Then I made an off-hand comment about all of that as my own status, which sparked a whole NEW conversation about Nick Fury. Thankfully, this was among friends, and after a few tries, I was finally able to get my point across. But, the after-effect of all of this was that I had now become temporarily obsessed with Classic Nick Fury again. And one comment from a friend rekindled an idea that I have had rolling around in my head for ages...
What if "Nick Fury" was just a code-name for the director of SHIELD?
With that thought in mind, I set about writing a screenplay about Nick Fury that would reconcile the Sam Jackson version, with the Classic version. I had a slow day at work yesterday, so I worked dilligently on it for most of the time, and ended up with 12 pages of screenplay. The dialogue was great, and I could hear the lines being spoken by the actors I had in my head (I had Stephen Lang of Avatar as the old Nick). I think the story was progressing well. And it had the benefit of introducing classic Nick in a manner that didn't require a ton of screen time (I had Sam's Nick describing him over the opening credits, as a montage of WWII and Cold War era stuff was being shown), and I am just about to introduce my main villain.
But, this morning, that energy has waned. After doing a bit of research, I read that Nick Fury will have a larger role in Captain America - The Winter Soldier, and they will be revealing some of his background. Combined with comments from Jackson regarding the character and his role in the MCU films, it seems that they may try to make his version a WWII vet, stealing Classic Nick's background and just "blackwashing" the character.
In a way, this kind of offends my geek sensibilities. It just seems disrespectful to the work that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, and the writers and artists who followed during the 70's, 80's and 90's did. But, then again, I guess that's just how comic books work. At least, comic book movies. Rarely do they adhere to canon, and comic book geeks are usually just thankful when they merely "respect" the source material.
Anyways, I will probably shelve this screenplay. I might put it up on the net somewhere for others to read, if they are interested. I'm rather proud of the dialogue and characterization. Which leads me to believe that maybe I could write an original screenplay, based on an original idea and characters. It could happen.
In the meantime, I will continue to prefer Classic Nick Fury. I'm also browsing Amazon for some collections of his stories, since I haven't read much of his solo stuff, and only know him mainly from seeing him in others' titles, and doing research. And when we hit Wizard World Chicago in August, I will probably do an improved version of last year's costume. Mainly, an eye-patch that I can see through, just so I can wear it all day.
3 comments:
Do all Directors of Shield have to sacrifice an eye for the cause?
Or is the patch actually an information display system, like the google glasses that are coming out.
This parallels the 'James Bond is a code name' theory to explain why different actors have played the role.
My take was going to be that Jackson's Fury was the first to take over for the original. The Old Nick came up with the idea when Sam's character lost an eye on a SHIELD operation.
The James Bond theory was explored in David Niven's Casino Royale from the 60's. :)
The whole racist accusation is so silly. If the movie Nick Fury had never existed as a character before and someone complained that he was black, that would be racist. But to take an established character and switch him, whatever direction you go in, is a potential problem. I like Jackson as an actor. He simply is not and never will be Nick Fury to me. He could have been another Shield agent just fine and been in the film.
Post a Comment