Editorial: Do Original Teams Make An Impact On Mainstream Audiences?

I fail to see how Havok, Banshee, and Beast are more appealing that Cyclops, Jean, Angel, Iceman and Beast.

If they do th JLA movie with the original team then Superman and Batman won't be in it. That would mean a lot of the mainstream audience and even some fanboys/girls won't come. The JL movie needs members that where not the originals, so do other movies. Sure ant man and wasp would've been good to the movie, but no need to complain. Some characters are needed for the story they are trying to go with, especially Ina shared universe. I'd love to see Luke Cage and Black Panther in Avengers 2, but they wouldn't really do anything in space. Maybe for a problem that doesn't involve space adventures.

Congratulations for writing an original editorial! Articles with never before used topic (to my knowledge) are refreshing and appreciated. Variety is the spice of life.

Anyways, to put my two cents in, I prefer the original line-up for an other media portrayal of any comic book superhero team, but I am a comic book fan. Obviously, the general audience doesn't know what the original line-up was. Approximately, 500,000 Americans read comics, and, I believe, that includes Manga, Star Wars, and other non-superhero comics. Since the general audience makes up most of the movie going population, the original line-up doesn't matter all that much to the studios. The studios would rather use a diverse team, in an attempt to make them more relatable to the average Joe, than stay true to the comics to please the much smaller amounts of fan boys. Personally, I don't think the race or ethnicity of a character should affect the relatability, but others disagree. In the end, I can accept that the movie universe is different than the comic universe.

Everything in your editorial was not correct. Only the film makers know, the exact reason, why Ant-Man and the Wasp were switched out for Hawkeye and the Black Widow. If they really were they to appeal to everyone's human side, then they were ineffective and unneeded. Hawkeye would be ineffective because he was mind controlled for two thirds of the movie, and, a silent loner assassin while free willed. Black Widow could be considered as appealing to our human side, but if that was her sole purpose for being there, then she was unneeded. Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Bruce Banner, and even Thor Odinson displayed relatable human characteristics. Tony was cocky, arrogant, outspoken, but also noble. Steve was traditional, controlling, and noble. Bruce was distrusting, anxious, and (LOL) angry. Thor had hopeful and loving feelings towards Loki. Ant-Man and the Wasp could have been just as human. I think, the real reason Ant-Man and Wasp didn't appear, in The Avengers, was to allow Edgar Wright full creative control of those characters in his announced movie.

I heard this from a CBM commenter, so take this with a grain of salt. I heard Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch could be used by both Fox Studios and Marvel Studios. Apparently, Marvel can't say the word mutant, and they can't show or say that Magneto is the father of the two. Obviously, Fox can't mention those characters are on The Avengers. I believe I have heard this from more than one CBM commenter, but that might just be the result of the rumor spreading.

As for the X-Men situation, I personally accept the line-up for that movie. Over all, it's a fantastic movie, in my opinion. It's a different X-Men universe than that of the comics. Besides, they would of had to reboot the franchise to use the original line-up. If they used the original team without rebooting, then major continuity errors appear. In the original trilogy, Cyclops is late twenties to early thirties, Jean is in her thirties, Iceman is a teenager, Beast is in his fifties, and Angel just met the team in the last installment of the trilogy. Since the first X-Men movie wasn't an origin story, the characters that were used were the most popular (Wolverine, Professor X, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Iceman, Magneto, and Storm) and best suited the story (Rouge and Mystique). The movie wasn't going to bend its story to fit when the characters became members in the comics. Nobody was making sure that Nightcrawler was a member before Rouge because that was how it worked out in the comics. Nobody was wandering why Shadowcat was present, but Banshee, who was a member before Kitty, was nowhere to be seen. Basically, the X-Men get away with their stunt because...
A) The first movie was wasn't an origin, and we didn't receive an origin until the fifth movie. There was already an established continuity that they needed to fit into.
B) The first two movies were quality, so nobody cared. Now that they have bad additions to the franchise, people care.

Finally, some of your sentences were hard to understand. I had to read some multiple times due to lack of punctuation. For instance, the sentence, "Hawkeye and Black Widow were introduced in their place for what reason, to appeal to people more on a human side, would the work on the married heroic team have been to much could you have imagined the two fighting alongside the team it would have been to easy" doesn't make sense to me, or, at least the latter part doesn't. What do you mean by "the work on the married heroic team"? I had to read, "Though it is up to the studios on how the films turn out and which characters are introduced the X-Men represent diversity, unity and togetherness" multiple times until I figured out that you accidentally turned two sentences into one, so it should read "Though it is up to the studios on how the films turn out and which characters are introduced. The X-Men represent diversity, unity and togetherness." I still don't understand this sentence, "The 2008 team are good but when we get to the basics the original team paved the way in the 60's".

Thanks for reading.

P.S. The X-Men, Avengers, and the Justice League were all originally American teams, and the USA is and never has been minority by majority.