Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

* When it comes to playing "Who's the alpha/beta/omega," I find it way more interesting to cast leader characters as militant omegas than as alphas who were just naturally born to leadership. Really, I just want to screw with all the a/b/o gender norms at every turn. We are all shocked.

* I have discovered a sudden and mighty need for moderately IC Steve Rogers mpreg. Alas, there seems to be none. There really isn't any het Steve Rogers mpreg.

* I like a lot of MCU characters better than their comics equivalents. I think part of this is actors being able to give even flatly-written characters more nuance and likability: see for example Sharon Carter, who's doing nothing for me in the comics but whom I expect to like in the movie if for no other reason than because she's played by Emily Van Camp, which is perfect casting by the way.

But also, for the guys in particular, it's because male superheroes look so ridiculous in the comics. You know that old, wrong retort that guys are sexualized in comics just like women are? No. Guys in mainstream superhero comics, especially on the cape-and-mask side of things, are bizarre and weirdly bulgy and completely off-putting as sexual objects, and I'm not even talking about Rob Liefield. I'm talking about any of the Cap comics covers.

Which isn't to say you can't have hot men in comics. Marko in Saga is quite attractive. See how he's built more like a normal human being, despite the horns and ears? Yes. I also find Fantomex extremely attractive, but that's like 90% because he has a really fabulous costume. Anybody'd look good in that. *points to icon*

Interestingly, the X-men side of things tends to be slightly less bulgy, partly, I suppose, because a lot of the guys have nonstandard body types in the first place: Beast, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Rockslide. Wolverine's muscular but short, which kind of undercuts the Greek god thing that the male Avengers so often fall prey to.

Crossposted from Dreamwidth. Comment here or there. (comment count unavailable DW replies)


( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
Feb. 9th, 2014 10:35 am (UTC)
I think one of the big differences is, hm...comics have a million issues in order to build characters up, delve into back stories, but they're kind of stuck in sitcom land...sort of. You can have great character development over the course of a run, but ultimately, at some point, someone will decide to ignore or undo all that. But the movies, while they're serialized, have to make actual progress, especially because they've got the whole shared world thing going on. (I mean, otherwise I guess they'd be free to be like the old sequels which just repeat the last movie, but bigger). And actors age, and movies are expensive, so the characters can't stay in limbo.
Feb. 9th, 2014 07:15 pm (UTC)
It's true what you say about sitcom land. My favorite comics characters are definitely ones that I've gotten to watch change or get more development. That's part of why I'm mostly disinterested in the 'big' characters - I know that there's only so much that's going to be done with them, and even what does happen to them tends to be external, like Wolverine not having his healing factor anymore, rather than internal character growth.
Feb. 9th, 2014 08:49 pm (UTC)
That was one thing I liked so much about the Loki run of Journey into Mystery, in that it specifically and explicitly was about that issue.

Feb. 9th, 2014 08:50 pm (UTC)
Loki was one of the characters I was thinking of! He's been very dynamic the past few years. I haven't actually read that run, though; I didn't realize that it was specifically interested in that theme.
Feb. 9th, 2014 09:35 pm (UTC)
Oh yes. That's what made it so brilliant. It was a great story (the pieces all fit together masterfully), it had fantastic characterizations, and it used those things to say some profound things about the nature of storytelling and the nature of comics.
Feb. 10th, 2014 01:44 am (UTC)
I will put it on the list, then. I'm subscribed to the new Loki comic (although I haven't gotten the first issue yet), so I figure at some I should just go through and read all the important Loki stuff.
(Deleted comment)
Feb. 9th, 2014 07:17 pm (UTC)
And by skinnier, I mean how actually appeared to be a normal sized, if still very well muscled man.

Ha! Yes. And the new grown-up Loki, who everyone seems to think is aimed mainly at women, is the same. His design is definitely on the more wiry end of the superhero scale. (It probably helps that he is not in fact a superhero.)

I always found it mildly humorous that in the comics Cyclops is sometimes called by the nickname 'Slim'.

HA. Yes. It was never clear to me whom Wolverine was comparing him to.
Feb. 9th, 2014 08:59 pm (UTC)
It's true, a lot of male superheroes have so many muscles they start looking weirdly mountainous. And it seems like a lot of characters who are cool in the movies are actually kind of jerks in their own comics. I liked Batman a lot more before I really got into comics because all his sidekicks are so much cooler than he is and he treats them like crap.
Feb. 9th, 2014 09:40 pm (UTC)

Almost everything I've seen of Tony Stark in comics has been unpleasant. He's more fun in team books, like Avengers Assemble, but in general I am not a fan.
Feb. 10th, 2014 03:09 am (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard Iron Man is a jerk in the comics.
Feb. 10th, 2014 03:15 am (UTC)
Well, to be fair, I've seen a lot of people complaining about Fraction's treatment of him, with the implication that he was more sympathetic before then. But I've seen so little of him that I can't really say.
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

March 2018


Powered by LiveJournal.com