Scarlet Witch - Fox's X-Men or Disney/Marvel's Avengers?

[Duggy]

1.
Does anyone actually know who has the rights to her? (I don't just
mean here... I mean do even the studios?)

2.
Do people here think she'd be better in an X-Men series film or an
Avengers series film?

3.
Which other characters are in the "grey" area between franchises?

===
= DUG.
===

[iarwain]

I've never been a big fan of the Scarlet Witch. Her "probability
altering" powers are a little dull, and vague.
There are only two things interesting about her:
1) She's Magneto's daughter.
2) Her relationship with the Vision

So that doesn't help at all, does it?
Personally, I'd rather see her with the Avengers, because I'd like to
see the Vision storyline.

[Duggy]

On May 18, 7:06 am, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've never been a big fan of the Scarlet Witch.  Her "probability
> altering" powers are a little dull, and vague.
> There are only two things interesting about her:
> 1)  She's Magneto's daughter.
> 2)  Her relationship with the Vision

> So that doesn't help at all, does it?

No, because one is X-Men, one is Avengers.

> Personally, I'd rather see her with the Avengers, because I'd like to
> see the Vision storyline.

That would mean adding Vision, too. So that's 2 new characters and a
romance... added to an already full film.

I like the idea, but it does seem unlikely (although, overfilling
sequels does seem to be the trend with Superhero films.)

===
= DUG.
===

[Tim Turnip]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:06:47 -0700 (PDT), iarwain
<iarw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I've never been a big fan of the Scarlet Witch. Her "probability
>altering" powers are a little dull, and vague.
>There are only two things interesting about her:
>1) She's Magneto's daughter.
>2) Her relationship with the Vision
>
>So that doesn't help at all, does it?

She was first introduced in the Avengers with the points of interest
of:
(1) She's a magical villainess turning down the path of good.
(2) She's the sister of a hotheaded over-protective speedster.

While those are a little shopworn, they're better than the two you
mentioned, and I could see them being used as the foundation for a
film character.

Also frankly, any blank-slate character is good for the movies because
they can fill in the blanks.

>Personally, I'd rather see her with the Avengers, because I'd like to
>see the Vision storyline.

Me too, if only because she has no real connection with the X-Men
apart from Magneto. But you gotta have Quicksilver in there also.

[iarwain]

> (1)  She's a magical villainess turning down the path of good.
> (2)  She's the sister of a hotheaded over-protective speedster.

I don't find #1 particularly interesting, really, and they're already
running that storyline with Black Widow.
As for Quicksilver, his hotheaded overprotection is a big part of the
Vision/Scarlet With story, so yeah, I'd definitely want to see Pietro
if we see Wanda.

I definitely associate her more with the Avengers than with the X-Men
in my mind, but Duggy says in another thread:
"She was name checked on one of the 'mutant' lists in the X-Men
movies, and Quicksilver was in X-Men: Origins".
If that's true, it sounds like they would probably belong to Fox.
Or at least make for an interesting court battle.

[Duggy]

On May 18, 8:54 pm, Tim Turnip <timtur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:06:47 -0700 (PDT), iarwain
>

> <iarwai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I've never been a big fan of the Scarlet Witch.  Her "probability
> >altering" powers are a little dull, and vague.
> >There are only two things interesting about her:
> >1)  She's Magneto's daughter.
> >2)  Her relationship with the Vision
>
> >So that doesn't help at all, does it?
>
> She was first introduced in the Avengers with the points of interest
> of:
> (1)  She's a magical villainess turning down the path of good.
> (2)  She's the sister of a hotheaded over-protective speedster.
>
> While those are a little shopworn, they're better than the two you
> mentioned, and I could see them being used as the foundation for a
> film character.

1 - Works better if she appears as a villainess in something first
(say one of the solo films.)
2 - Not sure how that works in a film at all.

> Also frankly, any blank-slate character is good for the movies because
> they can fill in the blanks.

True, which is why it's better not to go for one.

> >Personally, I'd rather see her with the Avengers, because I'd like to
> >see the Vision storyline.
> Me too, if only because she has no real connection with the X-Men
> apart from Magneto.  But you gotta have Quicksilver in there also.

So 3 characters.

===
= DUG.
===

[Lilith]

Being the daughter of Magneto also firmly puts her in the X-Men court
since Magneto is a prime feature of the X-Movie-verse.

--
Lilith

[Duggy]

On May 19, 3:43 pm, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Being the daughter of Magneto also firmly puts her in the X-Men court
> since Magneto is a prime feature of the X-Movie-verse.

And with the X-Men prequels a young Scarlet Witch makes sense for a
Magneto arc.

===
= DUG.
===

[Oberon]

They could 'tease' the twins appearance in small sequences in IronMan/
CaptainA/Thor/Hulk features that come out before Avengers 2.
For example a short scene where Tony/whoever is touring "phase 2"
scenarios and we see the twins in the background with someone, Nick
Fury, Maria Hill saying "They're the children of a high powered Mutant
terrorist who we brought over to our side"
Follow that up with scenes in subsequent movies where Cap is
training them, or they're on a field team with Thor or Hulk etc.
At the same time Dr. Pym can be introduced, literally inventing
Ultron, scene in Hulk where Banner is introduced to Pym, his assistant
Janet and they're working on the robot.
Stuff like that?

[Duggy]

On May 21, 7:28 am, Oberon <Ol3e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> They could 'tease' the twins appearance in small sequences in IronMan/
> CaptainA/Thor/Hulk features that come out before Avengers 2.
> For example a short scene where Tony/whoever is touring "phase 2"
> scenarios and we see the twins in the background with someone, Nick
> Fury, Maria Hill saying "They're the children of a high powered Mutant
> terrorist who we brought over to our side"

Small references lead to problems later. A small role for Henry McCoy
meant recasting in X-Men 3, made him a new mutant, etc. Made First
Class harder to justify.

So, you cast the twins. What age? What if The Avengers works better
with them older or younger? What if the bring of them to our side
works better as a The Avengers storyline and you've already blown it
in one line?

These things have to be done very carefully. Note that they go out of
their way not to name Gordon's young daughter in The Dark Knight.

>   Follow that up with scenes in subsequent movies where Cap is
> training them, or they're on a field team with Thor or Hulk etc.

Spending a lot of time on 2 character at the expense of other films.

> At the same time Dr. Pym can be introduced,

So you're axing the Ant-Man film mid production?

> Stuff like that?

Only if done carefully and prepared in advance... there hasn't been
much of that yet, just a lot of luck.

===
= DUG.
===

[Oberon]

Good points all, but no I'm not saying axe the Ant Man movie - who
knows if it really will happen, since its been at least 2 years they
talked about it.

But would it hurt to cross pollinate Antman with other movies in
process? I actually heard that "an idea" for a new Hulk movie would
feature Widow and Hawkeye - and Antman. The reasoning being that
perhaps Widow, Hawkeye, others aren't ready to star in their own
picture - but would make great featured characters or players in
others.

If we saw a scene where various Phase 2 agents/avengers are being
shown, I would want the twins to be at least in their 20s to about 30.

Oberon

[Duggy]

On May 22, 1:01 am, Oberon <Ol3e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Only if done carefully and prepared in advance... there hasn't been
> > much of that yet, just a lot of luck.

> Good points all, but no I'm not saying axe the Ant Man movie - who
> knows if it really will happen, since its been at least 2 years they
> talked about it.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=60046

> But would it hurt to cross pollinate Antman with other movies in
> process?

The last plan I heard Henry Pym was the Golden Age character to be
replaced by a new Ant-Man. Makes it harder to cross-pollinate that
film with the other films without knowing more.

>  I actually heard that "an idea" for a new Hulk movie would
> feature Widow and Hawkeye - and Antman.

Interesting. Everything I heard is that "The Incredible Hulk" is the
one least likely to get a sequel.

> The reasoning being that
> perhaps Widow, Hawkeye, others aren't ready to star in their own
> picture - but would make great featured characters or players in
> others.

I'd heard that Black Widow was being considered for her own film.

> If we saw a scene where various Phase 2 agents/avengers are being
> shown, I would want the twins to be at least in their 20s to about 30.

That's nice. I think story should drive the plot not wants.

===
= DUG.
===

[Oberon]

On May 21, 7:25 pm, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 1:01 am, Oberon <Ol3e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Only if done carefully and prepared in advance... there hasn't been
> > > much of that yet, just a lot of luck.
> > Good points all, but no I'm not saying axe the Ant Man movie - who
> > knows if it really will happen, since its been at least 2 years they
> > talked about it.
>

> http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news...

>
> > But would it hurt to cross pollinate Antman with other movies in
> > process?
>
> The last plan I heard Henry Pym was the Golden Age character to be
> replaced by a new Ant-Man.  Makes it harder to cross-pollinate that
> film with the other films without knowing more.
>
> >  I actually heard that "an idea" for a new Hulk movie would
> > feature Widow and Hawkeye - and Antman.
>
> Interesting.  Everything I heard is that "The Incredible Hulk" is the
> one least likely to get a sequel.
>
> > The reasoning being that
> > perhaps Widow, Hawkeye, others aren't ready to star in their own
> > picture - but would make great featured characters or players in
> > others.
>
> I'd heard that Black Widow was being considered for her own film.
>
> > If we saw a scene where various Phase 2 agents/avengers are being
> > shown, I would want the twins to be at least in their 20s to about 30.
>
> That's nice.  I think story should drive the plot not wants.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===

The classic age for most of these characters are late '20s to 30-ish,
you know?

Golden Age was '40s to about 1960 or so. Hank Pym Ant-man *is* a
silver age character. (btw, I think Pym's story would be incredibly
plot-driven ** and ** Why would they do Lang in the film when they
have both Pym and the Wasp in the cartoon Avengers, which seems to be
in somewhat continuity to the movies (but not exact, of course)
Oberon

[iarwain]

> Why would they do Lang in the film

That bugs me too (no pun intended).
Pym is a far more interesting character, and goes better with the
Wasp.
I hope they do the Giant Man/Ant Man thing, that's far more
interesting than just shrinking, especially if they have the Wasp in
there already.
Maybe he could shrink in the movie, but develops the growth formula at
the end.
Then when Avengers II rolls around, he can do both.

Maybe they figure they have enough super geniuses now.
That's a Marvel characteristic though, their heroes tend to be super
smart.

[Duggy]

On May 23, 6:03 am, Oberon <Ol3e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The classic age for most of these characters are late '20s to 30-ish,
> you know?

> Golden Age was '40s to about 1960 or so.  Hank Pym Ant-man *is* a
> silver age character.

You're confusing real world with Marvel Cinematic Universe.

They hardly had a Golden Age with no heroes in it, did they?

> (btw, I think Pym's story would be incredibly
> plot-driven ** and ** Why would they do Lang in the film when they
> have both Pym and the Wasp in

Don't ask me, ask Edgar Wright.

> the cartoon Avengers, which seems to be
> in somewhat continuity to the movies (but not exact, of course)

Because film makers would never ignore the cartoon spin-off.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On May 23, 8:21 am, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That's a Marvel characteristic though, their heroes tend to be super
> smart.

Sure...
Reed, Pym, McCoy, Parker, Banner, Stark.

But...
Wayne, Kent, Allen, Holt, Tyler, Palmer, Kord.

Superheroes tend to be super smart.

===
= DUG.
===

[Oberon]

On May 22, 7:43 pm, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 6:03 am, Oberon <Ol3e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> They hardly had a Golden Age with no heroes in it, did they?
>

Oberon: I'm not sure what your point is. I'm 56, so I know that the
Golden Age, even for Marvel (Timely, Atlas, etc.) was before Pym's
appearance in Marvel early '60s.
Of course there were heroes in the Golden Age; Miss America,
Whizzer, Captain America, Human Torch, for Marvel.

[Tim Turnip]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:52:28 -0700 (PDT), Oberon <Ol3...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 22, 7:43 pm, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 23, 6:03 am, Oberon <Ol3e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> They hardly had a Golden Age with no heroes in it, did they?
>>
>
>Oberon: I'm not sure what your point is. I'm 56, so I know that the
>Golden Age, even for Marvel (Timely, Atlas, etc.) was before Pym's
>appearance in Marvel early '60s.

I think he's saying that the movie Pym would be a "Golden Age"
character relative to the movie's universe, meaning someone whose
adventures took place at a time before the present depiction. (That
is not really what "Golden Age" signifies, though.)

[Duggy]

You're confusing real world with Marvel Cinematic Universe.

They hardly had a Golden Age with no heroes in it, did they?

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On May 24, 8:43 pm, Tim Turnip <timtur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:52:28 -0700 (PDT), Oberon <Ol3e...@hotmail.com>

No, but "Silver Age" is never the first appearance by heroes.

===
= DUG.
===

[Oberon]

I guess your real world is my comic book world; I don't really
separate the fiction worlds as you do. Golden Age pertains to comics
of the '40s and '50s.


But if I wanted to go where you are going, then the Marvel Cartoons of
the '60s would be the Golden Age of marvel superhero cartoons
(Superman cartoons go back to the '40s, not sure about other DC
characters).

I seem to remember that the Fantastic Four cartoon of the '60s (Hanna-
Barbera?) had an episode derived from the FF issue "The Micro-World of
Doctor Doom" which guested Pym-Antman, but I don't believe the cartoon
used him in the story.
To me, to speak of Golden Age, in comparison to any other age,
implies that there is more value.

I don't think most of us, seeing those old cartoons - or even the ones
from the '70s, would see such value, compared to the current Avengers
cartoon.

So your use of "Golden Age" for cartoons - or even movies - seems
forced, to me. Even the Golden AGe of Marvel characters in movies or
TV (Hulk series, others) seem to not be so Golden to me.
-Oberon

[Duggy]

On May 25, 12:50 am, Oberon <Ol3e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 7:46 am, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You're confusing real world with Marvel Cinematic Universe.
> > They hardly had a Golden Age with no heroes in it, did they?

>   I guess your real world is my comic book world; I don't really
> separate the fiction worlds as you do. Golden Age pertains to comics
> of the '40s and '50s.

You expect the characters in the film to refer to characters as coming
from comics?

> But if I wanted to go where you are going, then the Marvel Cartoons of
> the '60s would be the Golden Age of marvel superhero cartoons

They're part of the history of The Avengers universe?

>   To me, to speak of Golden Age, in comparison to any other age,
> implies that there is more value.

Usually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_(metaphor)

> So your use of "Golden Age" for cartoons

You are a moron. I never said anything about a Golden Age for
cartoons.

===
= DUG.
===

[Lilith]

Probably due to the fact that their powers come from some accident
they experienced in an experiment that they developed or a formula
they had the smarts to create. However, McCoy and Pym tested formulas
on themselves without much testing.

Parker only because he's a brainy type who just had to go see that
exhibition that irradiated the spider. Kord was a good engineer but I
wouldn't put him in the brainy category.

Barry Allen may be a scientist but not extremely impressive although I
do recognize that he did invent an expanding costume that fits in a
ring. On the other hand, Wally figured out that you can make a
costume out of some aspect of the speed force.

In general, though, I'd say that Marvel's brains seem to be supremely
competent while DC's are just extremely competent (with the exception
of Michael Holt.)

--
Lilith

[William George Ferguson]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 04:46:44 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com>
wrote:

What movies were made during the Marvel Cinematic Universe Golden Age?

The thing about 'Golden Age' as applied to comics or science fiction or
other such, is that it is assigned after the fact, looking back. Also, it
is applied externally by the readers/viewers, not internally by the
characters.

Roy Thomas' comic The Invaders, made in the 70s and featuring Iimely
characters (Captain America, Sub-Mariner, Human Torch) from the 40s in
adventures set in WW2, is not a Golden Age comic. It's retroactive
continuity made in the Bronze Age.

You can, of course, apply the Humpty Dumpty Rule, and define 'Golden Age'
any way you want. Keep in mind that other people can also apply that rule,
and if most of them don't agree with ;your definition, thay won't use it.

Incidentally, in super-hero comics, the Golden Age is almost universally
accepted as beginning with the publication of Action Comics #1 in 1938
(intro of Superman), and is generally considered to have ended sometime in
the 1949-51, with the cancellation/conversion of the various superhero
comics. The Silver Age is also almost universally accepted as beginning
with the re-introduction of The Flash in Showcase #4 in 1956. There isn't
a universal agreement on the end, but the most frequently cited point is
Gwen Stacy's death in 1073.

So, again, what movies represent MCU's Golden Age (and Captain America
doesn't count)?

--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies

[Duggy]

On May 25, 12:01 pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

> What movies were made during the Marvel Cinematic Universe Golden Age?

Within the film? Does it matter?

> The thing about 'Golden Age' as applied to comics or science fiction or
> other such, is that it is assigned after the fact, looking back.

Exactly. So a film about a new character replacing an old that old
character would be considered by the characters to be...?

> not internally by the
> characters.

Wrong.

> You can, of course, apply the Humpty Dumpty Rule, and define 'Golden Age'
> any way you want.  Keep in mind that other people can also apply that rule,
> and if most of them don't agree with ;your definition, thay won't use it.

I never said anyone should use it my way.

You said that there was only one way to use the term.

> Incidentally, in super-hero comics, the Golden Age is almost universally
> accepted as beginning with the publication of Action Comics #1 in 1938
> (intro of Superman), and is generally considered to have ended sometime in
> the 1949-51, with the cancellation/conversion of the various superhero
> comics.  The Silver Age is also almost universally accepted as beginning
> with the re-introduction of The Flash in Showcase #4 in 1956.  There isn't
> a universal agreement on the end, but the most frequently cited point is
> Gwen Stacy's death in 1073.

Well, duh.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On May 25, 11:37 am, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:34:42 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 23, 8:21 am, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> That's a Marvel characteristic though, their heroes tend to be super
> >> smart.
> >Sure...
> >Reed, Pym, McCoy, Parker, Banner, Stark.

> >But...
> >Wayne, Kent, Allen, Holt, Tyler, Palmer, Kord.

> >Superheroes tend to be super smart.

> Probably due to the fact that their powers come from some accident
> they experienced in an experiment that they developed or a formula
> they had the smarts to create.  However, McCoy and Pym tested formulas
> on themselves without much testing.

That makes them Supersmart... and dumb.

> Parker only because he's a brainy type who just had to go see that
> exhibition that irradiated the spider.

Webslingers.

> Kord was a good engineer but I
> wouldn't put him in the brainy category.

He can do what real-world engineers can't. That makes him super-
brainy.

Yes, his not a scientist. His not in the league of the others, true.

> Barry Allen may be a scientist but not extremely impressive although I
> do recognize that he did invent an expanding costume that fits in a
> ring.

That's the only reason I included him.

> On the other hand, Wally figured out that you can make a
> costume out of some aspect of the speed force.

More by luck then brains.

> In general, though, I'd say that Marvel's brains seem to be supremely
> competent while DC's are just extremely competent (with the exception
> of Michael Holt.)

DC has other brains, less of them are heroes, though.

===
= DUG.
===

[iarwain]

> Parker only because he's a brainy type who just had to go see that exhibition that irradiated the spider.

Parker was always presented as a gifted science student, and he
invented his webs and webshooters.
He's also been shown working with Reed a lot, who apparently respects
his intelligence.

On the DC side, in the older stories at least, Superman used to whip
up some pretty sophisticated gadgets,
often on the strength of Kryptonion technology. I haven't read
Superman recently, so I'm not sure how he's being portrayed these days.

[Duggy]

On May 25, 10:27 pm, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On the DC side, in the older stories at least, Superman used to whip
> up some pretty sophisticated gadgets,
> often on the strength of Kryptonion technology.  I haven't read
> Superman recently, so I'm not sure how he's being portrayed these days.

I know that Busiek brought it back as "Super-Intelligence" with One
Year Later... not sure if later writers ran with that.

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/superman-now-has-super-intelligence.123519774/

===
= DUG.
===

[Oberon]

On May 24, 6:08 pm, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:>
> You are a moron.  I never said anything about a Golden Age for
> cartoons.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===

Well I think you are, and also a person who has to use insults to get
their point across.
You're the one who referred to Pym as a Golden Age character. I think
most people here know better.
-Oberon

[Wayne S Garmil]

In article <qemtr7p50qp3g79v1...@4ax.com>,

William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>Incidentally, in super-hero comics, the Golden Age is almost universally
>accepted as beginning with the publication of Action Comics #1 in 1938
>(intro of Superman), and is generally considered to have ended sometime in
>the 1949-51, with the cancellation/conversion of the various superhero
>comics. The Silver Age is also almost universally accepted as beginning
>with the re-introduction of The Flash in Showcase #4 in 1956. There isn't
>a universal agreement on the end, but the most frequently cited point is
>Gwen Stacy's death in 1073.

I would say that, for DC, the golden age to silver age transition was
with Showcase #4, the first Barry Allen Flash, although it took a
while for Superman and Batman to make the transition (they were in a
persiod that kinda coulda been both at that point).

For Marvel, I think the golden age ended and the silver age began when
Fantastic Four #1 came out.

At some point, both companies transitioned from silver age to bronze
age sometime in the early 70's. Gwen Stacy's death sounds like a good
point to pick for Marvel, it changed the tone of Spider-man. Finding
this point for DC is harder and there is much disagreement (I don't
have a good suggestion to use, so I will pick when Superboy became
Superboy starting the Legion of super-Heroes because that happens to
be when I started reading comics :-)

Wayne


--
_ __ _ __ | I see the girls walk by dressed in
' ) / // / / ) / | their summer clothes; I have to turn
/ / / o // __/ / __. __ __/ | my head until my darkness goes...
(_(_/ <_</_(_/ (__/ (_/|_/ (_(_/_ | -Rolling Stones, "Paint It Black"

[William George Ferguson]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:09:34 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 25, 12:01 pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> What movies were made during the Marvel Cinematic Universe Golden Age?
>
>Within the film? Does it matter?

Within the film, it's too dark to read.

>> The thing about 'Golden Age' as applied to comics or science fiction or
>> other such, is that it is assigned after the fact, looking back.
>
>Exactly. So a film about a new character replacing an old that old
>character would be considered by the characters to be...?

I wouldn't know until it happens (it hasn't yet in the MCU).

>> not internally by the
>> characters.
>
>Wrong.

Okay, there have currently been 6 films released that are set in the MCU.
Cite me the examples where, in the films, characters use the expression
'Golden Age'.

I say, assert, aver that it is not used internally by the characters.
Unless there is an example where it is used internallly by the characters,
I am not wrong.

>> You can, of course, apply the Humpty Dumpty Rule, and define 'Golden Age'
>> any way you want.  Keep in mind that other people can also apply that rule,
>> and if most of them don't agree with ;your definition, thay won't use it.
>
>I never said anyone should use it my way.
>
>You said that there was only one way to use the term.

No I didn't. I thought the reference to the Humpty Dumpty rule pretty much
established that I don't think that.

There is, however, consensus usage, and if one departs from that usage,
then one will be talking at cross-purposes with the majority who do follow
the consensus usage.

>> Incidentally, in super-hero comics, the Golden Age is almost universally
>> accepted as beginning with the publication of Action Comics #1 in 1938
>> (intro of Superman), and is generally considered to have ended sometime in
>> the 1949-51, with the cancellation/conversion of the various superhero
>> comics.  The Silver Age is also almost universally accepted as beginning
>> with the re-introduction of The Flash in Showcase #4 in 1956.  There isn't
>> a universal agreement on the end, but the most frequently cited point is
>> Gwen Stacy's death in 1073.
>
>Well, duh.

That was an 'As you know, Bob'. I actually semi-assumed you would know
that, but, this being usenet where these posts are read by tens, or even
dozens of other random people, I thought it needed to be said.

[Duggy]

On May 25, 10:59 pm, Oberon <Ol3e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>  You're the one who referred to Pym as a Golden Age character. I think
> most people here know better.

Within the continuity of The Avengers films.

[Lilith]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 05:27:19 -0700 (PDT), iarwain
<iarw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Parker only because he's a brainy type who just had to go see that exhibition that irradiated the spider.
>
>Parker was always presented as a gifted science student, and he
>invented his webs and webshooters.
>He's also been shown working with Reed a lot, who apparently respects
>his intelligence.

I didn't mean to denegrate Peter. After all, he's working for a think
tank nowaday. All I was saying was that the accident that gave him
his powers weren't due to an experiment he was conducting, much like
other scientists-to-hero have done. But he was in the vicinity of the
irradiated spider because he is a brain.

>On the DC side, in the older stories at least, Superman used to whip
>up some pretty sophisticated gadgets,
>often on the strength of Kryptonion technology. I haven't read
>Superman recently, so I'm not sure how he's being portrayed these days.

Nothing like that lately. I think that's mostly because of the way
stories are told nowadays.

--
Lilith

[iarwain]

> I didn't mean to denegrate Peter.

I personally don't think he should be considered in anywhere near the
company of the other Marvel super geniuses.
But certain writers have placed him in that company.

[Jim G.]

Lilith sent the following on 5/26/2012 12:39 PM:

> I didn't mean to denegrate Peter. After all, he's working for a think
> tank nowaday.

<pedant>

A think tank merely generates ideas and opinions and the like, as
thinking is more or less all that it does. Horizon is much more than
that, as it actually produces a lot of toys.

</pedant>

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
If you are reading this, it means that I don't have anything better to
offer here at the moment.

[~consul]

'tis on this 5/24/2012 3:08 PM, wrote Duggy thus to say:
> On May 25, 12:50 am, Oberon<Ol3e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 7:46 am, Duggy<p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You're confusing real world with Marvel Cinematic Universe.
>>> They hardly had a Golden Age with no heroes in it, did they?
>> I guess your real world is my comic book world; I don't really
>> separate the fiction worlds as you do. Golden Age pertains to comics
>> of the '40s and '50s.
> You expect the characters in the film to refer to characters as coming
> from comics?

You mean like they did in the comics? Refering to the older generation w/ reference to reading "fake stories" or comics & movies about them?

Closest I recall in the Avengers movie, Black Widow called his trading cards "Vintage"

>> So your use of "Golden Age" for cartoons
> You are a moron. I never said anything about a Golden Age for
> cartoons.

That's like the Warners. :D
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>