Friday, May 5, 2017

Amanda Waller in The Marvel Universe



I was looking forward to seeing Amanda Waller in Suicide Squad, but like Superman, DC seems to have gone darker than I preferred with the cinematic version of one of their print heroes.  I know that Waller is tough as nails and will go to extremes to further her goals, but even so, I thought it was a step top far to see her kill a group of her own men just to keep secrets.  That just made her look like a cold blooded killer, which I never felt she was in the comics.

20 comments:

AirDave said...

If I remember right, she was not portrayed very heroic in Justice League Unlimited. But then, Batman doesn't trust anyone.

Simreeve said...

In the recent JLA/Suicide Squad crossover comic storyline she apparently set things up so that Max Lord would attack her using a team of supervillains whom she'd imprisoned in a special prison of their own, even though she knew that his freeing those villains for the mission would result in heavy casualties to that prison's staff (as well as probably at Belle Reve, when the attacker arrived there...), so that she'd then be able to replace him as head of Checkmate...

:(

Anonymous said...

I agree that they showed a darker edge to Amanda Waller in the movie and more recent books. It was too dark for my taste, though I did still enjoy the movie.
As for Amanda Waller and the Marvel Universe, I think I'd like her to focus on the Thunderbolts. I can see her making them jump some serious hoops. She's have no problem sending them off to take down the likes of the Mandarin and Doctor Doom.
Ordinaryguy2

Glenn Host said...

For some reason movie people have decided that despite successes comics are to light for movie audiences and they need to be darker to succeed as movies, something I do not agree with. It same thing with costumes in that something which some producers not seem to want or change so much that costumes are barely recognizable.

Anonymous said...

I don't know. I think the only difference between the cinematic Wall and the comic book Wall is that the former is just more _overt_ than the latter when it comes to being hyper-expedient. Indeed, I think the comic book President Bush, Sr. said it best (in the trade paperback reprint of THE JANUS IMPERATIVE):

"You've played the lone wolf too long, Mrs. Waller. And you enjoy it too much!'

Mateus Honrado said...

Well, the MCU has proven that lighter and softer superhero films can work.

Anonymous said...

@Mateus: they were probably inspired to take that approach by watching the old Bat-series with Adam West. In fact, I could even see him appearing in DR. STRANGE 2 (as Dr. Druid)!

Mateus Honrado said...

Not really. The MCU is nowhere like the 1966 Batman TV series. In fact, there's no shark-jumping campiness in the MCU since there are serious moments in the continuity.

The reason why the MCU isn't gritty like the Dark Age is because it's aimed at both comic fans and non-comic fans, especially families.

Anonymous said...

The reason why the MCU isn't gritty is that Marvel is owned by Disney, and all Disney properties MUST generate toys for the kiddies and not-grown ups. The DCEU is gritty because DC is owned by ATT/Time Warner, and all ATT properties must generate CLICKS. And nothing generates more clicks than something the fanboys hate.

Mateus Honrado said...

Not just that. It was already tamer when compared to The Dark Knight even before Disney bought Marvel.

And it's been confirmed that the DCEU is moving away from the Dark Age tone though there are still doubts about it due to preproduction problems in The Flash and most recently The Batman plus the AT&T acquisition of Time Warner hasn't been finalised yet.

Cary Comic said...

@Anon & Mateus: then, in that respect, the Marvel/Disney films _are_ like the BATMAN '66 series in that the latter had just as much family-oriented merchandising as the former.

Mateus Honrado said...

Why do people have to compare the MCU to Batman 66? The MCU doesn't have the camp that made Batman 66 great. In fact, the MCU also has a serious tone in addition to a family friendly one since it appeals to both comic book fans and non comic book fans.

Anonymous said...

It may just be a generational difference. Folks who grew up on Wolverine instead of Bit-Mite and giant typewriters don't really know what 'camp' is. Light-hearted (MCU) vs. just plain silly (Bat66).

Anonymous said...

I grew up on both Wolverine _and_ Bat-mite. And, like it or not, it's official. Marvel Films has finally made and released a flick just as (delightfully) campy as any episode of the original Bat-show.

It's called GOTG VOL. 2!*

*Saw it this afternoon. So I definitely know what I'm talking about.

Mateus Honrado said...

I've seen both GOTG films and they're not really what I call camp. If there's one film to compare it to GOTG, then it's the 1980 film adaptation of Flash Gordon, not Batman 66.

My point that the MCU isn't like Batman 66 and that it's more lighthearted than camp still stands.

Anonymous said...

Then, I'm afraid we have to agree to permanently disagree. Because, I was just out of high school when I first saw the Sam Jones version of "flash Gordon." And that, too, I found just as undeniably campy as "Batman 1966."

Mateus Honrado said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mateus Honrado said...

Okay but I'll say this. GOTG may be fun and silly but at least it's not as campy enough that would derail a franchise before a reboot brings back the serious tone (looking at you, the Burton/Schumacher Batman films).

Anonymous said...

What derailed the Burton/Schumacher Bat-films was the asinine costume designer who put Kevlar nipples on George Clooney's breast plate. Pure and simple as that.

Mateus Honrado said...

Plus studio interference as well.

Support STF: The Lost Issues!