis (then their top writer) took over the book and filled the team with big names like Spider-Man and Wolverine (and his pet characters). Avengers solo books got relaunched as well. Iron Man got Warren Ellis and Adi Granov doing the Extremis storyline, Cap got Brubaker and Steve Epting. It was a concerted effort to raise the profile of Avengers books and their solo titles, and it worked! Stick your top talent on a book, give it a massive marketing push and make some big talking points (Bucky's back! An Avenger will die!) and start making your line-wide crossovers about them and not, say, the X-Men, and hey presto there's your new headline act.

    I dunno if you can trace Marvel pushing the Avengers and giving them the spotlight over the X-Men down to the rights thing (at least back then - them pushing the Inhumans instead of the X-Men more recently is almost certainly down to that), but just before Disassembled they'd had Grant Morrison and Joss Whedon on X-Men books, and alongside the Avengers relaunch Chris Claremont was put back on Uncanny for a few years, so it's not like the mutant line was left fallow. It just wasn't doing as well as it had in the past. I'm not sure it really matters. Even when the Avengers book was selling a lot in the wake of Disassambled the number of people in the street who would have had a clue who Iron Man was would have been small.

    FencingsaxMunkus Beaver
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited December 2021
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Eh iron man was a Big Deal in comics for a while before the film came out; Thor less so but still a major character.

    Pushing the avengers may have been a reaction to selling the x-men rights but I kinda doubt it

    They sold off the F4, X-Men (which included basically everything that started with X), and Spiderman. I haven't really kept up with the comic setting, but I'm not sure what other brand name teams they had available to work with at that point. The Avengers did have an arcade game back in the day at least.

    They sold basically everything they could get away with, which is how I imagine Daredevil got sold as well

    Fencingsax on
  • lunchbox12682lunchbox12682 MinnesotaRegistered User regular
    And as much as I love Daredevil (see picture), he was probably C level popularity (at best) with a small, but A level fanbase.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Daredevil was popular enough to have his own solo book for years and years even though he's not really on any big teams (until Bendis put him on the Avengers). It's a smaller fanbase but in terms of popularity and cultural recognition he's a solid B, I think.

    Thinking about it, Daredevil has had maybe more absolutely classic runs than any other Marvel character. Partly, I think, because his book is usually kept far aware from crossovers and its creators are allowed to do their thing.

  • AlphaRomeroAlphaRomero Registered User regular
    Punisher probably had decent name recognition. He had his own arcade game as well in the 90s, and it had Fury as 2nd player.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited December 2021
    I mean, I imagine that Marvel was able to sell Daredevil because he was like BatmanTM

    Fencingsax on
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    And a film all the way back in 1989! He even had two solo books on the go in the eighties, something very few Marvel characters have ever managed.

    The Punisher is a handy character for movies and adaptations because he doesn't need any other part of the Marvel universe to work, or even any suspension of disbelief over powers or his origin. He's just an insane, scary war veteran killing criminals.

    FencingsaxSmaug6GiantGeek2020Gnome-Interruptus
  • Warlock82Warlock82 Never pet a burning dog Registered User regular
    edited December 2021
    it's also why sony are desperate to make their spider-franchises work no matter how awkward and dumb they seem

    I still legit cannot believe they are trying to make a Kraven the Hunter movie. Literally of all the Spiderman characters you could pick for a solo film, seriously? I mean, Morbius was dumb but at least he *kind* of works in a "he's sort of a vampire so ok" way.

    Like, Sony... Black Cat is RIGHT THERE.....

    Warlock82 on
    Switch: 2143-7130-1359 | 3DS: 4983-4927-6699 | Steam: warlock82 | PSN: Warlock2282
    cj iwakuraAtlas in Chains
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Daredevil was popular enough to have his own solo book for years and years even though he's not really on any big teams (until Bendis put him on the Avengers). It's a smaller fanbase but in terms of popularity and cultural recognition he's a solid B, I think.

    Thinking about it, Daredevil has had maybe more absolutely classic runs than any other Marvel character. Partly, I think, because his book is usually kept far aware from crossovers and its creators are allowed to do their thing.

    Daredevil is one of Marvel's prestige characters and has been going on two+ decades. It's where they put very popular writers/artists to create a lot of their more mature content. When you think about the people that have had their hands on that book it's pretty crazy - Miller, Sienkiewicz, Smith, Bendis, Zdarsky, Nocenti, etc.

  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Daredevil also gets you Kingpin, arguably the more important character.

    nr2rekwxi4nc.png
    Warlock82Kayne Red Robe
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Warlock82 wrote: »
    it's also why sony are desperate to make their spider-franchises work no matter how awkward and dumb they seem

    I still legit cannot believe they are trying to make a Kraven the Hunter movie. Literally of all the Spiderman characters you could pick for a solo film, seriously? I mean, Morbius was dumb but at least he *kind* of works in a "he's sort of a vampire so ok" way.

    Like, Sony... Black Cat is RIGHT THERE.....

    ...and also kind of a carbon copy of Catwoman.

    I mean, I like Black Cat and how she interacts with Spidey, but yeah, most people would assume she's a ripoff.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
    BionicPenguinDoctor DetroitMoridin889FoolOnTheHillFencingsax
  • Warlock82Warlock82 Never pet a burning dog Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Warlock82 wrote: »
    it's also why sony are desperate to make their spider-franchises work no matter how awkward and dumb they seem

    I still legit cannot believe they are trying to make a Kraven the Hunter movie. Literally of all the Spiderman characters you could pick for a solo film, seriously? I mean, Morbius was dumb but at least he *kind* of works in a "he's sort of a vampire so ok" way.

    Like, Sony... Black Cat is RIGHT THERE.....

    ...and also kind of a carbon copy of Catwoman.

    I mean, I like Black Cat and how she interacts with Spidey, but yeah, most people would assume she's a ripoff.

    *shrug* She's a well established character, I doubt anyone would *really* care. I mean, Iron Man is basically fancy suit Batman :P

    Switch: 2143-7130-1359 | 3DS: 4983-4927-6699 | Steam: warlock82 | PSN: Warlock2282
Sign In or Register to comment.