I got so many good questions this week — well, and maybe a few good questions from the week before, which I'd accidentally stuffed in one of my boots for some reason and just found again — that this week's "Postal Apocalypse" is super-sized! Get comfortable! Get a snack! Say goodbye to your loved ones! It's a doozy!


Doooooooomed

Silas G.:

Bricken.

What. The. Fuck. Is. Fucking. Fox. Thinking.

Obviously you've heard that Doctor Doom, the greatest villain in all of Marvel Comics, will be an angryblogger. I know you are also an angry blogger, but surely you agree that this is the stupidest thing since they turn Galactus in a big space fart.

Why would they do this? Why would anyone think this is a good idea? Why don't the see how good Marvel is doing by not making stupid fucking changes to their characters?

For those of you who may have missed the news, there's been a rumor about a significant change to Doctor Doom in the upcoming FF reboot movie in that he's somewhat less a magic-wielding, armored, evil genius dictator of an entire country and more, well, an angry blogger, as Silas says. And the rumor is somewhat less a rumor and more words directly spoken by Toby Kebbell, the actor playing Doom. According to Kebbell, the character's name will be Victor Domashev, and his internet handle will be "Doom."

It… it doesn't look good. I can explain why Fox made this decision, although it's not going to make you feel any better.

Fox makes the first Fantastic Four movie; it does okay, but fans everywhere bitch about it not being comics accurate enough. So Fox makes the second FF movie, thinking they're appeasing comics fans by adding Silver Surfer and Galactus, although they turn Galactus into a cloud so mass audiences aren't turned off. The movie bombs, and they don't see the fact that it sucks, they only see that they tried to appease nerds and the movie failed. Obviously, that's the problem, they think.

Advertisement

Then Josh Trank comes around and makes a small, found-footage superhero movie called Chronicle; even though the budget is small, it's super-popular and makes a lot of money. Fox sees this and says: "This works. People like this. If we do Fantastic Four like this, people will like it."

Fox hires Trank to make a "grounded", "lo-fi" version of the Fantastic Four, never once considering if perhaps this take is actually suitable for the characters and the franchise. (Hint: It's not.) Obviously, Doctor Doom is the FF's main foe, but Doom is just too comic book-y for the more realistic movie Fox is supremely confident the public wants. Thus we get Doom, the angry blogger.

I'm sure some of you are thinking "But Fox makes the X-Men movies. The X-Movies are pretty comics accurate and they're good movies and they make a lot of money! Why don't they learn from that?"

Advertisement

The answer is because that's not how a Hollywood executive's brain works. Traditional movie executives can't associate things. While you or I can watch other superhero movies and extrapolate what the public enjoys based on a wide variety of data, execs can only assess one thing at a time, take one lesson from it, and never, ever build upon that knowledge because as soon as they "learn" something new, the old memory is lost forever. How the hell are they going to learn from Marvel Studios' successes when they can't even apply the shit they should have learned making the X-Men movies to their other superhero franchise? They're not, and they couldn't if they wanted to.

As for why Trank or Fox or whoever chosen to make Doom a blogger as opposed to, say, an angry grocery store clerk or something, I'm going to take a wild guess and say somebody is fucking sick and tired of nerds. Call it a hunch.


Advertisement

Doctor Doctor

J.L.:

Post Man,

To me, the Doctor Who finale proved why the Doctor can't be a woman, or at least can't regenerate into a different gender without things getting weird. Turning the Master into Missy/the Mistress completely changed their dynamic.

The Master has always been the Doctor's archenemy, his evil doppleganger, and ever since the new series the last of the Time Lords with him. But their relationship has never been romantic, and that's what the Mistress turns it into. She's flirty and kind of motherish and its just so so so creepy given their past relationship!

Look, I know how it sounds when people say "I'm not sexist but!" So I feel like I'll get torn apart for saying I consider myself a feminist, and I fully support women's right, and I hate GamerGate. I don't think a woman shouldn't be cast as the Doctor because women are inferior in any way, I just think it changes too much about the show and the character, and not for the better.

Am I wrong? Am I crazy? Am I actually a misogynist and I don't know it? I think the Mistress turned Doctor Who into weird fan fiction, and turning the Doctor into a woman does the show and the characters and the fans a disservice. Do you disagree?

Advertisement

Yep! Totally.

I'll get into the politics here in a second, but as for the show: Yes, turning the Master into the Mistress did change the relationship between these two characters. But whenever the Doctor regenerates, it always changes his relationships to the other characters. For instance, The Eleventh was super flirty with Clara; when he turned into the Twelth, things got super non-flirty. The regeneration changes the Doctor's personality, thus invariably altering the relationships.

Adding a gender change to a character change just adds another dimension (pun somewhat intended). Really, the Master becoming the Mistress and getting a little bit flirty with Capaldi is absolutely no different from the Eleventh becoming the Twelfth and stopping being flirty with Clara. And it would be no different if Capaldi had a male companion, regenerated into a woman, and then the new Thirteenth Doctor suddenly had a bit of romantic tension with him.

Advertisement

Honestly, I think your biggest issue here is that it's the first time a Time Lord gender change has happened, so it's a little jarring. But it'll be less weird next time, and even less weird the time after that. Get a couple of re-gender-ations under your belt, and I promise you won't even notice.

Two quick notes, though: 1) When I think about the difference between Missy and John Simms' Master, I didn't see the flirtiness as much as I saw a change in the Master going from a Joker-like "burn everything the Batman loves" to the more modern Joker, who's obsessed with Batman in a warped but genuinely affectionate way. Missy stages her whole insane plan just to get the Doctor to admit a part of himself exists, a part he tries to ignore, and Missy is doing it out of love, in a way. It was fantastic. I seriously hope Missy stays around for a while.

2) I don't think you're crazy or a misogynist; the fact that you're genuinely asking about this issue implies you have an open mind about it, which is good. But I think the fact that you wrote into a fake post-apocalyptic mailman for advice meant you knew there was something kind of not right with being anti-female Doctor in your gut. Listen to your gut. If it's feeling weird about a position you're holding, chances are it's worth reexamining.

Advertisement


May-Be?

Duane H.:

Please tell me Sony is not seriously considering an Aunt May movie

Sony has denied it already. I doubt it ever existed even as joke on an Excel spreadsheet, but if somehow someone at Sony did pitch an Aunt May movie, let me tell you verbatim how it went down.

Advertisement

Sony Executive #1: Okay, guys. We all know that our last Amazing Spider-Man movie didn't meet box office expectations, so our whole big plan for a Spider-Man movie universe is now open for debate.

Sony Executive #2: We had talked about doing Venom and Sinister Six, but we need something new to get people back into the franchise.

Sony Executive #1: So let's hear some ideas for other Spider-Man movies.

Sony Executive #2: Think outside the box. There are no bad ideas.

Jr. Sony Executive: (raises hand) Um, what about an Aunt May movie?

Sony Executive #2: I take it back. There are bad ideas, and that was one.

Sony Executive #1: Get out. You're fired. If I had a gun right now I'd murder you where you stand.

Advertisement

(security ushers sobbing Jr. Sony Executive outside)

Sony Executive #2: ...

Sony Executive #1: Jesus Christ. Aunt fucking May?

Sony Executive #2: We're fucked.

Sony Executive #1:

Sony Executive #2: Want to just do a mountain of cocaine?

Sony Executive #1: DO I EVER.


Advertisement

Deadpool in the Water

Admiral Snackbar:

Dear Postman,

Now that we've seen Marvel's upcoming movie plans, culminating in Great Lakes Avengers: The Death of Monkey Joe, I was wondering if the Avengers ever discover the fate of Agent "Phil" Coulson. Given how impactful his reported death was to them, I would like to know how they will react to the news.

Also, with Deadpool getting his own movie, does this mean he will know he's in his own movie? If so, is he likely to show up at the Oscars?

Advertisement

All six main Avengers would/will primarily be really happy to have him back (Bruce Banner/Hulk being the least ecstatic, because he had the least interaction with Coulson before the Avengers movie). Black Widow and Hawkeye are of course completely unsurprised at Fury's deception, assuming they don't already know the truth. Captain America is momentarily angry Fury told such a massive lie to manipulate the Avengers, but quickly and somewhat bitterly recognizes it's par for the course. Again, he's mostly happy. Thor is solely happy and he's not particularly shocked at Coulson's resurrection, being a god and all. Iron Man is also completely unsurprised at Coulson's return, because he knew the truth because he's been hacking SHIELD's files pretty much non-stop since Avengers. Boom.

As for Deadpool being self-aware… well, I was about to type that based on the wonderful test footage, Fox seems to have the right take on the character, which would lead me to believe he'll continue to talk to the camera and know he's in a movie (although I bet there's not too much of it). But then I remembered what Fox just did to Doctor Doom and I realized nothing is safe and nothing is sacred. About the best we can hope for is that Angry Bloggin' Doom is the karmic price we pay for an accurate, quality Deadpool movie.

Advertisement

As for Deadpool appearing at the Oscars, no chance at all. The Academy would never, ever approve those type of shenanigans and Fox would never risk the Academy's wrath by trying to stage a promotional stunt without their express approval. But maybe Marvel could make a comic about Deadpool hitting the Oscars, if they ever get done pretending Fox gives a shit about what they do with their X-Men and FF comics.


Advertisement

Make Mine (Captain) Marvel

JM:

When Carol Danvers was Binary there was no question she could stand toe-to-toe with Thor and the Hulk. As Captain Marvel that seems hard to believe, though. I love the character, but now she's literally a smarter version of the Claremont Era Rogue without the absorption powers. Her archenemy is Moonstone, who would have no chance against Thor. How is she a credible hero besides Thor and Hulk?

Advertisement

Look, the facts aren't going to back me up on this. Why? Mainly because Marvel hasn't updated Carol Danvers' wiki page since she officially took the Captain Marvel moniker. MARVEL, GET YO SHIT TOGETHER. So let's accept that Marvel's data is incorrect, and I'm totally right.

When she was Binary, she had the ability to channel a "white hole" that let her fly at light-speed and basically control any energy she wanted. That's like some next-level Firestorm shit. As Binary, she could basically hit someone with an actual star, which I would say puts her well above Thor and Hulk, whose primary powers are also hitting people, but not with stars. Yes, Hulk is the strongest there is, but if you can't knock the Hulk out by hitting him with a star, he's officially gotten too powerful. And no way Thor stays conscious.

Once she lost her Binary power, her levels dropped considerably. But now that she's taken the moniker of Captain Marvel — and has become one the Marvel's most important characters, both in the comics and in pop culture — her power levels have increased again, but more quietly and naturally. Compared to her Ms. Marvel days, Captain Marvel is absolutely stronger, faster, and more powerful. Recently in the comics, she basically fought an entire alien armada by herself. On her official, shamefully un-updated bio page at Marvel, I think the fans have correctly assessed her new, modern power levels:

• Intelligence: 5 of 7

• Strength: 6 of 7

• Speed: 6 of 7

• Durability: 6 of 7

• Energy Projection: 7 of 7

• Fighting Skills: 6 of 7

Now, per official Marvel ratings, Thor and Hulk both exceed her in strength and durability with level 7 each. Thor is actually tied for her with in Fighting Skills at 6, while Hulk tops out at 5 (he more than makes up for it with strength). Hulk is faster than both Thor and Captain Marvel at 7, but both Carol and Thor can fly and have Energy Projection powers Hulk doesn't — both of them at level 7.

Advertisement

Most importantly, she's way smarter than both of them. Officially, Thor's Intelligence level is 2; while Bruce Banner is obviously smarter than Carol, it's just as obvious that the Hulk isn't.

Look, Captain Marvel couldn't win a straight-up fistfight with Hulk or Thor, obviously. But she has enough powers and smarts to not just make it a serious fight with either of them, but have every chance of winning. In short, CAPTAIN MARVEL RULEZ. Thank you and good day.


Advertisement

Ya Got Issues, Son

Ken P.:

Hey Postman!

Lately, I've been struggling to reduce my material possessions to a minimum. This has involved letting go of certain nerdy memorabilia, but overall, I've found the experience surprisingly easy. Once it's gone, I don't seem to miss it.

Having said that, I still buy actual physical comics. I do this despite the fact that I read them digitally whenever possible and never open them other then to get the redeem code inside.

I know that the likelihood of any of my comics being worth any money is 1%. That 1% being that they choose to make comic books the global currency after the apocalypse.

For some reason, I don't like paying the same price for something I only virtually own. You could make an argument I don't even virtually own them, since a major publisher could, in theory, remove all their comics from Comixology at any time.

I find myself avoiding comics that don't include digital copies, so I'm pretty behind in my D.C. reading (I understand they have a new 52). Also, since Marvel has stopped including digital editions in all their comics, I've limited myself to the mainstream (my one exception is the awesome Ms. Marvel which, sadly doesn't include a digital edition anymore).

Should I just get one of those Marvel unlimited subscriptions and live perpetually 6 months in the past? Should I ignore DC until they get their act together? Or should I just keep buying the ink and paper until the pile topples on me, suffocating me in a hoarders tomb of pizza boxes and cat faeces.

Advertisement

Stop buying single issues. I don't know why anyone buys single issues, at least physically. Actually, I personally don't see the appeal in buying single issues digitally either, given that virtually no single comic ever contains a complete story anymore, and that virtually every comics writer "writes for the trade" as they say.

There is no benefit to buying single issues. They cost significantly more than the trades, they're hard to store, they take up a ton of space, they look like shit on a shelf, if you really like them you're going to buy a trade anyways, you're killing a bunch of trees, and they are never ever ever ever never going to be worth shit except as post-apocalyptic toiler paper (trust me on this).

If you want to go fully digital, I wouldn't begrudge it of you. I have thick glasses and shitty nerd eyes, so I prefer having a physical book of my comics as opposed to using an e-reader but either solution is infinitely better, smarter, etc. than buying single issues.

Advertisement

Let the single issues go. Completely. I know it's hard, especially if you've been doing it for decades, but your quality of life (and bank account) will improve considerably if you do. Even if it means you're late on Marvel titles, because the more people switch to digital the sooner Marvel will update their digital service. As for DC, it's your call, but it seems like next spring's Convergence event could totally reboot the DC universe again, so if you wanted to wait to see how that shakes out, I wouldn't begrudge it of you.


Advertisement

The Day Mystique's Mystique Was Lost Forever

Emile C.:

Since the DVD for X-Men Days Of Future Past is coming out soon and there are a ton of of ads for the release, seeing these photos of Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique has got me wondering:

Why in the X-Men movies is Mystique naked? In the comics she's clothed, which would indicate her private parts are no less private than a non-blue mutant. So just because make up artists figured out a way to cover her up, she has to be full frontal in the X-universeall the time? Or at least when she's in her "real" body.

Furthermore, if that's what Mystique's naked body looks like, then how does she go to the bathroom? Does she have to morph her look everytime to have a human anatomy? THANKS!

Advertisement

Why is Mystique nude in the movies? I imagine it's a combination of reasons. Let's see if I can break it down:

• 20% Mystique's original costume and skull belt considered too silly for live-action movie, especially in the first 2000 X-Men film

• 25% Studio worried audiences won't understand how her clothes transform if she wore them in her "regular" mode

Advertisement

• 10% Maybe her more uniform blue color and lack of clothing made the transformation effect easier to pull off back in 2000

• 4,000% If you hire Rebecca Romjin-Stamos and/or Jennifer Lawrence, and they're willing to basically run around a movie covered in blue body paint, you let them and watch the cash roll in

As for Mystique's downstairs plumbing, if you look at her from the front, you can tell her genitalia is… uh, how do I put this… unexposed. I wouldn't necessarily say she's smooth down there, seeing as much of her skin is textured, but she's rocking the Barbie/Ken special down there. I have no doubt that also extends to her butthole.

Advertisement

Which does mean she has to add her butthole back when it's time to do her business, but I don't think it's a conscious decision to add it. Her normal, most basic form surely has all her various apparatuses; she would have to mentally morph them away, just like she has to consciously perform any transformation. I'm guessing Mystique simply unclenches (so to speak) and lets her body return to normal and picks a stall.

You know, when my wife comes home and asks what I did at work today, I may not mention how much I thought about mutant buttholes.


Do you have questions about anything scifi, fantasy, superhero, or nerd-related? Email the postman@io9.com! No question too difficult, no question too dumb! Obviously!

Advertisement