Gorr looks fine, this dude's retarded

I was referring to the comic. We are in agreement. My whole point is that it's okay to be mad that movie Dr. Doom is an American businessman with lightning powers instead of Dr. Doom but it's not okay to be mad that they changed a Quesada-era story because they always fucking make them better.

And nothing is worse and needs to be changed by the adaptation more than a Jason Aaron story. Even God-Butcher. That shit's popularity is a meme, it's just as bad as everything else he did. Thor hasn't been good since Fear Itself.

This isn't really related to the thread, so it looks like you're just posturing. What's being discussed is Gorr's design, which Aaron didn't make but Ribic, who's a top artist no matter the decade. And Hollywood's design is objectively worse and lazier.

Because it's woke. Gorr looks stupid because he's in a sjw cuck movie that should haven't been made

>the thing I really hate about comic book fans is the refusal to admit that most stories from the oughts and tens are not like the classics
This is one of the big issues with addressing and criticising comic book adaptations these days. More often than not, especially nowadays as the films skew towards adapting elements from more recent stories, the stories they pull from are just plain bad. Smaller symptoms of the encroaching cynicism of the industry that dominated the modern era have become defining aspects of a character's mythos thanks to reinforcement through adaptation in the medium of film. But for whatever reason, there's little discourse in the way we approach the actual stories that are acting as the foundation for these movies, and how poor decisions made in them reflect in the films they influence. This goes both ways, with comic fans criticising a film for not being entirely 1:1 to the comics, and film fans defending something because it happened in a comic once, without any actual critical analysis being shown towards the actual comics in question. The books are just treated as gospel that cannot be deviated from or criticised in any way. Comic book adaptations don't work the same way a novel adaptation does, and its interesting how underplayed it is that most adaptations end up being way better than the source material, when such a topic is ripe for discourse when it relates to a film that adapts a novel in the same way.

I covered that by referring to the character as Twi'lek Voldemort. It's not a good story and it's also not a good character design. I will in fact take just painting Christian Bale white over the tails and no-nose. I'd rather they didn't do him at all because he's just Mangog with a weaker backstory and his overhyped comic doesn't deserve the publicity, but it's too late for that.

>DISNEY HIRE THIS MAN
this is how you sound

The one on the bottom looks good.

But the one above it looks like an abomination.

Attached: 1654136094261.jpg (623x406, 48.94K)

How come manga is expected and demanded to be adapted 1:1 following the script and storyboard the original mangaka created but if you try to ask for the same for comics you get treated like an incel who dared imply his disposable kiddy comics might have something to teach mighty Hollywood?

It's expected because that's the way it's always been done. There's very little history in Japan of "exercising creative freedom", anime studios don't have the ego of acting like they're the creator when they're not, and usually only add their own content when they need to, to stall for time.
It's demanded because the manga is actually popular, unlike western comics.

They both end up the same though. Bad adaptations.

So if you're aware of the reasons behind the hypocrisy why not try to counteract it a little and stop making posts that boil down to "those uppity comic readers should remember Hollywood is the new source material and comics are "adaptation" tier competing for the honor of upgrading to live action?