Monday, April 24, 2006

The 2006 "Ultimate Avengers" Animated Flick

Was watching "Thunder Over Louisville" the other night, as I usually do every year on the tube. (And for those who aren't familiar with it, it's a tremendous fireworks display that's held on the bridge that links Kentucky and Indiana.) After it was over I turned the channels looking for something else and discovered that the Cartoon Network was showing the 2006 Ultimate Avengers animated flick. Although I had missed an hour of it, I went ahead and watched the rest.

And even tho' the artwork was passable and the story alright, as usual with any movie adaptation of comic book characters, there were parts which peaved me with unneccisary changes to the characters themselves.

The most obvious one was changing Nick Fury's race from white to black. "Why" producers deem it a necessity to to destroy 40 years of continuity in a comic book is beyond my understanding. Would they make The Black Panther, white? Or, "Black Goliath"? Why not just include a black hero in the group? I mean, they've already screwed up any original storylines anyway, so say if The Black Panther had been added, what difference would it had made to the movie? I just don't get it on such changes. Is there no one there from Marvel Comics that advises those who made the flick? Does no one at Marvel ever look at the actual history of their characters anymore? wasn't just that particular change.

Besides screwing around with Thor's costume, they made him a boozer, holding a keg of meade under an arm and constantly beltin' them down. So now we have an Asguardian god that's an alcoholic. Great example for the kids, there, guys.

Then then made Henry Pym (aka "Antman", "Giantman", whatever) some smart aleck character. Pym was originally a extremely serious scientist attempting to find ways to help mankind. Not some college drop out with a bad attitude.

Then they revealed "Iron Man's" identity (as Tony Stark) to the rest of The Avengers. This was always an interesting part of Avengers storylines that the guy that was getting "the tab" on all of the team's expensives, was actually one of their members and no one knew it but he. Once again, another 40 years of continuity down the toilet.'ve made some interesting live-action flicks of your heroes in the past few years...but frankly, this one sucked. I think you need to be watching what DC's done with their characters. They may not be exactly as they are in the comics, but at least they have something called personality.


At 8:55 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure if you realize or not, but this movie is not based on the "Avengers" comics. It's based on the "Ultimate" comics. So none of the history/continuity you mention is really a factor in it.

That being said, the movie didn't really stick to the history/continuity of the Ultimates either, so some of your critisisms still apply.

At 4:22 PM , Blogger ~D.Puck' said...

Glad you corrected me on this Justin. I must admit, I have never read The Ultimate Avengers series. Guess I'm just such a purist when it comes to my favorite Marvel characters being portrayed as Stan & Jack originally intended them to be that sometimes my critique may seem a bit harsh to some. But, I still stand my my views that such changes are entirely unnecessary to continue to destroy the previous years' continuity.

At 6:33 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't know the movie was on or I would have watched it but in The Ultimates Nick is black and Thor is maybe psychotic and Hank is riding on a reputation that he really doesn't deserve. Briefly he married Jan who is an oriental mutant who can shrink and grow wings. Well he revealed to the government that he created a substance that gave her those powers and got a grant to improve on this. Finally he used her DNA to create the Giant-Man serum. And finally, even in the regular Avengers, everyone in the group has known Tony is Iron Man for a couple of decades. Anyway, I do recommend The Ultimates.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home