In recent news, Marvel Studios offered each country an option of removing the name "Captain America" from the title to be called simply "First Avenger" if the word "America" would be deemed too offensive due to recent political issues. Well as far as we know, most countries are more than willing to still take the release of "Captain America: First Avenger" as is, but 3 countries insisting of South Korea, Ukraine, and Russia have taken Marvel up on their offer. My question to you is this...well a few questions actually..
1. Does Russia, Ukraine and S. Korea have a right to strip Captain America from the title of the movie? After all, it's just a movie, right?
2. What's so offensive about the title.."CAPTAIN AMERICA" in any movie title?
3. would you do the same thing if you were in the same boat as Marvel Studios?
4. Are you surprised by the number of countries taking advantage of this offer?
Anyways, what are you're thoughts?
Me, I don't see this as a big deal at all if you want my opinion, as it's just a movie anyway. Marvel Studios is like any other business, and will do whatever they feel is in the best interest of promoting a product. Therefore, I think this has more to do with business more so than politics if you ask me. Although politics do play a part, but I think it's more of a business move to ensure international sales success of Captain America if anything else.
edit: here's a link for more information
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap. … -container
I think you are right here as many titles just do not translate well in non English speaking countries. Also there are many titles that reference things that would have little meaning outside the US. For example, in the UK Harold and Kumar go to White Castle was renamed Harold and Kumar Get the Munchies, as Brits would be unlikely to know of the association White Castle has to an American audience. Or how about this, Live Free or Die Hard the 4th Die Hard movie is just known as Die Hard 4 outside the US.
The studio offered all countries two naming options with no preference as to which one they chose. I assume for the good ol' American reasons of wanting to make as much money as possible.
agreed. although I know a lot of comic fans are really pissed off about it right now. (sighs) I guess most people fail to see how the business aspect to all this is coming into play as well.
It is not Marvel's fault that America is seen as less than heroic, less than morally accountable, less than 'good', this is the fault of America and those fans who are p!ssed off should be p!ssed off with their government that has aggressively trashed whole countries in its failed new-age colonial efforts.
Think of how Vietnam or Iraq might feel about it.
What about Laos, America dropped almost as many metric tons of bombs on this teeny country as all the bombs used by Germany and the UK combined in WWII ! how do you think they might feel about it ?
Well recommend, I don't disagree. The problem with America for the longest time is that we've grown accustomed to the concept of "having our cake and eating it too." where we'd preach one thing, then do another. I think with a lot of the recent political events, it's fairly easy to understand how America has lost most of it's moral credibility over the years.
That's why I see this as more of a financial move by Marvel Studios to ensure that Captain America is a hit overseas versus it being a political one. Sure, politics do play a part of it, but I certainly don't blame the executives at marvel for doing this. Besides, I'd probably do the exact same thing if I was in their shoes. In fact, the only thing that surprises me with the article is that more countries didn't take advantage of Marvel's offer. Then again, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
To be honest, I think out of all the superhero films being released..the biggest one that concerns me is this one. Not because the character isn't that great, but it has more to do with what Captain America represents if anything else. I remember when he was created, Marvel used him as not only a symbol to bolster patriotic sentiment in WWII, but to represent the ideals and values of America. However in this day and age where America is no longer viewed as being as morally just as you pointed out, I tend to question how well a character like Captain America will do overseas. Which should be interesting.
I think they are off base in being pissed off. The movie will be exactly the same, only the promo will be slightly different. What's the big deal? American distributors change entire movie titles all the time.
And your right about that too. In fact, the article even stated that "Hangover's" title was changed in france, due to the fact that the word "hangover" doesn't translate well into french. Plus, I remember speaking to a australian friend of mine once on how "Live free or die hard" had a title change when it hit australia. not sure if that's true or not, but that's what she told me. Personally, I'm with you here, as I tend to think that this isn't as big of a deal as most people are making it out to be. Besides, I'd do the same thing if I was in any of the executives' shoes at Marvel Studios.
Thats ok 1 nuke bomb changes everything!!! o did I just say that yes I did!!!!
Most of the world dispises what America represents today... so why is anyone shocked.
We export homosexuality and Abrtion, open living,... I would think the Liberal Progressive agenda itself is anathema to most societies which hold any religion, or moral basis, in high standing.
We supposedly represent freedom and liberty, justice... lol
What ever.. we, America, represent perversion and immorality, materialism and hedonism, and the whole world knows it... except us.
(sighs) Sadly, I tend to agree with you there.
That's an interesting analogy there.
Well as I told recommend, we are a nation of hypocrites now aren't we...
Okay, I agree with you about the whole materialism thing being part of what America really represents. As far as perversion, immorality, and hedonism, I don't know if I'd agree with you there, as that's kind of subjective if anything. What may come off as a perversion or immoral to you, it may not apply to everyone here.
Therefore, you'll probably have to elaborate more with me about what you mean by immoral, perversion and hedonism exactly before I can comment on it, as I want to make sure that I'm reading you correctly on all these if you don't mind.
Capitain America's been torn apart
Now he's a court jester
With a broken heart
He said turn me around
And take me back to the start
I must be losing my mind
"Are you blind?!"
I've seen it all a mllion times
Guns and Roses
Wow, those are some really good song lyrics. I'll definitely have to look for that song. What's it called if you don't mind me asking?
This thread made we wonder if "Team America: world Police" had its title changed in those countries, but it seems it wasnt released there at all
Kim Jong Il: Now you see, the changing of the worrd is inevitabre!
Lisa: I'm sorry, it's what?
Kim Jong Il: Inevit, inevitabre.
Lisa: One more time
It wasn't? Are you serious? Wow, who knew that "Team America: World Police" was that freaking offensive. That really stinks, as I loved that movie.
Thanks for the laughs, sunforged.
P.S. Connotations are very difficult to overcome. Allowing title change is a brilliant marketing tool, when connotations might get the product banned or labeled badly in some regions of the world. I don't think it's such a bad thing, myself.
I just hope it's good entertainment. Looks like it might be.
I have no problem with this. It has always been done in the entertainment business when it come to naming movies and songs. When the Bruce Lee movies came out in the 70s his movies were named one way in China and another way in the U.S. For example Bruce Lee's "Way of the Dragon" in China was called "Return of the Dragon" in the United States. This practice is nothing new and is done for cultural and political reasons.
What about Snow White?
It Soviet Russia is was called "Young Revolutionary overthrows autocratic monarch with the help of 7 oppressed miners"
This backlash is a bit like:
Waiter: would you like soup or salad?
Customer: Salad please.
Customer at next table: WHY DO YOU HATE SOUP YOU UNGRATEFUL BASTARD!
I think it would be more like:
Waiter: Welcome to our delightful cafe in Paris, would you like an appetizer?
American: Do You have french fries?
Marvel Studios is owned by a Russian.... I'm jk, I just made that up I don't know who owns Marvel Studios.
Well technically speaking, Marvel Studios was bought out by Disney a few years ago. and once the contract distribution rights expire from paramount this year, then Disney will take over distribution rights completely; with the "Avengers" movie being the first one under Disney's belt. Therefore, whoever owns or controls disney, they obviously have control over Marvel Studios.
mickey mouse owns marvel so we could get the mice twins in a new x-men comic. It will be the same as super friends adding the wonder twins:super powers activate in the form od a vibrater and duct tape.
by optimus grimlock6 years ago
In some countrys the new Captain America :the 1st Avenger movie will simply be called The 1st Avenger. This is retarded, I know were not the worlds favorite people but dont change a characters title!!! This is many ways...
by Steven Escareno4 years ago
According to the Hollywood Reporter, Marvel will release Captain America 3 on the same exact day as "Batman vs. Superman" in 2016. As many movie fans probably know, "Batman vs. Superman" was...
by Bud Gallant4 years ago
Hey guys. I'm wondering if you could get any movies made with any super hero possible, which would you like to see happen?I would like to see a Bat Girl, movie personally. I'm surprised it hasn't been done...
by Steven Escareno7 years ago
Apparently Marvel wants to use Bucky Barnes for the upcoming captain america movie. for those that don't know. bucky is captain america's sidekick in the comic books. therefore, i would like to ask you...
by KrisMartinez117 months ago
Do you think the fantastic4 will come back home to marvel studios after infinity war?
by Captain Redbeard6 years ago
Ryan Renyolds did for Green Lantern as Ben Affleck did for Daredevil and Jennifer Gardner did for Electra. The only redeeming factor for this movie was Peter Sarsgaard portrayal of Hector Hammond. Again another sleeper...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.