What does Sup Forums think of movie/tv synergy on comics?

I think that synergy, in most cases, is ruining comics and limiting writers creativity...

- There are examples of good synergy but are very few and most are new characters, places or concepts that don't change but expand a character universe, like Harley Quinn and X-23 (characters), Batcave (place) and Kryptonite (concept).

- Decent synergy for me is the one that changes designs like in Morrison's New X-Men or makes return missing, dead or forgotten characters like Diamondback in Bendis's Defenders.

Bad synergy for me is the one that change the origin and/or personality of a characters like Star-Lord, Iron Man (only personality) or Wanda and Pietro (only origin), an exception is Mr Freeze that thanks to Batman the Animated Series has a really cool origin.

What do you think of movie/tv synergy on comics? can you give examples of good, decent and bad synergy for you?

Literally everything that's bled through the main MU Post-MCU is a result of "synergy". Either to make things more like the flicks (Coulson, Nick jr, Iron "Rhodey" Patriot), or to prepare for when the Big Names cash out (Ree-Ree, Foster-Thor, FalCap). Synergy kills capes.

Are they making him act like Baby Groot in his own series? Because Duggan said that despite the design being like Baby Groot that the way he was writing him as an adult, he was still Groot (and it shows that he's still an aggressive bruiser when he pokes that one Nova's eye out).

It's obvious some of the higher ups are fucking forcing the synergy shit.

It's bad and ruins character arcs and plans

It's only had one issue and I'm not sure which way it's going. Everyone was treating him like a child playing around when the ship was crashing, but I got the impression that he was actually competent and saved them.

Superman is like 50% synergy though.

Jimmy Olsen being a Superman supporting character is the result of synergy with the radio show (the comic listed as his first appearance was retroactively made his first appearance after the show).
When Alfred was introduced in the comics he was a portly dude without a mustache. But when the Batman serial in the 40's cast an actor who was thin and had a mustache, the comics changed Alfred's look to match that and it's the primary design people are used to.

Synergy can work but I think in Marvel's case in the last nine years it's not working that well because they sometimes replace something that works with something that doesn't fit right in with what's been established.

Yeah, user? Superman is a bearded dad with a wife and kid in the movies?

I assume you mean stuff like kryptonite and Jimmy Olsen and flying, though. But there's a difference between adapting successful elements and switching over characterization because of 'synergy'. The Guardians of the Galaxy being memelords is bad synergy. Turning Spider-man into a teenager again would be bad synergy.

>Superman is a bearded dad with a wife and kid in the movies?
They're using the New 52 template.

The movies are using the New 52 template? I disagree. I can think of no elements specific to the New 52 that were followed on by the movies.

The Kryptonian military thing? That's not from New 52.

Is there even hard evidence that synergy improves comic sales or box office results?

It depends. But in most cases it gives a small but unnotable boost.

>I can think of no elements specific to the New 52 that were followed on by the movies.
>What is WW being Zeus' child?

We were talking about Superman tho

Good examples... and yeah, the big problem is that and when synergy doesn't contribute and is inconsistent.

Coulson for example... he debuted in the 616 with Battle Scars, he was added by synergy but some years later they decided to retcon his origin with one even more similar to the MCU, but that is inconsistent with Nick Fury Jr origin.

All the GotG individual ongoings were canceled already... "Rocket" and "I'm Groot" will be canceled too I think.

There are a lot of good examples of synergy that don't necessarily involve new things, ever since they started making media based on comic books it's been a thing.
And while I think nowadays, because superhero movies are so casualized and dominant in the industry it does curb creativity, I can easily find good examples of synergy from older times. Synergy that changes a personality is necessary when you have an underdeveloped character who needs a stronger characterization that the comics can't exactly do.
Pic related, for example

Bad synergy is when you reboot the character to resemble the movies, like Guardians of the Galaxy or the New 52.

It doesn't bother me. Without synergy we wouldn't have things like Kryptonite or Batman using grappling hooks or other things. It's like anything else, it can be good or bad, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Besides which, whatever the most people think about a character tends to be true. No amount of "but it's different in the comics" matters.

But Groot stopped talking years before the movie.

I miss film/cartoon synergy in the 2000's, where if a superhero was getting a movie, you'd get a cartoon to accompany it, despite barely resembling the movies.

We got a lot of cartoons that way, like GL:TAS, X-Men: Evolution, Spectacular Spider-Man, The Batman, Brave and the Bold, Legion of Superheros, Beware the Batman, etc.

I'm not talking about that, but about him being creepy as "baby Groot" and now he's cute like in the movie... but yeah, when he was "baby Groot" back then he was able to talk.

Kryptonite is an example of synergy that meta-evolved into something central to the Superman mythos.

Exactly... I want more examples of good synergy, because there are plenty of bad ones.

Kryptonian crystal tech?

Steve Trevor getting a supporting cast when he didn't have one before from characters in the Wondy movie.