Continuity or Not?

I LOVE the continuity in these films now! It's a comic fans DREAM! The comics I love brought to life!

I like the films to be as stand alone movies. But I do like the Easter egg after the credits to gear me up for whatever is coming next. Continuity is always good.

NO HAWKEYE AND NO MS. MARVEL IN THE FIRST AVENGER MOVIE!!! THIS IS NOT THE ULTIMATE UNIVERSE!!! (EXCEPT FOR FURY)
Kevin Fiege: No, I wouldn't say that it is going to be any more "The Ultimates" than it would be, depending on how nerdy you want to get sort of the classic 616 continuity. But it will be clearly the Nick Fury that we have introduced, which is right out of there. I think there will be some elements and "The Ultimates" is a great starting point because ten years ago publishing said, "Hey what if we started a new? How do we reintroduce these characters?" I think they did a very god job. The storylines and some of the tonality of "The Ultimates" I think isn't quite what we'll be doing. But there are a lot of good ideas in there.

Which goes to say they are hopefully sticking to the original story. With some tweeks? For instance...

2012
AVENGERS 1- (Introduce Wasp, Ant Man, Rick Jones,Mandriods)
VILLAINS: Loki, Hulk, Namor.
(MARVEL DOESN'T OWN THE RIGHTS TO THE SUPER SKRULL, SO I DOUBT THEY WILL INTRODUCE THEM AT ALL?) **POSSIBLE INTRO OF HYDRA AFTER CREDITS.

IRONMAN 3 - (INTRODUCE HAWKEYE)***
Villains: The Manderin, Fin Fag Foom.
(SHOW COSMIC CUBE OR INFINITY GEMS AFTER CREDITS)

2013
ANTMAN - The script has been written by Wright and Joe Cornish, who plan to include Henry Pym and Scott Lang as major characters, with Pym as Ant-Man and a flashforward to Lang as Ant-Man's successor. (INTRO CASSIE LANG AND VISION)
VILLAIN: EGGHEAD,ULTRON
(AFTER CREDITS PYM BECOMES GIANT MAN)

RETURN OF THE HULK - (INTRODUCE CAPTAIN
MAR-VELL, MS. MARVEL!)
VILLAINS: THE LEADER,
U-FOES.

I love what Marvel Studios is doing by linking their movies. As far as the story being original or not? Well, I can go with either. I loved the fact that Spider-man was almost right from he comics (except for the Goblin's Power Ranger suit and MJ not being hot) and it was a dream come true! I remember as a child watching the Spider-man TV series and thinking "God, when will they make this right, like they did with Superman in the movies). So I was very happy when the SM movie came out and though, there were really no surprises, I was happy to see it all re-told in live action.

But now that I have seen a few renditions of my favorite heroes and seen what Hollywood can do with some of my favorite characters, I have arrived at this conclusion. It is not as important to me whether or not they are 100% faithful to the the original story. Provided that they don't make a complete mockery of the characters, what's most important to me is that they tell a good story. I know that sounds vague, so I will elaborate. In telling a story, they must establish a human connection to the main characters (in essence, why should we give a fcuk). They must tell a compelling story that will have us clinging to the edge of our seats and they must keep us always wanting more. Provided they do that, I could care less if it was just like the comics or if some of the supporting characters got changed around a bit to fit the story. Give me good movies that will keep me super geek-ed out and salivating for more.

ELLEN PAIGE AS KITTY...
X-MEN LAST STAND



KATIE STUART AS KITTY...
X- MEN UNITED

What Marvel is doing with their movies is amazing, but DC should probably wait another decade or so before thinking of a Justice League film. They need to establish some of their lesser known characters first.

I want continuity with actors and not an alternate movie universes coming at the same.

The "ESSENCE" of the characters is what needs to remain intact. The surrounding to not say supporting details can change however they want IMO. What made me a fan of the comics is not specifically what happened when and to who, it's who's who and what are they about fundamentally. That says alot about what they can and should do as characters which already lays out a certain plot range that directors should not deviate from. Continuity is interesting and entertaining but not manditory IMHO.

Godzillafart- I will completely agree with your Bale comment. Even though most Bale fans will come back at you saying that he is way more physically powerful looking than Keaton ever was. Personally, Keaton sold the "essence" of Batman and even more so Bruce Wayne than Bale ever could, and that WITHOUT the muscle mass (and somewhat good looks) of Bale. Presence and essence are way more important than Mass IMO. Keaton "felt" stronger than he looked and i was completely convinced. "Pictures" of him as Bruce or Batman wouldn't have convinced me but his performance made the whole difference IMO. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a presence is worth a million.

Ok, I have to jump in for a sec. RDJ does a good "version" of Tony Stark, but when was Tony that manic and comedic in the comics? Is that really part of his "essence"? I've seen him be arrogant, but not overly sarcastic like in these films. Don't get me wrong, it works for the movie, but I would not say that his portrayal captured the essence because he is quite different from the comics in a contemporary kind of way.

What was the article you read?

You have to remember too that sometimes comics aren't even true to the source material. Characters origins will be retconned into a more modern setting. Tony Stark was originally injured during WWII (I think) then it was retconned into Vietnam, then again into the Gulf War. Changes are a necessity in films because times change. Additionally, some things work on paper that just look bad in real life. I, for one, didn't mind the leather costumes from X-Men because I thought that all of them running around in spandex or lycra would have looked ridiculous. The fabric doesn't function and fit in real life the way it does in the comics. Spiderman was able to make it work, but even they changed things a little. I am of the school of thought that so long as the major things stay the same, personality, ideology, morals (or lack thereof), and general appearance, it should work. That is part of why Spiderman 3 failed with fans, I think. They took away from the fundamentals of Peter by making someone else responsible for Ben's death. They made the general appearance of Eddie Brock/Venom too scrawny and changed his personality. And they made Mary Jane just too whiny.

If I'm wrong about the Iron Man retcon, I'm sorry. I'm not a HUGE Iron Man fan, but I loved both films and have read some of the story arcs, though not all.

I don't understand why my first post keeps reposting at different times.

TOM JANE IS THE PUNISHER!!!

Of course, the marvel movies (the Marvel Studios ones, because though I know this holds for the others as well, but I don't know what their numbers are) are actually considered another universe within Marvel Continuity... they're "Earth 199999" according to the Marvel Handbook, so it really doesn't matter what minor changes they make, because it's an alternate universe. (with that being said, I'd like it to be at least somewhat similar...)

well as long as the film has a great story,casting/acting,effects- blend of practical, nad cgi where its needed then i think any film will be great. i also pay attention to detail and love a smart film,that is dark,and serious. i think continuity is important in some areas like beast being human in x-2 then hes blue and furry in x-3 whats up with that i cant stand things like that. i also hate when they change characters to much like deadpool/blob. i also hate when thing are left unfinished and then they decide not to do a sequel like the incredible hulk, they build leader up and the hes just out there.and x-men 3 what was going on with the professor,and magneto? i like when they clear up things like these and tie it all together. as for changing race,and gender and things like that they need to do that sometimes but not for certain characters,like captain america,wolverine,and the x-men,spiderman,namor,black panther,luke cage,and some others because thats what make them who they are if they changed them to much they would be someone very different and nothing that we grew to love. but there are some that are just ment to be changed like kingpin in daredevil that was perfect,and nickfury was as well. i say for the most part they need to stay very close to the source material,build great story,casting,and effects,and do not change big name characters too much or they will fail every time.and thomas jane was a awesome punisher,he was smart about what he was doing and ruthless. i also would love to see eric banna as namor,a inhumans film, edward norton as bruce banner/hulk,and leader in the avengers,and x-men rights handed back to marvel for a remake,and district-x,new x-men grant morrisons run,and a generation-x. peace.

Tom Jane was a whiny baby as the Punisher. Ray Stevenson was far better for the role, his movie was just not good(and it didn't try to be either). Stevenson would end Jane.

LEEE777 - DC has always been cool? Thomas Jane is the Punisher? The second one is somewhat less ridiculous than the first, but still...

Shaman - Thomas Jane had a better opportunity to act in his film, but Stevenson was a better Punisher because he has better presence. That guy walks in and you believe he is going to kill everyone in the room. His bigger build helps a lot. Neither movies was worthy, but I'd pick Stevenson any day. Jane should play another hero someday, though.

Oh, and I'd have to review my old comics, but I think the transition into the Punisher was pretty instantaneous. Frank Castle is not like other people who would have taken a more normal psychological course. That's why he became the Punisher.