Marvel is getting bolder and bolder and the stories are getting grander and grander as new characters, groups, and alliances are introduced, and the Marvel Universe as adopted in the films are getting bigger and more complex. We are on the tail end of Phase 1 and we are kickstarting Phase 2 with the Marvel mega superfranchise. I dedicate this thread to have a discussion on this grand Marvel Universe, between comic geeks and film buffs and just about everyone enjoying the whole lot to discuss details regarding Marvel to connect all the films together: possible plots, villains, wishlists, arcs, etc. as these cannot be discussed in the individual threads about the films. Spoilers might be discussed, so be warned.
Here are the films so far (released and planned, excluding X-Men and [un]Fantastic universes):
5. Iron Man (2008) 6. The Incredible Hulk (2008) 7. Iron Man 2 (2010) 8. Thor (2011) 9. Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) 10. The Avengers (2012) 11. The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Phase 2
12. Iron Man 3 (2013) 13. Thor: The Dark World (2013) 14. Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) 15. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) 16. Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) 17. The Avengers 2 (2015)
Ok, let us not discuss what is out already since it's done and everyone knows about them. I would like to start the discussion by continuing from the films and see where Marvel will logically take this whole thing.
Let us start with the easy one, Iron Man 3. Pepper Potts or Happy Hogan dies. And Pepper might be pregnant. This will set up Iron Man's darker and more renegade personality in the next few Avengers. Also, a few originals from the Avengers might show up here to get a bit of introduction (and because Hawkeye and Renner was seriously dull, lol usb arrow!), maybe Antman and Wasp. Moreover, since Thor 2 is also underway, expect something Strange (wink wink) after the credits.
Thor 2: The Dark World is up next, and they will probably use it for the following: 1) expand on the beyond-Earth realm of Marvel; 2) legitimize Thor as god/king of Asgard (kill Odin? sad, but necessary) 3) redeem Loki. About Loki, I really think, fantastic as he is, is a bit underworked. He is a clever cunning deceptive devil in the comics, while in the films he just appears to be a diva. Although Marvel seems to be setting him up until the last Avengers. Also, official involvement of Dr. Strange in the entire arc.
CA: Winter soldier is a bit tricky. It is difficult to really pull this one off since CA is practically from another time. Though they will use this to build CA as the leader (to anyone who still doubts this, thinking it should be Iron Man or Thor or Hulk or whoever, read Thor Vol. 1 Iss. 390 [NOTE: he was able to wield Mjolnir (the only other one except Thor, along with Red Norvell, Beta Ray Bill), that's how awesome he is]). Also this is a good chance to develop some of the more "manual" characters - Black Widow, Falcon, ad Hawkeye (though we can use less of him really).
Now we go to the meaty parts. First: Guardians of the Galaxy. One would think that the Avengers-based Marvel is crowded enough as it is, but this is actually a good addition - as an introduction for Thanos, who is bound to be the main villain in Avengers 2. Include everyone, Star-Lord, Rocket Raccoon, Bug, Groot, Drax, Cosmo, Major Victory, everyone. And Thanos kills them ALL! This will set up what formidable epic movie Avengers 2 will be. Postcredit: Avengers, everywhere, shocked, lost, hopeless, meanwhile out there in the universe, Thanos courting the lovely Death, as is his only desire.
Second: The Big One. Avengers 2. After Thanos kills all of the Guardians, the Avengers have to summon everything they have. Can't really say enough about this except Thanos vs. The Avengers will be THE BEST EVER BATTLE IN THE HISTORY OF FILM*. Of course Thanos is defeated, but does not die. Enter... ULTRON. Oh my god!
Third: The Monster in the room. It is easy enough to forget about a solo Hulk after the disaster that was Ang Lee neon green Hulk and the "ok" Edward Norton film. But Hulk is too big too ignore (lol pun). Rumors have it that Avengers 3 is geared to include the return of the Hulk. Why return? Because he will be banished!!! The real problem with Hulk is that he really is too powerful on Earth. Therefore: Planet Hulk!!! Fucking bloody yes! Probably in Avengers 2, where Hulk smashes and gets more out of control than usual, postcredit he is sent outer space where he meets monsters equal to him. Also, revenge motives for the green monster.
Fourth: Thor dies. But don't be sad. He is a god. So he lives again, stronger (like Gandalf). Key stuff here would be Loki, Dark Energy, and Skrulls (to set up Ultron in A3).
Fifth, the big one, Avengers 3. Thor and Loki reunite. The Avengers are complete. OFFICIALLY THE BIGGEST BATTLE EVER AND THE BEST MOVIE IN THE HISTORY OF EVER!!!
1. Spidey won't be out of Sony until after 2016. So Avengers 2 and 3 will have to do without him unless they do it later than that. Or you know what they say about money talking. I'm sure with the amount of money this is going to make, they will work something out.
2. I feel bad that Wasp and Ant-Man are not getting more attention. They are one of the founders of The Avengers, Ant-Man especially. But the film is getting a good shake, with Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim) directing.
3. Meanwhile, JLA is stuck in limbo. (http://badassdigest.com/2013/02/07/justice-league-may-be-looking-for-new-writers/). Imagine the envy there in DC.
Personally, I think they should keep the superheroes disconnected. It basically diminishes the plots of any individual heroes movie/comic/story. I would really like to see different ways of doing superhero movies. We have all seen the great CGI and fancy stuff they've done with Marvel characters. I want to see a movie where they are much less like a generic super hero and more like actual people. Something darker. Sort of like batman, except him not wear a silly outfit.
As an avid comic reader I always have troubles with watching the marvel films as they don't follow the comic canon, as I always think "yeah, that's not how it's supposed to be you stupid writers". I kinda have to mentally prepare before I watch one of those with "it's an alternative universe", but even then it's still hard.
Though I must say I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the destroyer in Thor, as it was kinda close to comic version.
On February 08 2013 16:15 Blargh wrote: Personally, I think they should keep the superheroes disconnected. It basically diminishes the plots of any individual heroes movie/comic/story. I would really like to see different ways of doing superhero movies. We have all seen the great CGI and fancy stuff they've done with Marvel characters. I want to see a movie where they are much less like a generic super hero and more like actual people. Something darker. Sort of like batman, except him not wear a silly outfit.
Personally I don't think superhero films should be dark or grundgy at all, like the Batman "Nolanverse". And I really can't stop myself saying this, The Nolan trilogy sucked. Seriously. TDK was great only because of Heath Ledger. Remove him and that movie would be atrocious. Nolan is getting too much credit.
Going back. Of course you know that these characters are bound to be together one point or the other. The question is how does the director and the writers and producers strike the balance that they don't overlap and that even when one is naturally stronger, there is a part to play for everyone. Avengers succeeded in that.
On February 08 2013 16:27 On_Slaught wrote: Ant-Man but not the Wasp? Interesting. And I thought they'd want a useful female to join the Avengers asap...
The Illumanti are gonna send hulk off planet in Avengers 2. This will set up a Planet Hulk movie. When the hulk returns after hulk movie, this will set up the world war hulk scenario for the Avengers 3. Edit for Source:
On February 08 2013 16:28 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote: Personally I don't think superhero films should be dark or grundgy at all, like the Batman "Nolanverse". And I really can't stop myself saying this, The Nolan trilogy sucked. Seriously. TDK was great only because of Heath Ledger. Remove him and that movie would be atrocious. Nolan is getting too much credit.
Waaa. Nolan is an amazing director! Memento, Insomnia, The Prestige, Inception (was just okay). I thought what he did with batman was about the best he could have done, but I'm really not much of a classic comic fan, so many may think he was not true to the comics. What is atrocious is all of these half-assed, plotless conglomeration. Not only are they no longer true to the comic, but they are also just silly.
Oh well, I suppose we'll disagree on this matter. Carry on the discussion!
Guardians of the Galaxy? Can honestly say i have not heard of that before. Isn't that just Avengers but without the super heroes we know? So confusing ;_;
I just want to see the new Amazing Spiderman, the first one was great, a real freshness and great movie. Reminded me exactly of the original Spiderman when i watched it, just great to see it on the big screen and with amazing effects. Im pretty standard like that xD
On February 08 2013 18:12 Pandemona wrote: Guardians of the Galaxy? Can honestly say i have not heard of that before. Isn't that just Avengers but without the super heroes we know? So confusing ;_;
The film seems to be using parts of the newest lineup. It's obviously not as well known or iconic as the Avengers, but I believe that's one of the smarter moves about it as there won't be as many getting annoyed with the movie plot ignoring or conflicting with established comics canon.
I love your take on this and I hope the plot of the entire superfranchise follows this route. Having said that, Planet Hulk will really redeem Hulk. Though it would be such a waste of a good actor ni Mark Ruffalo to have him growling and huffing and puffing all the time. One of the charms of The Avengers is the exchange between Tony Stark and Bruce Banner.
On February 08 2013 15:51 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote: Good stuff.
1. Spidey won't be out of Sony until after 2016. So Avengers 2 and 3 will have to do without him unless they do it later than that. Or you know what they say about money talking. I'm sure with the amount of money this is going to make, they will work something out.
2. I feel bad that Wasp and Ant-Man are not getting more attention. They are one of the founders of The Avengers, Ant-Man especially. But the film is getting a good shake, with Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim) directing.
3. Meanwhile, JLA is stuck in limbo. (http://badassdigest.com/2013/02/07/justice-league-may-be-looking-for-new-writers/). Imagine the envy there in DC.
1. Sony will not give up Spider-Man because it is their baby that makes a ton of money worldwide since it's one of the most iconic characters. The only time the movie rights reverts back to Marvel Films is if the studio has no plans to make another movie. I would love to see Spider-Man hook up with the Avengers and having him and the universe in the MCU, but at the same time, I'm fine with him not.
2. That will change upon release of the Ant-Man solo movie. It is the same as Thor and Captain America. The casual movie goer probably didn't give a shit about the two until the success of the Avengers. I remember an article stating that Thor and Captain America Netflix rentals raised during the success of Avengers since it got people curious. Now that we are in Phase 2 of the MCU, you can be assure that Thor and Captain America have become more popular because of the Avengers' success.
3. Warner Brothers stated that they are relying heavily on the Man of Steel's success. The initial plan was to create a JLA movie and then have the characters split into their solo movies.
On February 08 2013 18:12 Pandemona wrote: Guardians of the Galaxy? Can honestly say i have not heard of that before. Isn't that just Avengers but without the super heroes we know? So confusing ;_;
I just want to see the new Amazing Spiderman, the first one was great, a real freshness and great movie. Reminded me exactly of the original Spiderman when i watched it, just great to see it on the big screen and with amazing effects. Im pretty standard like that xD
It's the space version of the Avengers. The members have ties to Thanos, which makes sense to why they are getting their own movie and the possibility of them being in the Avengers 2. I am excited for this movie since it will be interesting how they will approach it. Having a release date in August is a same choice since that is the month that "risky" movies are released.
On February 08 2013 16:15 Blargh wrote: Personally, I think they should keep the superheroes disconnected. It basically diminishes the plots of any individual heroes movie/comic/story. I would really like to see different ways of doing superhero movies. We have all seen the great CGI and fancy stuff they've done with Marvel characters. I want to see a movie where they are much less like a generic super hero and more like actual people. Something darker. Sort of like batman, except him not wear a silly outfit.
On February 09 2013 03:16 Ratch! wrote: At some point I'd like to see Apocalypse come and beat the shit out of everyone for the X-Men to come in.
That would be cool except Sony owns the rights to X-Men. Besides, if the Avengers can take down Thanos, then Apocalypse will not be problem. In the comics, Thanos fought the entire Marvel universe and almost won. Meanwhile, Apocalypse lived mostly on Earth and hasn't done as much as Thanos. I think in battle, Apocalypse lacks the strength and abilities when you compare him to Thanos, who is on a cosmic level. If that is the case, then the Avengers have no need to call the X-Men. I wish Marvel studios had all the rights to their properties.
How in the hell are they gonna get Rocket Raccoon to work in a live action screen? :p Though if they manage to get the log trap move in there somewhere from UMvC3 that would be fricking incredible.
On February 09 2013 07:25 MCDayC wrote: How in the hell are they gonna get Rocket Raccoon to work in a live action screen? :p Though if they manage to get the log trap move in there somewhere from UMvC3 that would be fricking incredible.
If they can make the Hulk work with CGI I'm sure they can make Rocket Raccoon work as well.
Cool thread, but maybe include in the OP that actual details about the plots (rather than fan speculation) should be hidden under spoiler tags? I mean I'd love to discuss the Marvel Universe and upcoming movies here, but at the same time I'd really like to avoid actual spoilers :p
Comics geeks, looks like we're in for some more marvelgasm. Rumors are loud that + Show Spoiler +
is in phase 2 and will get his own series.
I knew there was a good reason why Wakanda was in the map in Iron Man 2 where they show the location of the different superheroes, and why vibranium was emphasized in Captain America. I hope they get Djimon Hounsou.
To be honest, I really hope they would stop introducing new superheroes from the comics. All the ones we are having now are the most famous ones globally, bringing in new superheroes into the avengers without their own movie will just be confusing for some viewers (in my case, I would just think holy F, there are just so many super heroes coming from everywhere). Hawkeyes and blackwidow are kinda ok because they don't have super powers and their role serves more like a special agent.
However if some new heroes are having their own movies, people will get tired of watching superhero movies. I know that many aren't even sure who is in DC and who is in Marvel.
On February 16 2013 20:48 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote: Comics geeks, looks like we're in for some more marvelgasm. Rumors are loud that + Show Spoiler +
is in phase 2 and will get his own series.
I knew there was a good reason why Wakanda was in the map in Iron Man 2 where they show the location of the different superheroes, and why vibranium was emphasized in Captain America. I hope they get Djimon Hounsou.
Bloody hell! I knew they were gonna play that card! I predict a white actor to play this!
Ok... so we now know that Avengers 2 will be Ultron. What will happen to Thanos? Avengers 3? Why tease him in the end of 1 then? I wonder how they will stitch Ultron in without any reference in Avengers. Maybe after Guardians? Or Thor 2? Crazy I really thought Guardians would be about Thanos killing them all. But come to think of it, Ultron would also make a cool Guardian killer. Anyway, I FUCKING CANT WAIT!
On July 21 2013 16:26 yOngKIN wrote: Ok... so we now know that Avengers 2 will be Ultron. What will happen to Thanos? Avengers 3? Why tease him in the end of 1 then? I wonder how they will stitch Ultron in without any reference in Avengers. Maybe after Guardians? Or Thor 2? Crazy I really thought Guardians would be about Thanos killing them all. But come to think of it, Ultron would also make a cool Guardian killer. Anyway, I FUCKING CANT WAIT!
What is wrong with teasing? Having him in the mid credits scene is fine since it helps to build him up. Any comics fan will know that he is one of the strongest Marvel villains. I draw a comparison of him being like the Marvel version of Emperor Palpatine, who will be in the shadows until he shows up in a future movie. Involving Ultron is simple, which will be somewhere in the Captain America sequel. Feige or Whedon has said that Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 are standalone movies dealing with their own problems, but Captain America 2 will be a bridge to Avengers 2. We all know (or should) that not everyone is thrilled by the appearance of super heroes, so I can imagine the creation of Ultron in order to counter any threat. We could see the introduction of Ant-Man and Wasp in Avengers 2 since Ant-Man is suppose to have his own movie in fall 2015.
I really hope they do some planet hulk and world war hulk movies. The hulk is definitely my favorite avenger, and I love the way they are animating him. They do a good job of making him feel endlessly strong and he always gets me hype.
On July 21 2013 17:27 ZackAttack wrote: I really hope they do some planet hulk and world war hulk movies. The hulk is definitely my favorite avenger, and I love the way they are animating him. They do a good job of making him feel endlessly strong and he always gets me hype.
Marvel has two unannounced movies around 2016 and 2017. One of them could be another Hulk movie since Mark Ruffalo surprised a lot of people and I think he signed on for 5 Marvel movies.
On July 21 2013 17:27 ZackAttack wrote: I really hope they do some planet hulk and world war hulk movies. The hulk is definitely my favorite avenger, and I love the way they are animating him. They do a good job of making him feel endlessly strong and he always gets me hype.
Marvel has two unannounced movies around 2016 and 2017. One of them could be another Hulk movie since Mark Ruffalo surprised a lot of people and I think he signed on for 5 Marvel movies.
I'm hoping it's going to be Deadpool kills Marvel movie with his epic battle against Sherlock and Dr.Who.
On July 21 2013 17:27 ZackAttack wrote: I really hope they do some planet hulk and world war hulk movies. The hulk is definitely my favorite avenger, and I love the way they are animating him. They do a good job of making him feel endlessly strong and he always gets me hype.
Marvel has two unannounced movies around 2016 and 2017. One of them could be another Hulk movie since Mark Ruffalo surprised a lot of people and I think he signed on for 5 Marvel movies.
I'm hoping it's going to be Deadpool kills Marvel movie with his epic battle against Sherlock and Dr.Who.
That would be cool along with a Marvel Zombies movie. The problem is that they're owned by Disney and they probably want everything to be PG-13. That is why I find it hard how Marvel can make a Punisher or Ghost Rider movie now that they have gotten back the rights.
Does anybody know to what extent the video games, tv shows, animated movies, etc. that are set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe relate to the MCU? I know that the events that transpire in the tie-in comics and one-shot movies are officially part of it and I think I've heard that the Agents of SHIELD tv show will be officially part of the MCU as well and was wondering about the other forms of media.
I guess another way of asking would be to ask how "canon" they are in the MCU or to what extent the stories from those mediums build upon and officially contribute to the MCU. Are those mediums just based off of and based in the MCU with their stories not officially affecting the storyline given by the movies, comics, and one-shots or do their events "actually happen in the MCU", if you will?
On February 17 2013 02:41 ETisME wrote: To be honest, I really hope they would stop introducing new superheroes from the comics. All the ones we are having now are the most famous ones globally, bringing in new superheroes into the avengers without their own movie will just be confusing for some viewers (in my case, I would just think holy F, there are just so many super heroes coming from everywhere). Hawkeyes and blackwidow are kinda ok because they don't have super powers and their role serves more like a special agent.
However if some new heroes are having their own movies, people will get tired of watching superhero movies. I know that many aren't even sure who is in DC and who is in Marvel.
But in the comics there really are too many heroes coming from everywhere.
I have to respectfully say, the marvel movies aren't that good. I'm referring to the individual character movies, since they're all setting up the avengers. And I have watched everything up to iron man 3. Yes RDJ is a good actor and whatever, but the entertainment value of that movie literally is to treat the story as a joke. All three movies in the series doesn't have a lot of iron man fight scenes, and the stories aren't that good in each of them.
I wanted to express my thoughts after reading the ign review of thor 2, it sounds like that movie isn't even worth watching. The trailers certainly looked exciting, but the review really crawled up my spine especially if I have to compare thor 2 to iron man 3. The cap trailer a few posts up looks interesting, but I fear its the same case.
Also I really hope that there is a Hulk movie coming out sometime in the near future. That guy was my favorite. I do feel like that one of those unannounced Marvel movies from 2016/2017 is the Hulk, because I remember reading somewhere that they were going to do another Hulk movie after the 2nd Avengers. Or at least they were going to think about it.
On October 25 2013 14:52 PSdualwielder wrote: I have to respectfully say, the marvel movies aren't that good. I'm referring to the individual character movies, since they're all setting up the avengers. And I have watched everything up to iron man 3. Yes RDJ is a good actor and whatever, but the entertainment value of that movie literally is to treat the story as a joke. All three movies in the series doesn't have a lot of iron man fight scenes, and the stories aren't that good in each of them.
I wanted to express my thoughts after reading the ign review of thor 2, it sounds like that movie isn't even worth watching. The trailers certainly looked exciting, but the review really crawled up my spine especially if I have to compare thor 2 to iron man 3. The cap trailer a few posts up looks interesting, but I fear its the same case.
I agree, but I still get some enjoyment and entertainment out of some of them. Some of the problems I have with their movies is how they treat their villains. Unfortunately, the only good villain they have is Loki so far. It's quite sad that people are more excited for Loki than Thor when it's suppose to be Thor's movie. Besides Loki, all the villains have been a disappointment like Whiplash, Red Skull, etc. I even find The Incredible Hulk's Abomination more interesting out of the villains minus Loki. Besides the villains department, the heroes never face a hard challenge and threat. It's there in the movies, but I find it hard to believe it. That is why I say DC is so good in that area in my opinion. They have more heart and better story telling. The villains are great too like Joker, Zod, etc.
Unfortunately, this is a trend now. Marvel is trying to cater to everyone as much as possible. I rolled my eyes when I found out that the upcoming Thor movie has the most comedy so far... Really? The comedy in the first was alright, but I don't see Thor and his world to have more comedy than Stark's world. I hope Cap 2 has that trailer's feel and vibe for the whole movie because it is something different at least. They claim the movie is suppose to be a political thriller that feels like a Bourne movie, but with Captain America.
lol the helicarriers gets destroyed in the comics a lot. Besides, SHIELD Has more than one helicarrier, which is also present in the trailer. Wonder how much each helicarrier cost, lol.
X-Men may not be apart of Marvel's Cinematic Universe since the property is owned by Fox, but here is the first trailer for X-Men: Days of Future Past (shown at this year's Comic-Con)
On October 30 2013 03:00 zoLo wrote: X-Men may not be apart of Marvel's Cinematic Universe since the property is owned by Fox, but here is the first trailer for X-Men: Days of Future Past (shown at this year's Comic-Con)
Ehh, Singer hasn't done anything good since X-2. Superman Returns, Valkyrie, and Jack the Giant Slayer were either bad to mediocre. This does look promising since they can fix the X-Men continuity problems that the series has. I just hope he finds the right balance with the original trilogy and First Class cast. I will be very mad if Michael Fassbender has a small role.
I'm just really so sick of Wolverine being such a main character. First Class was awesome in large part because we actually got to focus on different characters. He's just not that interesting or compelling...certainly not enough for the 4 movies that have basically been about him already.
On October 30 2013 03:27 Klondikebar wrote: I'm just really so sick of Wolverine being such a main character. First Class was awesome in large part because we actually got to focus on different characters. He's just not that interesting or compelling...certainly not enough for the 4 movies that have basically been about him already.
Yup, I feel the same. Huge Jackman is great, but he's obviously Fox's Robert Downey Jr. Fun fact: the role that Wolverine has in the movie was suppose to be Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page), but of course, they swapped with Wolverine just because of the general audience.
On October 30 2013 03:27 Klondikebar wrote: I'm just really so sick of Wolverine being such a main character. First Class was awesome in large part because we actually got to focus on different characters. He's just not that interesting or compelling...certainly not enough for the 4 movies that have basically been about him already.
BLASPHEMY!
There can never be enough Wolverine!
All kidding aside, Wolverine has always been one of the pivots of X-Men for me, which is why i enjoyed the first triology a lot. I'm very curious about how well they will be able to deal with the continuity problems they have established with their films so far.
On the other topic, the only Marvel "villains" I consider well done were Magneto and Loki, but in the latter case I think it's more because I know he is supposed to be awesome, the role in Thor was a disgrace (Avengers was a bit better and I haven't seen Thor 2 yet so no comment on that movie).
On October 30 2013 03:00 zoLo wrote: X-Men may not be apart of Marvel's Cinematic Universe since the property is owned by Fox, but here is the first trailer for X-Men: Days of Future Past (shown at this year's Comic-Con)
I think this one has potential to be as good as the Winter Soldier or even better. They did nothing new for Ultron and I hope they don't do the same mistake twice.
As a person that read Civil War comics this seems pathetic. I think they are going to butcher the story and just have the whole movie be a setup for fights between heroes like it is a Mortal Kombat videogame. I doubt we are going to get a sensible story here.
As someone who doesn't read the comics I find it hard to believe that they can have Cap'n and Budd beating the shit out of Iron Man. I hope it goes further then ''hurr durr my friend was once evil but he damn sure is a good guy now'' versus ''He should be tried for the crimes he comitted hurr durr''. If not the plot is just w/e. Seems character assassination on both counts but maybe I don't know the comics very well.
On November 25 2015 19:17 Kipsate wrote: As someone who doesn't read the comics I find it hard to believe that they can have Cap'n and Budd beating the shit out of Iron Man. I hope it goes further then ''hurr durr my friend was once evil but he damn sure is a good guy now'' versus ''He should be tried for the crimes he comitted hurr durr''. If not the plot is just w/e. Seems character assassination on both counts but maybe I don't know the comics very well.
Comic is much more complicated and actually makes (some) sense.
The directors of The Winter Soldier are directing this. I have faith in it. And obviously the Civil War story is going to be different since the MCU doesn't have the major characters due to legal rights.
On November 25 2015 19:17 Kipsate wrote: As someone who doesn't read the comics I find it hard to believe that they can have Cap'n and Budd beating the shit out of Iron Man. I hope it goes further then ''hurr durr my friend was once evil but he damn sure is a good guy now'' versus ''He should be tried for the crimes he comitted hurr durr''. If not the plot is just w/e. Seems character assassination on both counts but maybe I don't know the comics very well.
It is going to go along the lines that Captain America doesn’t believe Bucky will get a fair trial or that people will believe he was mind controlled/brain washed. Tony thinks he can get a fair trial. We also don’t know what Bucky is up to, but I bet is looking into other Hydra projects and the Capp wants to help.
I think it is going to come down to the government not being willing to accept that mind control/brain washing can rob someone of all agency and Capp going “fuck you guys.” Exactly why Tony is against Capp is yet to be seen , but I have faith it will be explained well.
Edit: and its not going to be about the registration act because most of the marvel heroes have public identities. It just doesn't play in the MCU.
It would be really difficult to have it be about the registration act because IIRC Tony is the one against it in the comics, yet in the MCU he tells the world he's Iron Man at the end of the first movie
Well in the comics Cap is against it because of the nature of forced registration vs freedom. Seemingly that's mentioned in the trailer as well as the bucky story as well. Should be interesting what they can pull off, though black panther's helmet looked like hawkgirl/man from legends of tomorrow lols, but was only a few glimpses.
It's extremely odd to see T'challa being on Tony's side because in the comic he was VERY much against a lot of the shit Tony wanted to do, like the Illuminati and the whole registration act thing which Tony supported. I'll be very interested in seeing what his motivations are in the movie universe. Great trailer, hoping this will be as goood or better than Winter Soldier.
On November 26 2015 05:17 TanKLoveR wrote: It's extremely odd to see T'challa being on Tony's side because in the comic he was VERY much against a lot of the shit Tony wanted to do, like the Illuminati and the whole registration act thing which Tony supported. I'll be very interested in seeing what his motivations are in the movie universe. Great trailer, hoping this will be as goood or better than Winter Soldier.
I bet its something to do with the Winter Solider killing or harming some of his people. But maybe not.
Also anyone else notice the lack of Ant Man in the trailer? Lacking Spider Man makes sense as that's going to be the surprise wow that's supposed to get everyone in but what about Ant Man
how is it even possible for a peak human superhero like Captain America to fight Stark, who uses a nuclear power armor and has gone toe to toe with physical monsters like the Hulk and Thor, and not getting squashed? this is just dumb.
On November 27 2015 13:21 Tien Vu wrote: how is it even possible for a peak human superhero like Captain America to fight Stark, who uses a nuclear power armor and has gone toe to toe with physical monsters like the Hulk and Thor, and not getting squashed? this is just dumb.
Stark couldn't fight the Hulk without a suit specially designed to do it.
And he was technically fighting Thor head-on, but it was fairly clear that the suit was getting busted up, but Thor was just getting knocked around a bit.
Also, Stark's been shown to really suck in actual fights. Long-range weaponry and fly-bys are his entire schtick, any time he actually starts getting hit with anything and he spends 5 seconds staring at flickering HUDs.
The Mk III suit was shown to be able to take a tank shell with no damage. And somehow two "peak" humans can just go to town on him, with Tony in a suit that has been upgraded several dozen times?
Anyway, the trailer confuses me. It almost makes it seen like Captain America is the one in the "wrong". The part of the trailer with the Cap-Iron Man exchange that went something like "Sorry Tony, you know I wouldn't do this if I had any other choice. But hes my friend." "...So was I." Its portraying Cap as the one who is betraying people and being the instigator of the infighting here. Maybe in the actual film he will be set up to be more heroic, but as for now, I dunno.
I think y'all underestimating Cap a bit, he can hyper charging star right through a proton cannon!
Cap can also tank anything, including a tank shell or the Mjolnir, as long as he's got the vibranium. I don't even know how Iron Man can take a tank gun head-on without becoming a red smear inside the suit, must be some impressive gyroscope or liquid lcl tech...
Seriously though, only way Steve stands a chance against Tony is if they were fighting in confined close quarters combat. If they were out in the open and Iron Man was flying around playing keep away with long range unibeams and missiles, Cap's gonna have a bad time just like Wolvie.
I guess on the other hand, considering how Tony started to make his suits out of cardboard starting with Iron Man 3, it makes sense that some stronger than average guys could do some damage to him.
The car certainly rammed him into a wall, but I always just assumed him surviving that was a combination of the car not moving at a terminal speed and general toughness on his part. At least, I wouldn't describe it was "tanking", at any rate.
On November 27 2015 14:35 Sentenal wrote: The Mk III suit was shown to be able to take a tank shell with no damage. And somehow two "peak" humans can just go to town on him, with Tony in a suit that has been upgraded several dozen times?
Anyway, the trailer confuses me. It almost makes it seen like Captain America is the one in the "wrong". The part of the trailer with the Cap-Iron Man exchange that went something like "Sorry Tony, you know I wouldn't do this if I had any other choice. But hes my friend." "...So was I." Its portraying Cap as the one who is betraying people and being the instigator of the infighting here. Maybe in the actual film he will be set up to be more heroic, but as for now, I dunno.
Well Vibranium shield is stronger than anything Tony has and WS also has that mechanical powered arm that is probably stronger than Ironman arms. And they are fighting in close quarters.
As for the story, well Cap is the one to blame. He organized the rebellion and got people killed, Tony was just using the knowledge and his brains to save the future. And if Reed Richards and that villain guy went over the calculations together and didn't see another way, there was no other way.
Just came back from the cinema and I gotta say I loved it.
Avenger movies are like pop corn fun fan service movie.
But this is different. This is what an avenger movie should be like. Thanos is written well, most members have their moments, not just for a few kicks or punches or jokes.
On April 28 2018 23:50 Kipsate wrote: If you told me 5 years ago that Thor would be one of my favorite characters in the MCU right now i'd laugh at you.
Why? Thor seems well-written and a default favorite being a god and all.
On April 28 2018 20:13 ETisME wrote: Just came back from the cinema and I gotta say I loved it.
Avenger movies are like pop corn fun fan service movie.
But this is different. This is what an avenger movie should be like. Thanos is written well, most members have their moments, not just for a few kicks or punches or jokes.
This is a full scale movie.
I'm with you. This is Marvel on their 7th gear already. They have learned well from their earlier mistakes with excess characters, bad development, cardboard villains, too much fan service, and many others. They even got the dark tone and complex characters right.
On April 28 2018 23:50 Kipsate wrote: If you told me 5 years ago that Thor would be one of my favorite characters in the MCU right now i'd laugh at you.
Why? Thor seems well-written and a default favorite being a god and all.
He felt very, very cheesy in most of his Movies, i think Thor 1+2 are among the worst Marvel movies. It has gotten better in the recent one and in infinity war i really liked him.
On April 28 2018 20:13 ETisME wrote: Just came back from the cinema and I gotta say I loved it.
Avenger movies are like pop corn fun fan service movie.
But this is different. This is what an avenger movie should be like. Thanos is written well, most members have their moments, not just for a few kicks or punches or jokes.
This is a full scale movie.
I'm with you. This is Marvel on their 7th gear already. They have learned well from their earlier mistakes with excess characters, bad development, cardboard villains, too much fan service, and many others. They even got the dark tone and complex characters right.
DC on the other hand...
Marvel needs to complete the Fox deal and get access to their greatest villain, Dr. Doom. A villain who is not only trying to defeat the heroes, but also upstage them. A villain that doubled down on the Robot Doubles when comic books were getting out of that trope. A villain that just has a time machine, but doesn't use it because time travel is played out. Then they just need a staggeringly good looking and talented actor to play him. Just keep with the Loki, Killmonger styling. And they might need to ditch the mask. Or make it so he can summon it at will. Then we will be in peek marvel.
On April 28 2018 23:50 Kipsate wrote: If you told me 5 years ago that Thor would be one of my favorite characters in the MCU right now i'd laugh at you.
Why? Thor seems well-written and a default favorite being a god and all.
He felt very, very cheesy in most of his Movies, i think Thor 1+2 are among the worst Marvel movies. It has gotten better in the recent one and in infinity war i really liked him.
I see. Thor 1 was nice, and Branagh gave it a Shakesperean theater twirl. Thor 2 was wonky shit with crap villains, love interest, and nonsense plot. In Thor 3, they finally decided on the Thor identity to distinguish it from the other MCU films and they went full 70s viking LSD trip.
Thor's character itself is shaky, but we can credit that to character development. In 1 he was a bratty ass who became worthy. in Avengers he was Ironman-ish with quips and wit. In AoU he was more or less the same AoU Thor but with more powers. The "running out of things to say" bit was weird, but it seems genuine at the moment.
Maybe it's a death-of-the-father trope that they are molding Thor on that made him gain maturity and power.
watched infinity war for the 4th time, and still amazed by it. it really felt like the movie had a stake in it and the heroes were being pushed and raced against time. action right from the get-go. and urgh WHEN PETER WAS DYING FFS I CRIED EVERY TIME I WATCHED IT
Just got home from the cinema. This was easily the best marvel film so far in my opinion. The character pairings worked well. Dr Strange and Iron Man worked soooo much better than I thought it would, but its all about Thor and the Rabbit. That shit was real. That euphoric sequence where Thor gets his weapon was Marvel at its very best. The pacing was good.
Did anyone else almost take Thanos' side? If only his plan was to have half the population of the universe never have existed in the first place it would be a no drawback situation and the Avengers would have been the bad guys.
On April 28 2018 20:13 ETisME wrote: Just came back from the cinema and I gotta say I loved it.
Avenger movies are like pop corn fun fan service movie.
But this is different. This is what an avenger movie should be like. Thanos is written well, most members have their moments, not just for a few kicks or punches or jokes.
This is a full scale movie.
I'm with you. This is Marvel on their 7th gear already. They have learned well from their earlier mistakes with excess characters, bad development, cardboard villains, too much fan service, and many others. They even got the dark tone and complex characters right.
DC on the other hand...
Marvel needs to complete the Fox deal and get access to their greatest villain, Dr. Doom. A villain who is not only trying to defeat the heroes, but also upstage them. A villain that doubled down on the Robot Doubles when comic books were getting out of that trope. A villain that just has a time machine, but doesn't use it because time travel is played out. Then they just need a staggeringly good looking and talented actor to play him. Just keep with the Loki, Killmonger styling. And they might need to ditch the mask. Or make it so he can summon it at will. Then we will be in peek marvel.
On May 03 2018 05:44 Jockmcplop wrote: Just got home from the cinema. This was easily the best marvel film so far in my opinion. The character pairings worked well. Dr Strange and Iron Man worked soooo much better than I thought it would, but its all about Thor and the Rabbit. That shit was real. That euphoric sequence where Thor gets his weapon was Marvel at its very best. The pacing was good.
Did anyone else almost take Thanos' side? If only his plan was to have half the population of the universe never have existed in the first place it would be a no drawback situation and the Avengers would have been the bad guys.
I think the alternative that would be easiest to sympathize with would be if Thanos just simply made the planets larger with twice as much food, so that no one would need to be killed or erased. It's a much more pleasant reality, and he clearly could have just made sure everyone was comfortable and solved overpopulation.
But his backstory and his sincere love for Gomora really made me feel conflicted for his character, which I appreciated. He didn't just come off as a random villain.
The children of thanos died way too easily for my liking.
Thanos is a neat villain though. He acts with his own twisted sense of reason. He massacres, but spares people he likes/respects. Of course maybe he is just too cocky over his powers. I like that he is some all powerful person, yet is capable of bleeding (albeit with difficulty). A god yet mortal..
I loved Thanos and the whole movie too. Spidey scene almost had me crying. But I got confused a couple times, I have a few questions regarding Gamora, Thanos and his "killing" scene:
Was there an infinity stone in Gamora's dagger that Thanos gave her as a kid? If so, what stone was it and why did she use it to stab him? I assumed Thanos used the reality (red?) stone to rework reality when Gamora stabbed him. That stone seems super OP as he basically undid his imminent death and also slices the Guardians of the Galaxy into steaks. I wonder why he didn't just do that against the Avengers+DocStrange later on? Did the asgardians really give the Collector a stone? It looked like Thanos was trying to get one from him but then Thanos just had it already? Was that an act?
I don't think Gamora's knife had an Infinity Stone.
As far as I can tell, the Reality Stone stuff was mostly just... Illusions? But yeah, not sure why he didn't use it more.
They gave the Collector a Stone at the end of Thor 2. The reasoning was it wasn't wise to keep two Stones close together, and the Tessaract was already on Asgard.
That moment when Thor shows up and slams down with stormbreaker was so god damn cool. What they have done to thor in the past 6 months is nothing short of incredible
On May 04 2018 04:07 Cricketer12 wrote: That moment when Thor shows up and slams down with stormbreaker was so god damn cool. What they have done to thor in the past 6 months is nothing short of incredible
On May 03 2018 05:44 Jockmcplop wrote: Just got home from the cinema. This was easily the best marvel film so far in my opinion. The character pairings worked well. Dr Strange and Iron Man worked soooo much better than I thought it would, but its all about Thor and the Rabbit. That shit was real. That euphoric sequence where Thor gets his weapon was Marvel at its very best. The pacing was good.
Did anyone else almost take Thanos' side? If only his plan was to have half the population of the universe never have existed in the first place it would be a no drawback situation and the Avengers would have been the bad guys.
I think the alternative that would be easiest to sympathize with would be if Thanos just simply made the planets larger with twice as much food, so that no one would need to be killed or erased. It's a much more pleasant reality, and he clearly could have just made sure everyone was comfortable and solved overpopulation.
But his backstory and his sincere love for Gomora really made me feel conflicted for his character, which I appreciated. He didn't just come off as a random villain.
I agree with you, although I think that the destruction of the Titans kinda traumatized Thanos or at least had him obsessed with making sure that everyone else would avoid the fate of his people. My reasons for thinking so is bcos he advised them to cut down the population to 50%, they didn't and they ended up killing themselves and he said that he once abandoned his fate or calling or something like that and that he wouldn't do it again.
On May 04 2018 04:07 Cricketer12 wrote: That moment when Thor shows up and slams down with stormbreaker was so god damn cool. What they have done to thor in the past 6 months is nothing short of incredible
100% agree. I got nerdchills at that Thor moment.
I loved it as well. In general, I just love how the Russos displays the characters' powers to make them look badass.
Just watched Infinity War. Having a bit of a hard time explaining what I thought of it. Lots of unresolved plot points. Felt like it really jumped the shark in terms of “power creep” both in terms of Thanos’ strength and how the others adapted. Lot of interesting stuff but I am not fully convinced that it “worked.” Very crammed, and yet ends in a cliffhanger.
I’ll have to read some reviews. I didn’t hate it - it was interesting in its own ways and even the disappointments weren’t SW Ep 8 caliber by a long shot - but there was definitely something about it that miffed me. Sounds like the review sites say the critic consensus is split while viewers mostly like it.
On May 03 2018 21:26 Salteador Neo wrote: I loved Thanos and the whole movie too. Spidey scene almost had me crying. But I got confused a couple times, I have a few questions regarding Gamora, Thanos and his "killing" scene:
Was there an infinity stone in Gamora's dagger that Thanos gave her as a kid? If so, what stone was it and why did she use it to stab him? I assumed Thanos used the reality (red?) stone to rework reality when Gamora stabbed him. That stone seems super OP as he basically undid his imminent death and also slices the Guardians of the Galaxy into steaks. I wonder why he didn't just do that against the Avengers+DocStrange later on? Did the asgardians really give the Collector a stone? It looked like Thanos was trying to get one from him but then Thanos just had it already? Was that an act?
Any help on these is very welcome, thanks!
Firstly, I loved the movie. Big MCU fan in general, and this was definitely a top 3 movie for me.
As far as the reality stone, I think that was showing gamora an illusion in the first place - not reworking reality after the stab. The collector had a stone before. I think Thanos, while not omnipresent, has significant awareness. Why he didn't use that whole turn people into steaks thing later though, no idea. But well he was up against significantly stronger opposition, dr.strange is on a different level from the guardians squad.
On May 03 2018 21:26 Salteador Neo wrote: I loved Thanos and the whole movie too. Spidey scene almost had me crying. But I got confused a couple times, I have a few questions regarding Gamora, Thanos and his "killing" scene:
Was there an infinity stone in Gamora's dagger that Thanos gave her as a kid? If so, what stone was it and why did she use it to stab him? I assumed Thanos used the reality (red?) stone to rework reality when Gamora stabbed him. That stone seems super OP as he basically undid his imminent death and also slices the Guardians of the Galaxy into steaks. I wonder why he didn't just do that against the Avengers+DocStrange later on? Did the asgardians really give the Collector a stone? It looked like Thanos was trying to get one from him but then Thanos just had it already? Was that an act?
Any help on these is very welcome, thanks!
Firstly, I loved the movie. Big MCU fan in general, and this was definitely a top 3 movie for me.
As far as the reality stone, I think that was showing gamora an illusion in the first place - not reworking reality after the stab. The collector had a stone before. I think Thanos, while not omnipresent, has significant awareness. Why he didn't use that whole turn people into steaks thing later though, no idea. But well he was up against significantly stronger opposition, dr.strange is on a different level from the guardians squad.
Yep I talked to some friends and they also thought that whole scene was an illusion, I missed it live but it makes sense.
Well while this movie is one of the best super hero movies and definitely great, it doesn't hold up if you stop to analize it really. Like the infinity stones should be so powerful it would be literally impossible to defeat him. He controls reality. He controls time. He can control his enemies. He can't lose. He wins in the end but he is not very creative with what he does. I've seen some people explaining it like he was toying with everyone, I did see some of that I guess.
But yeah they changed his motivation and it doesn't make sense now. In the comics he wants to kill people to seduce death. While being in love with death is kinda stupid, that's his whole identity (Thanos-thanatos-thanatology, etc). Killing half the universe would make death happy. Like people here are saying, with the guantlett he could make planets bigger, or have infinite resources. I agree with him overpopulation is a problem, I feel his pain having to kill gamora "for the greater good" but his solution is stupid. He could do anything. He has all the infinity stones. He is a god, he is omnipotent. But we ended up with this problem thanks to marvel changing his motivations, and not his method.
Don't get me wrong though. Loved the movie. One just isn't suppoused to think too much about it.
On May 05 2018 17:21 [Phantom] wrote: Well while this movie is one of the best super hero movies and definitely great, it doesn't hold up if you stop to analize it really. Like the infinity stones should be so powerful it would be literally impossible to defeat him. He controls reality. He controls time. He can control his enemies. He can't lose. He wins in the end but he is not very creative with what he does. I've seen some people explaining it like he was toying with everyone, I did see some of that I guess.
But yeah they changed his motivation and it doesn't make sense now. In the comics he wants to kill people to seduce death. While being in love with death is kinda stupid, that's his whole identity (Thanos-thanatos-thanatology, etc). Killing half the universe would make death happy. Like people here are saying, with the guantlett he could make planets bigger, or have infinite resources. I agree with him overpopulation is a problem, I feel his pain having to kill gamora "for the greater good" but his solution is stupid. He could do anything. He has all the infinity stones. He is a god, he is omnipotent. But we ended up with this problem thanks to marvel changing his motivations, and not his method.
Don't get me wrong though. Loved the movie. One just isn't suppoused to think too much about it.
It is, after all, a comic book movie. Most don't stand up to thinking too much about them. Was a fantastic movie though. Haven't felt this overwhelmed by cinematic splendor since avatar.
On May 05 2018 17:21 [Phantom] wrote: Well while this movie is one of the best super hero movies and definitely great, it doesn't hold up if you stop to analize it really. Like the infinity stones should be so powerful it would be literally impossible to defeat him. He controls reality. He controls time. He can control his enemies. He can't lose. He wins in the end but he is not very creative with what he does. I've seen some people explaining it like he was toying with everyone, I did see some of that I guess.
But yeah they changed his motivation and it doesn't make sense now. In the comics he wants to kill people to seduce death. While being in love with death is kinda stupid, that's his whole identity (Thanos-thanatos-thanatology, etc). Killing half the universe would make death happy. Like people here are saying, with the guantlett he could make planets bigger, or have infinite resources. I agree with him overpopulation is a problem, I feel his pain having to kill gamora "for the greater good" but his solution is stupid. He could do anything. He has all the infinity stones. He is a god, he is omnipotent. But we ended up with this problem thanks to marvel changing his motivations, and not his method.
Don't get me wrong though. Loved the movie. One just isn't suppoused to think too much about it.
It is, after all, a comic book movie. Most don't stand up to thinking too much about them. Was a fantastic movie though. Haven't felt this overwhelmed by cinematic splendor since avatar.
To some extent I agree... but I also feel like at least the first Avengers did it better. Even non-serious fiction should at least be reasonable within some internal logic, and this one sort of doesn’t manage to do that. And while that’s fairly standard for MCU movies, it didn’t make for good storytelling in this specific instance. When the movie makes you think, “well that made the past 15 minutes of plot completely pointless” very frequently, that ain’t great.
On May 05 2018 17:21 [Phantom] wrote: Well while this movie is one of the best super hero movies and definitely great, it doesn't hold up if you stop to analize it really. Like the infinity stones should be so powerful it would be literally impossible to defeat him. He controls reality. He controls time. He can control his enemies. He can't lose. He wins in the end but he is not very creative with what he does. I've seen some people explaining it like he was toying with everyone, I did see some of that I guess.
But yeah they changed his motivation and it doesn't make sense now. In the comics he wants to kill people to seduce death. While being in love with death is kinda stupid, that's his whole identity (Thanos-thanatos-thanatology, etc). Killing half the universe would make death happy. Like people here are saying, with the guantlett he could make planets bigger, or have infinite resources. I agree with him overpopulation is a problem, I feel his pain having to kill gamora "for the greater good" but his solution is stupid. He could do anything. He has all the infinity stones. He is a god, he is omnipotent. But we ended up with this problem thanks to marvel changing his motivations, and not his method.
Don't get me wrong though. Loved the movie. One just isn't suppoused to think too much about it.
If I'm not mistaken, he's supposed to clench his fist each time he uses his stones and Tony ordered them to prevent him from doing that, however, later on when he used stones to bring the moon down, he could've just done to them what he did to Drax earlier on and finish them that way.
I think that the destruction of the Titans kinda traumatized Thanos or at least had him obsessed with making sure that everyone else would avoid the fate of his people. My reasons for thinking so is bcos he advised them to cut down the population to 50%, they didn't and they ended up killing themselves and he said that he once abandoned his fate or calling or something like that and that he wouldn't do it again.
Doubling a planet's size would have a whole bunch of other problems along with it, wouldn't it? Like in terms of gravity and its biosphere. But in the end, I think he didn't take that option because I don't think having all the stones makes him actually omnipotent. The Gauntlet probably still has some limitations and things it can and can't do. At the least, this is the only way for me to head-canon it to make things fit.
On May 05 2018 17:21 [Phantom] wrote: Well while this movie is one of the best super hero movies and definitely great, it doesn't hold up if you stop to analize it really. Like the infinity stones should be so powerful it would be literally impossible to defeat him. He controls reality. He controls time. He can control his enemies. He can't lose. He wins in the end but he is not very creative with what he does. I've seen some people explaining it like he was toying with everyone, I did see some of that I guess.
But yeah they changed his motivation and it doesn't make sense now. In the comics he wants to kill people to seduce death. While being in love with death is kinda stupid, that's his whole identity (Thanos-thanatos-thanatology, etc). Killing half the universe would make death happy. Like people here are saying, with the guantlett he could make planets bigger, or have infinite resources. I agree with him overpopulation is a problem, I feel his pain having to kill gamora "for the greater good" but his solution is stupid. He could do anything. He has all the infinity stones. He is a god, he is omnipotent. But we ended up with this problem thanks to marvel changing his motivations, and not his method.
Don't get me wrong though. Loved the movie. One just isn't suppoused to think too much about it.
Meh, my analises of the movie is that like many of these sorts of movies, there's always so much hype surrounding them when they first come out every loves them.
Batman The Dark Knight? BEST MOVIE EVER. X-Men First Class? BEST MOVIE EVER. Deadpool? BEST MOVIE EVER. Logan? BEST MOVIE EVER. Thor: Ragnarok? BEST MOVIE EVER.
Likewise for these average Avenger movies. I found that Infinity War had way too little character development for you to want to feel for any of them. Gamorra dying? Meh. That Chris guy getting mad about her dying? Meh. Vision and Wanda's love for each other? Meh. Spiderman having a few scenes then dying at the end? Meh. Not enough development, so that when they died, you didn't really feel much. I guess you could argue if you saw the previous movies, you'd feel more, but I've seen all the Marvel movies and it still felt disconnected. Plus, the bad guys were all not very threatening nor made you feel like there was any big threat from them in the movie, they looked like they came out of a Ninja Turtles movie. Everyone praises Thanos' acting, but he felt very cartoony to me, and the whole "I just want people to understand me" thing just didn't work because he wasn't really that dark of a character to make it work.
On May 05 2018 23:16 Sentenal wrote: Doubling a planet's size would have a whole bunch of other problems along with it, wouldn't it? Like in terms of gravity and its biosphere. But in the end, I think he didn't take that option because I don't think having all the stones makes him actually omnipotent. The Gauntlet probably still has some limitations and things it can and can't do. At the least, this is the only way for me to head-canon it to make things fit.
It makes sense though, considering how damaged it looked after Thanos snapped with the glove finger. Prior to that, he's only been able to use one stone at a time and by clenching his fist, unless I'm mistaken.
I guess he is "the mad titan" after all...I agree a lot of movies get positive reviews just for the hype For example me and me gf saw logan after all the hype had died down and...we honestly thought it was a terrible, terrible movie. The girl screeaming in every scene she was in was terrible too.
About the MCU, I think in the end people will consider Avengers 1 to be better. But I do give them credit for having a movie with a "bad ending" actually work. They were very smart in the way they made thanos the protagonist in a movie with 17 avengers.
I don't think it (the bad ending) worked. This is a Marvel movie, we all know ahead of time that in the grand scheme of things none of this will matter and the key franchise characters will come back. I do give props to the movie for a brief moment of self-awareness about that fact though: Thor talks to the rabbit about how Loki died, but makes mention of "well he was dead once before but..." as if to tease what we're pretty damn sure is going to happen before too long. And Disney isn't the type of corporate master to call our bluff and actually kill off key characters for good, so I'm not worried about that part.
I think this movie got good reviews because the people watching it liked it. I think the critics gave it middling reviews because they saw notable flaws. This one is straightforward. It was a classic MCU watch-and-forget movie - but I guess for Avengers I expected something more.
Having just seen Black Panther, I think I'll remember that more than Infinity War, although both were enjoyable. Black Panther actually seemed to at least attempt to have something meaningful going on under the surface.
I don't know why anyone would expect anything more than Infinity War gave us for a crossover movie, although it did its job pretty much perfectly.
On May 06 2018 00:45 Bourgeois wrote: Batman The Dark Knight? BEST MOVIE EVER. X-Men First Class? BEST MOVIE EVER. Deadpool? BEST MOVIE EVER. Logan? BEST MOVIE EVER. Thor: Ragnarok? BEST MOVIE EVER.
I believe you left out Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Watchmen (which is definitely the best DC universe movie to date along with the first 2 Batman movies - Michael Keaton best Batman).
On May 05 2018 17:21 [Phantom] wrote: Well while this movie is one of the best super hero movies and definitely great, it doesn't hold up if you stop to analize it really. Like the infinity stones should be so powerful it would be literally impossible to defeat him. He controls reality. He controls time. He can control his enemies. He can't lose. He wins in the end but he is not very creative with what he does. I've seen some people explaining it like he was toying with everyone, I did see some of that I guess.
But yeah they changed his motivation and it doesn't make sense now. In the comics he wants to kill people to seduce death. While being in love with death is kinda stupid, that's his whole identity (Thanos-thanatos-thanatology, etc). Killing half the universe would make death happy. Like people here are saying, with the guantlett he could make planets bigger, or have infinite resources. I agree with him overpopulation is a problem, I feel his pain having to kill gamora "for the greater good" but his solution is stupid. He could do anything. He has all the infinity stones. He is a god, he is omnipotent. But we ended up with this problem thanks to marvel changing his motivations, and not his method.
Don't get me wrong though. Loved the movie. One just isn't suppoused to think too much about it.
Meh, my analises of the movie is that like many of these sorts of movies, there's always so much hype surrounding them when they first come out every loves them.
Batman The Dark Knight? BEST MOVIE EVER. X-Men First Class? BEST MOVIE EVER. Deadpool? BEST MOVIE EVER. Logan? BEST MOVIE EVER. Thor: Ragnarok? BEST MOVIE EVER.
Likewise for these average Avenger movies. I found that Infinity War had way too little character development for you to want to feel for any of them. Gamorra dying? Meh. That Chris guy getting mad about her dying? Meh. Vision and Wanda's love for each other? Meh. Spiderman having a few scenes then dying at the end? Meh. Not enough development, so that when they died, you didn't really feel much. I guess you could argue if you saw the previous movies, you'd feel more, but I've seen all the Marvel movies and it still felt disconnected. Plus, the bad guys were all not very threatening nor made you feel like there was any big threat from them in the movie, they looked like they came out of a Ninja Turtles movie. Everyone praises Thanos' acting, but he felt very cartoony to me, and the whole "I just want people to understand me" thing just didn't work because he wasn't really that dark of a character to make it work.
Strongly disagree, unless this is literally the first Marvel movie (out of the 19) that you've actually seen. All of the hero and relationship development, from StarLord and Gamora's love to Spiderman's eagerness to please Tony Stark, have been developed over literally dozens of hours of movies. That wasn't the point of this movie at all, as the premise was that you've already seen the previous movies. Infinity War gave context to Thanos, but other than that was trying to manage the entire Avengers universe in multiple spots with several crossovers.
On May 06 2018 03:17 LegalLord wrote: I don't think it (the bad ending) worked. This is a Marvel movie, we all know ahead of time that in the grand scheme of things none of this will matter and the key franchise characters will come back. I do give props to the movie for a brief moment of self-awareness about that fact though: Thor talks to the rabbit about how Loki died, but makes mention of "well he was dead once before but..." as if to tease what we're pretty damn sure is going to happen before too long. And Disney isn't the type of corporate master to call our bluff and actually kill off key characters for good, so I'm not worried about that part.
I think this movie got good reviews because the people watching it liked it. I think the critics gave it middling reviews because they saw notable flaws. This one is straightforward. It was a classic MCU watch-and-forget movie - but I guess for Avengers I expected something more.
I don't think I have ever seen you say you really enjoyed something. A little curious what you really enjoy as a movie/show . I'm not the biggest marvel guy, I watch the movies eventually but I was surprised at how good this one was. The other Avenger movies weren't bad, but nothing spectacular (imo).
I saw this movie and was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Good action, for the most part I had no complaints. There was one scene that I thought was stupid, but that was pretty short and not that big of a deal. Wouldn't call this the best movie ever made or my favorite movie ever, but it surpassed my expectations a lot and am looking forward to seeing part 2 next year.
On May 06 2018 03:17 LegalLord wrote: I don't think it (the bad ending) worked. This is a Marvel movie, we all know ahead of time that in the grand scheme of things none of this will matter and the key franchise characters will come back. I do give props to the movie for a brief moment of self-awareness about that fact though: Thor talks to the rabbit about how Loki died, but makes mention of "well he was dead once before but..." as if to tease what we're pretty damn sure is going to happen before too long. And Disney isn't the type of corporate master to call our bluff and actually kill off key characters for good, so I'm not worried about that part.
I think this movie got good reviews because the people watching it liked it. I think the critics gave it middling reviews because they saw notable flaws. This one is straightforward. It was a classic MCU watch-and-forget movie - but I guess for Avengers I expected something more.
I don't think I have ever seen you say you really enjoyed something. A little curious what you really enjoy as a movie/show . I'm not the biggest marvel guy, I watch the movies eventually but I was surprised at how good this one was. The other Avenger movies weren't bad, but nothing spectacular (imo).
Well criticism doesn’t really mean I didn’t like it. For reference, the only piece of media I commented on around here that I think of as a total wash is Star Wars Ep 8. Of you’re asking what I really enjoyed, that’s a short list (though I contend that it should be). Among the Marvel movies? Avengers 1 and Winter Soldier were quite good, though seems like that isn’t an outlandish opinion at all.
Good storytelling is a major flaw here. That general flaw of MCU movies rears its ugly head here again, and makes it hard to see it as more than a popcorn movie, a watch-and-forget. You get your fill by the first viewing. Got my fill for my $10, but is there really anything more to the movie worth considering?
People tend to forget that marvel movies are a saga now. On its own, Infinity wars is not an outstanding piece of art, like movies should be. But it's a great follow up, and an epic work from their filmmakers to bring us this movie. story telling is not about one movie now. It's about 19 of them. Look at the big picture.
The trilogy Iron man, Thor and captain america brought us this movie. The three of them are awsome in their evolution. What they lost. What they did. What they do now. It's good. I expect the same thing for futur heroes like spiderman, black panther and dr strange.
On May 06 2018 03:17 LegalLord wrote: I don't think it (the bad ending) worked. This is a Marvel movie, we all know ahead of time that in the grand scheme of things none of this will matter and the key franchise characters will come back. I do give props to the movie for a brief moment of self-awareness about that fact though: Thor talks to the rabbit about how Loki died, but makes mention of "well he was dead once before but..." as if to tease what we're pretty damn sure is going to happen before too long. And Disney isn't the type of corporate master to call our bluff and actually kill off key characters for good, so I'm not worried about that part.
I think this movie got good reviews because the people watching it liked it. I think the critics gave it middling reviews because they saw notable flaws. This one is straightforward. It was a classic MCU watch-and-forget movie - but I guess for Avengers I expected something more.
I don't think I have ever seen you say you really enjoyed something. A little curious what you really enjoy as a movie/show . I'm not the biggest marvel guy, I watch the movies eventually but I was surprised at how good this one was. The other Avenger movies weren't bad, but nothing spectacular (imo).
Well criticism doesn’t really mean I didn’t like it. For reference, the only piece of media I commented on around here that I think of as a total wash is Star Wars Ep 8. Of you’re asking what I really enjoyed, that’s a short list (though I contend that it should be). Among the Marvel movies? Avengers 1 and Winter Soldier were quite good, though seems like that isn’t an outlandish opinion at all.
Good storytelling is a major flaw here. That general flaw of MCU movies rears its ugly head here again, and makes it hard to see it as more than a popcorn movie, a watch-and-forget. You get your fill by the first viewing. Got my fill for my $10, but is there really anything more to the movie worth considering?
Ah, so you enjoyed the first Avengers over this one? I don't blame you for the Star Wars movie, I have the same opinion. Never left a theater hating a movie so much until that one.
I actually liked the movie, I think it has to be appreciated from a different standpoint in what Marvel is attempting to do but for it to be a labeled a superhero movie and us to expect redemption and closure, is clearly what this movie was not about. I think it's a little distasteful to end on a cliffhanger / to be continued...because that's generally not the format of movies and more of tv shows/episodes so for Marvel to go this route, the only implication is, there's a major explanation coming up.
I thought the movie was thought-provoking, it made you pay attention to where perhaps, the heroes have planted seeds of hope unbeknownst to the viewer, to turn the tides, that Thanos and his galactic team perhaps may not be aware of. BUT that line was obscured with which I believe this time around, somewhat inconsistent if not poor and rushed writing. Fantasy as always is easier to enjoy when the "powers" have a limit for fans to theory craft and the writers to keep things in check. But in this case, Marvel is reaching a point where the power of the characters will write them into a corner. and quite frankly, Thanos on the deity power scale is actually near the lower end of the spectrum, i can't foresee how marvel introduces the other godly deities. I think they did a fairly good job at attempting to avoid some of the major plot holes in the powers of the infinity stones, but the elephant in the room is there so i'll list a few inconsistencies with the movie I largely disliked and the focus on what they choose to display via CGI. But i'll also list a few things I believe they did a great job in.
Pros:
1. The Actor for Thanos did a good job. It was convincing in setting the narrative he "loved" his daughter for her inevitable build up to be sacrificed. they slowed the pace of the movie and the actor made sure to slow down the tone of his speech, mannerisms, it was good writing and acting. Though it does hurt them that guardians of the galaxy were an older movie, and most may have a hard time empathizing with something done quite a while ago. It was also very predictable in the scene of the soul stone when the seeker exposed a condition to inherit it and there were 2 people there...for a stone that governs all souls (whatever that means) a single soul of the one you love is a small price for universal power.
2. The consistencies of the personalities. so I thought this was very well done, and wrote into the script correctly. a disorganized ragtag team trapping Thanos on his hometown, with very little time to plan leaves very little room for them to make things go right. And you factor into the behavior of the guardians of the galaxy, the outcome of Thanos breaking free cause of him being emotional, felt true to the characters expected behavior.
3. Humanity In Desperation. So what I did very much enjoy was the humanity the heroes displayed in their most desperate moments. I think it was a narrative beautifully written. Every stone possessor chose to offer it in the end, to save someone else, either someone they loved or someone they were indebted to. And it was even more powerful in the first scene since Loki's struggling moral compass of betraying his brother was a common theme in all movies prior but in his final moments, disregards the manipulative nature and shows loyalty in his final decision. what the writers were attempting to portray was, they cared about them more than the universe, and if not, it showed their true traces of humanity which could not make that sacrifice. Stupid, but human.
Loki chose to offer the stone to save thor The daughter chose to offer the stone to save her sister Strange offered the stone to save Stark Vision offered his stone to be destroyed, Scarlett's hesitancy, took away the only power which could counter Thanos with 6 stones.
(he stated in the beginning, he would trade their very lives for it if it came to that, and it did) what's even more compelling is strange being a man who's seen as indifferent to emotions, one who's calculating and prioritizes the fate of the world before a human life. So this judgment was very much against the nature of who he was as a hero. I thought it was actually quite well written due to the open-ended nature of a man that saw all possibilities but what seemed to be him discarding logic all together OR the one possibility for the survival of the universe was to forfeit the stone and spare Iron man's life. (due to the fact he saw all outcomes before their battle, he was probably aware who would die in the aftermath of Thanos using all 6 stones and the scenario in which they would win, the only from that aftermath or tony, was clearly the key if they even sacraficed Nick Fury who is supposedly the last line of defence)
Thanos was the only one to trade a loved one, for a stone.
4. Appreciation & Resolving Some Open-Ended Details of Black Panther. I thought black panther was absolutely amazing in its entirety. There were decisions in the lore which were open-ended, and they were made clear in avenger which I thought was actually amazing. So it puts in perspective how Black Panther was not only a movie to build up the character, it set the premise of avenger. It wasn't clear to me some of the aspects the writers chose to go with in portraying black panther a few questions were
- Why did they choose to make africa and wakanda, the highest tech super power? - Why devalue the concept of vibranium by making it abundant to only africa? when the concept of vibranium was so rare and scarce, a resource ultron fought and killed for. A shield built upon it which imo made the appeal of Captain america so much more alluring. - Why was wakanda isolated and hidden if they were also the highest super power in technology? (The implication is who can oppose them)
So in avenger, we find out - The only person capable of technological surgery on vision is the genius which resides in wakanda. - The warriors stood a chance in this fight due to the tech and also vibranium weapons, which still was moot against the power of thanos - Wakanda's barrier and hidden location was also the safest to hide vision and buy time for the surgery. - The tribal aspect of different leaders of wakanda, served the purpose for the battle ground and there was use in the army.
BUT the only poorly addressed point is, if wakanda was portrayed as being such a hidden society due to it's technological advancement and use of vibranium (To the point where even hut villages were unware of it's existence to protect them) How does an alien scout and Thanos were capable of navigating earth and not only navigating earth find the one country with an invisible barrier which alluded all others? it's not like they had a tracker for every stone, and thano's gauntlet was used only to harness the power, not track the others. While wakanda was revealed to others at the end of black panther to offer up knowledge to the rest of the world, how does an alien lifeform which has no knowledge of any of this, become aware of a location which JUST revealed itself.
Cons & Inconsistencies with what was portrayed. 1. There's no point to a movie if you control time and space. - if you control time, space, and you've demonstrated you can change matter and reality in an entire room in an instant upon someone's arrival, there's no reason for you to not spam that and just win. which obviously the writers are aware so they chose a different approach to demonstrating the power of different stones so the Avengers actually fought together and got close. The display of struggle was there which I enjoyed, as it felt despite the obvious forces which seemed unstoppable on the Avenger's side, they felt mortal. the powers which seemed op before now seems lacking.
2. The 2 biggest unknown threats to Thanos, were rendered useless or victimized. Completely inconsistent with the buildup of their characters.
Vision was supposed to be the accumulation of Ultron, bruce banner, iron man, with THE TOP OF THE LINE AI, with a body made of Vibranium, embedded with a vision stone to further expand that power into infinity. AN AI that has that much time to live and learn, should have an inhuman response time and be as close to omnipotent as the knowledge that currently exists in the world. but so easily was he subdued to sneak attacks, and someone just clawing at his head without any resistance....what was the point of his entire build up if the inevitable autonomous IQ which no human, alien, sentient being could match, was rendered useless because he chose to become emotionally unstable? really? with that processing power and body, you chose to become a hesitant human? with delayed reactions? your processing power and AI was further expanded through the vision stone embedded through your head which was revealed via neural connections, but you couldn't use it to see a surprise attack or an incoming alien threat? all you could use the vision stone for was a laser? come on marvel.... the stone gave him pain as an indicator it detected when other stones were near or coming, but the people who came did not have the stone, they were the scouts...and he lost to them...really? It cheapens the value of the character and renders the struggle of Ultron mute. He could subdue an Ultron but couldn't sense a surprise attack in a quiet environment along with a response time that they shouldn't even be able to match? get real.
The Hulk - So this one I'm a little bit more lenient on, but felt it was uncharacteristically rushed. Hulk is basically the earth's trump card, he's supposed to be a representation of no matter how hard you hit him, he always gets back up and hits harder until the opposition gives up. The literal embodiment of unstoppable force meets an unmovable wall, he was the physical force in this case. His fights in all movies portray him being hit and extremely resilient, only until a catastrophic damage was done to the environment, and everyone is near death, does he stop. Thanos? he ends him in a 5 hit combo. And marvel covered this one up with him starting with the power stone to explain it. the build-up was basically gutted in the first scene. They could have drawn it out a little bit more until he exhausted trading blows for AT LEAST 5 minutes, it cheapened the character and was inconsistent in his entire build up. Even worst, he was punched into mental submission and withdrawal all for the sake of setting up the narrative to how powerful the stone is, which did not work. not to mention this is the first scene and Thanos was powered by only 1 stone. It feels like Hulk should be more powerful than at least 1 stone....and to make Thanos resilient to physical damage by the hulk equal to him is stupid. yes with the stone he should hit harder, it does not equate to being impervious to the damage Hulk can deal.
Not to mention The gatekeeper of Midgard in his dying breath chose to open the portal to save the HULK than a stranded Thor & Loki (Who he probably knows holds the stone). Either he saved hulk out of empathy or him believing hulk was the one thing that would give them a chance in the future, is up for debate. The gatekeeper is one who has a duty to Thor, and is the one who bails them out in the past, for him to choose another entity who was briefly with them in the past, is questionable.
3. Dr.Strange Strange's role, in particular, was the biggest gripe of the movie considering what Marvel chose to display in terms of his powers and the actions he chose to face the circumstances. For a guy who's supposed to have the ability to read all outcomes of all futures, and be a sensor prior to an imminent alien threat, for him to not forsee Thanos OR ANY of this occurring, contradicts the character. he's supposed to be the guy that is aware of things before they happen in the galaxy and he wasn't even aware of Thanos being an entity or collecting power and actually flexing his power in the galactic. In one of the Thor movies, strange was aware of the appearance of Loki and Thor upon their arrival at earth prior to their arrival, and they came from Midgard. so there's no excuse for him not being at least aware of the existence of Thanos, but apparently, that came from left field. So a big inconsistency in his role as a hero along with his powers.
Strange's fight with the Alien Officer. For a guy who is known as a trickster, a magician with many tricks up his sleeve, and one that is trusted with one of the powers of the universe, you sure lose easy. If capturing him meant simply subduing his hands, and choking him (which is exactly how he lost) then he might as well be vulnerable to 2 cops ambushing him by throwing cuffs on him and the other guy putting him in a stranglehold. He struggled and basically lost to an alien entity that was not on Thano's level but when faced against Thanos, held his own far longer vs someone almost fully powered and controlled time and space - contradictory. A guy who didn't have the stones gave you more trouble than a guy who possessed the power of time and space and blasted his powers at you but you could trade shots and at least undo his offensive? get real. You can allude the guy for a short period who could bend reality and change matter, but you couldn't escape the vines and invisible force of his scouting party?
My final gripe. So Marvel decided to show strange's teleportation power in a way that dismembered a limb of one of the aliens who tried to pass through the gate. which should be good foreshadowing for how he would use that against Thanos. but marvel goes the route of, hey we're gonna put the highest IQ guys in the galaxy with powers all in one place, but none of them even entertain the possibility of chopping his arm off, for a guy who could foresee 146 million outcomes and 1 possibility, that 1 possibility wasn't the severing of his arm and glove and everything they portrayed alluded to it. So this is writing yourself into a corner and extremely inconsistent. Marvel could have easily shown a different use of his power but they showed the gate teleportation had the ability to dismember a limb. Not to mention when spiderman and ironman struggled to pull the glove, he had all the time in the world to server the limb but for some reason did nothing. He showed no restraint or limitation in his use of teleportation wormhole either, which is something the writers didn't account for.
So this ties back to the other heroes with the capability of severing his flesh/arm. Vision's lasers were powered by the infinity stone, and I'm sure the power of his lasers could at LEAST pierce flesh. I mean you're shooting from an infinity stone...it wasn't like Thanos was invulnerable to the powers of the infinity stone used against him either... Thor was given an AXE in the FINALE, which was SHOWN to pierce his flesh despite Thanos using his power to even mitigate/dampen the oncoming blow. Of course, Thor drops the ball here, as he always has in every fight, and he goes for the heart instead of the arm. Couldn't you sever the nerves in the shoulder? it didn't even have to be a clean sweep of the arm or elbow, just sever the connection of the brain and arm at a higher point up. like literally the greatest scientist in sci-fi humanity never thought to compound the damage on the glove itself or to sever a vulnerable arm? hard to believe vision, iron man, bruce banner and even strange couldn't notice that as an alternative option but could figure out the science of AI, Nanotechnology, and everything else under the sun. Chopping the arm off apparently wasn't on the table or in the possibility of 146 million outcomes, too primitive.
Strange utilizing the time-stone (Which he is seen levitating, his stone exposed green, and prior to saying he sees 146 million outcomes). He could use the stone to forsee the future, but never used the time-stone to revert back time or reset a failed battle engagement or the results of his battle. Strange also stated the barrier on his necklace guarding the stone was unbreakable, but we see him easily handing it over in the end. So much for disallowing all including yourself from taking it.
Wrapping up the loop-holes in the character's power by having strange say I've seen all outcomes, so there are no loopholes in what we did and our actions were inevitable. IS TERRIBLE WRITING and a shitty failsafe for people who have written themselves into a corner.
Last but not least, they could have added 10 minutes more to flesh out how Thano's scouting party, were even AWARE of the location of the stones. Yeah they were aware of 2 stones being on earth, but you can't tell me an alien entity which SUDDENLY knows the location a hidden civilization, cloaked by a barrier, and has kept that a secret of their existence for all time in Marvel history. They didn't have a tracker for the stones, and they rushed the transitions...Vision had a stone and couldn't comprehend the emanating signal it gave off in his head, only until it already came, how could you pinpoint the location of all the other stones having never visited or dabbled in human history.
Awesome write-up and pros/cons list, saocyn. Keep in mind when you said "I think it's a little distasteful to end on a cliffhanger / to be continued", we already knew that Infinity War was going to be broken into two parts over two years. It had been advertised as such, so it was fully expected that the first movie would end on a cliffhanger and then next year's movie would wrap everything up. (It probably won't address any of your valid cons, but at least we knew ahead of time that things were going to look really bleak for the Marvel heroes at this point in time.)
On the Dr. Strange side of things, I'm convinced he's done something to the time stone and that this will be a major plot point in the next avengers, given how he says something like "we're in the endgame now" when giving up the stone and then proceeds to do nothing.
Personally, I'm hoping Ant-Man is in some universe inside the time stone.
Thanos? he ends him in a 5 hit combo. And marvel covered this one up with him starting with the power stone to explain it. the build-up was basically gutted in the first scene. They could have drawn it out a little bit more until he exhausted trading blows for AT LEAST 5 minutes, it cheapened the character and was inconsistent in his entire build up. Even worst, he was punched into mental submission and withdrawal all for the sake of setting up the narrative to how powerful the stone is, which did not work. not to
I understood this as thanos just being more powerful than hulk. I don't think he used the power stone. Thanos is though guy. He is a Titan, he is known across the galaxy as being very strong before having any stone. He isn't a weakling that lucked out and got all the stones. He is a mighty being, feared across the galaxy, who commands a big army, that decided to get the stones. While hulk gets stronger when he gets angry and I believe he can be stronger than thanos, at that time he wasn't. The scene was meant to show how strong Thanos was.
About Dr strange, he couldn't have predicted this. The stone lets him see the possibilities, but not what will actually happen. So before that there were 80 million things that could have happened, some of them including Thanos some not. You can't prepare for everything. However now that he is here and they were going to fight him on Titan, that was much more specific so he saw all the different outcomes. If he had done that before he would have seen countless possibilities like dormamu stacking back or Wanda going rogue or venom or anythingloli destroying the tesseract idk.
But on Titan he only had to see how the battle with Thanos and the aftermath would play out. So he prepared for that with the only option where they win, giving up the stone and with Tony Stark alive. He didn't saw all possibilities though so taking out the guantlett was worth a try. No excuses for the severing his arm thing though
On May 06 2018 03:17 LegalLord wrote: I don't think it (the bad ending) worked. This is a Marvel movie, we all know ahead of time that in the grand scheme of things none of this will matter and the key franchise characters will come back. I do give props to the movie for a brief moment of self-awareness about that fact though: Thor talks to the rabbit about how Loki died, but makes mention of "well he was dead once before but..." as if to tease what we're pretty damn sure is going to happen before too long. And Disney isn't the type of corporate master to call our bluff and actually kill off key characters for good, so I'm not worried about that part.
I think this movie got good reviews because the people watching it liked it. I think the critics gave it middling reviews because they saw notable flaws. This one is straightforward. It was a classic MCU watch-and-forget movie - but I guess for Avengers I expected something more.
I don't think I have ever seen you say you really enjoyed something. A little curious what you really enjoy as a movie/show . I'm not the biggest marvel guy, I watch the movies eventually but I was surprised at how good this one was. The other Avenger movies weren't bad, but nothing spectacular (imo).
Well criticism doesn’t really mean I didn’t like it. For reference, the only piece of media I commented on around here that I think of as a total wash is Star Wars Ep 8. Of you’re asking what I really enjoyed, that’s a short list (though I contend that it should be). Among the Marvel movies? Avengers 1 and Winter Soldier were quite good, though seems like that isn’t an outlandish opinion at all.
Good storytelling is a major flaw here. That general flaw of MCU movies rears its ugly head here again, and makes it hard to see it as more than a popcorn movie, a watch-and-forget. You get your fill by the first viewing. Got my fill for my $10, but is there really anything more to the movie worth considering?
Ah, so you enjoyed the first Avengers over this one? I don't blame you for the Star Wars movie, I have the same opinion. Never left a theater hating a movie so much until that one.
SOMEone needs to watch X Men 3: The Last Stand, I see...
On May 06 2018 03:17 LegalLord wrote: I don't think it (the bad ending) worked. This is a Marvel movie, we all know ahead of time that in the grand scheme of things none of this will matter and the key franchise characters will come back. I do give props to the movie for a brief moment of self-awareness about that fact though: Thor talks to the rabbit about how Loki died, but makes mention of "well he was dead once before but..." as if to tease what we're pretty damn sure is going to happen before too long. And Disney isn't the type of corporate master to call our bluff and actually kill off key characters for good, so I'm not worried about that part.
I think this movie got good reviews because the people watching it liked it. I think the critics gave it middling reviews because they saw notable flaws. This one is straightforward. It was a classic MCU watch-and-forget movie - but I guess for Avengers I expected something more.
I don't think I have ever seen you say you really enjoyed something. A little curious what you really enjoy as a movie/show . I'm not the biggest marvel guy, I watch the movies eventually but I was surprised at how good this one was. The other Avenger movies weren't bad, but nothing spectacular (imo).
Well criticism doesn’t really mean I didn’t like it. For reference, the only piece of media I commented on around here that I think of as a total wash is Star Wars Ep 8. Of you’re asking what I really enjoyed, that’s a short list (though I contend that it should be). Among the Marvel movies? Avengers 1 and Winter Soldier were quite good, though seems like that isn’t an outlandish opinion at all.
Good storytelling is a major flaw here. That general flaw of MCU movies rears its ugly head here again, and makes it hard to see it as more than a popcorn movie, a watch-and-forget. You get your fill by the first viewing. Got my fill for my $10, but is there really anything more to the movie worth considering?
Ah, so you enjoyed the first Avengers over this one? I don't blame you for the Star Wars movie, I have the same opinion. Never left a theater hating a movie so much until that one.
SOMEone needs to watch X Men 3: The Last Stand, I see...
I have. I would rather watch that again then TLJ . This Avengers movie was my favorite though by far.
So my assessment was based on just my knowledge of the MCU movies, and I have changed my stance in some my viewpoints after reading the original comics. (the ones from like 60's-80's)
Along with reading articles about the directors, screen writer's thought process on the creation of this movie, I'm far more considerate of what was on their plate in attempting to make this movie. I actually have far more respect what the decisions they made based on the constraints that they do have in attempting to tell this narrative for the 21st century. so I have revised my stance and viewpoints on some of which I thought were cons/inconsistencies from what I discovered digging deeper into the history of the comics and company.
1. It's An Interpretation, not a direct translation.
The Russo brothers describe in an interview that viewers shouldn't look at it from a direct translation perspective, but an interpretation perspective. This explains a lot in terms of the lore and their decision process in adapting the comics. The time of my review, I also wasn't aware marvel doesn't currently own the rights to a few superhero franchises which were originally featured in the ORIGINAL COMICS due to almost going bankrupt and having to sell off some of them. Only until recently have they been able to acquire some of the franchises back, most notably spiderman.
This would explain a lot since they are forced to swap original characters out that they don't own while attempting to stay true to the original narrative. It then becomes a juggle of filling in the blank and explain scenarios which never occurred while attempting to blend that back into the timeline. So the glaring contrast and plot holes are going to seem prevalent due to the nature of staying true to the original story, while not having their original roster.
Most notably, X-men & Fantastic 4 had major roles in the original avenger's infinity war. An example is in the first scene where the Asgardian gatekeeper sends hulk back to earth in order to warn Dr. Strange because was defeated. In the comics, silver surfer drops dazed into the roof of dr.strange's household in order to warn him as a messenger of incoming doom. So the screenwriters did their best in patching the narrative and apparently, Hulk was chosen to fade into the background. It reasons to stand their choice of choosing the hulk not to be a significant factor in the movie was consistent with the comics in that, he very rarely fought Thanos and didn't have much of an appearance either! So if we look back at them portraying the Hulk defeated, and to fulfill the plothole of requiring a messenger, it fits. Their struggles come from the directors attempting to build value into the characters and make them feel like "superheroes with superpowers" and then the audience wondering why they didn't use that superpower in the new movies. It's not quite their fault and the fans who aren't aware of this will make it the bane of marvel's productions going forward.
2. The Motivations of characters and Storytelling of the 60's was extremely cheesy. I admit I've forgotten how comical the storytelling was back then, and how it would be impossible for them to translate that to screen directly. Looking at how they decided to go with the direction of Thanos, allows me to respect the decision making in his adaptation. In the original Thanos is portrayed as somewhat of a maniacal-drunk on power psychopath. entirely unrelatable, and over the top cliche. and in the story, he already obtained the 6 stones, before everything happened and he's using it to try and win "death's" heart. he's literally trying to seduce death with his power which would just be a horrendous failure of a movie if they attempted to adapt that. "death" being a female deity. his original I will kill half of the civilization had nothing to do with a justified cause of saving the world because of overpopulation but more to do with a promise with death he made that he thinks would make her finally accept his proposal of being her man lmfao. They really humanized his motivation and made him believable setting the tone for a worthy adversary for the heroes to stop. but this is where we see the plot holes because of such a major switch, and i'm actually looking forward to how they fill it. In the last scene we see thanos very much in the same position as the comics as well, so i'm looking foward to how they fill the gap in story.
Just watched, and while i liked it enough I do not see it as the best of Marvel (by any stretch), and find some of the praise its getting a bit... excessive.
I think the biggest issue for me is that when everyone dies in the end, it is shown in such a strange emotionless way. Most of the people die in mid sentence while doing something else, or just have these quizzical looks on their faces - Nick Fury even has the time to drop half an F bomb before he goes. All this does not really give the kind of emotional gravity I was expecting, and more like... o, they seem a little weirded out.
The only death that had feeling was Spidey, for obvious reasons.
Other minor gripes (which I think are just part and parcel of comic book movies) are:
The power levels of characters are kinda all over the place. Thor with his new weapon is able to solo one shot Thanos with all the gems. Why is there a need for captain marvel at this point? Thor can just jaunt over to wherever Thanos is hiding and slice off his arm. Then you also have Captain America who is able to physically hold back Thanos, who at the start of the movie is shown to be more than a match for the Hulk.
The motivations of some characters are also weird. Why only send the Hulk back to Earth and not everyone? Why did Loki think his little dagger was going to kill Thanos when the Hulk just failed - what really was Loki trying to achieve there?
So if Odin had a fake Gauntlet in Asgard, does this mean that Peter Dinklage has been churning out the guantlet's all this while? But he also says that he created the gauntlet to save the other dwarves. So how long has the forge been abandoned and how long did Peter Dinklage have to live on his own with metal stumps for hands (man that is lonely)?
And yea - why did no one think of slicing off Thanos' arm - Iron Man/Spider Man/Dr Strange had the perfect chance to. Thor could have lobbed off the arm instead of going for his chest.
[these are comic book nerd ramblings, and didn:t really affect my enjoyment of the movie]
I think a bigger issue that should be addressed when it comes specifically to super-hero franchises and ones that have unscaled "power", there should be action scenes or discussion scenes where the glaring plot holes are fleshed out as it pertains to what was shown in the past. The premise of the movie was an apocalyptic death due to obtaining power, and his power didn't quite feel believable. loyal comic fans aren't stupid, we're going to ponder and theory craft based on fantasy logic. even so, the fantasy logic should be addressed in a way that can be believable by putting to rest the possibilities shown in the past build ups. They should show the futile attempts of them plotting to cut his arm off, only for it to fail, and then have the heroes each try something else. at least iron out the most common "what-ifs" if we were put in that scenario given that context. Either don't show doctor strange's portal cutting limb, or show he tries cutting limb but all attempts are made futile to the point that if he does try it again he'll die so he won't.
While everyone did get screen time, the wit of the heroes in battle felt really lacking. I want to see great planning in these fights, team work the way captain america showed in the last avenger. Decision making that is consistent with a hero who feels experienced from battle and manipulation of their abilities.
Ok so i don't do spoilers, so i don't watch trailers however for this thing i just watched i would wish i had. Mainly for the fact of knowing i needed to watch; Black Panther 3 Thors 3 Captain Americas Dr Strange
before i went into Avengers because every story seems to be linked like you should know that? I mean what. It wasn't a massive issue, but it was a good annoyance of not understanding the roles/issues previously. I mean the other films ala Spiderman and Guardians of Galaxy 1 and 2 were kept apart (Newest spiderman was kinda overlapped but very minimally) so why can't the rest.
The ending for me was so poor because in comic book world this stuff doesn't happen where half the people die and then Captain Marvel one of the worst super heroes ever (imo) will be the one to save the universe. To top it off BRIE LARSON is getting the gig LOL jesus.
Also for me the "killed off" the wrong heroes as well, should have been different set.
My "good" parts of the film was anytime Ironman and Spiderman were in scenes together as they bought good comic book lore together it felt in how they intereacted. I also liked whoever the Guardians of Galaxy cast where interacting with, whether it be Thor with Groot and Rocket. mora and her issues with Thanos were also good scenes as well as when her sister was inserted into the story again.
Everything on earth was just a total disaster and an awful side story until Thanos shows up for the last <5 mins lol.
TL;DR - What a mess and holy moly thanks Marvel for FORCING your fans to watch every movie or missing out of tidbits of story so you can't enjoy a one off movie like i thought Avengers was and its supposed to be right? Some good parts make it a watchable 6/10 thanks to Guardians cast and Ironman/Superman. Also i don't want Captain Marvel saving the universe eurgh!!!!!!!
On May 09 2018 18:39 Pandemona wrote: The ending for me was so poor because in comic book world this stuff doesn't happen where half the people die and then Captain Marvel one of the worst super heroes ever (imo) will be the one to save the universe.
With the exception of it being Captain Marvel, that is literally what happened in the Infinity War comic. Thanos was mostly taken down by the core Avengers, plus a couple of characters they've never introduced/don't have the rights to yet. Here they're just going to use the second movie as a springboard to likely make Cap Mar the core of the next set of Avengers, which is fine.
As for the character... I'd have said the same about Black Panther until they made Civil War and Black Panther, and then I decided he was my new favourite marvel hero. Wait to see what they do with the movie version of her before casting judgement, because if there's one thing these guys know, it's how to make comic book heroes resonate with modern audiences. Even ones that really, really shouldn't work.
On May 09 2018 18:39 Pandemona wrote:Also for me the "killed off" the wrong heroes as well, should have been different set.
Actually, I would have agreed with this until I seriously thought about it.
Going in, everyone expected the following deaths, due to contractual issues (i.e. they're running out and the actors have indicated they're ready to move on): Thor, Captain America, Iron Man.
However if you think about it, the second part of the movie makes more sense as an end to the circle, the original avengers (plus Captain Marvel, the successor and the studios' seeming chosen new torch-bearer) going out to save the world one last time, without all the extra baggage that the cinematic universe has built up over the years, for good and bad. A real send off to the actors who made all of this possible, a last hurrah in-universe and out for the six who made the impossible, possible.
Really, this is why the Cinematic Universe has worked so well. The people with the reins know what they're doing, and we usually don't know what we want until they've shown us they knew already and were planning it years ago (a couple of missteps notwithstanding).
On May 09 2018 18:39 Pandemona wrote:Also i don't want Captain Marvel saving the universe eurgh!!!!!!!
Well it wasn't what happened in the comic book was it, as ALL heroes died period, minus Warlock, Silver Surfer and the comstic entities. Then Nebula Gamora sister saves the day after Thanos goes all god mode and releases the gauntlet himself. Then Dr Strange causes Thanos to "turn good" and tricks someone into re changing the whole thing back to the way it was. Then Warlock gets the gauntlet until Ententiy tells him NOPE not gonna happen xD
Was Captain Marvel even a thing at this stage in the comic book series btw? I don't she was right? Would love to seen how they played off Mistress Death and Ententity / Warlock would have been cool. Instead seems they want to tell the story with the best way of making more money by more films who would have guessed that
I actualy liked Infinity War. Mostly because of the ending. I was afraid Thor will beat Thanos with his WTFAxe and that would leave this movies as just meh, another supercomic movie. With this ending is actually decent. And Yeah i know they will ressurect them all or whatever but i dont have to watch that movie.
I am not a comic guy and i watch all movies in MCU as just that, as movies. I dont know comics and i dont compare what is happening in movies to comics. And from that point o view its actually one of the best MCU movies.
As to dying scenes i am of the opinion they were ok, when spidey was dying i was actually thinking "wtf why is this taking so long, be gone already". On the more funnier note every one in theater was so silent during that scene and i just wanted to clap and scream "GO THANOS".
Also i liked how Thanos dispatched Hulk i think with increasing numbers of stones every fight should be increasingly shorter and more brutal. Cap should be broken like weed and Thors Axe should just bounce off --> Wtf is part of one Neutron Star compared to power of the universe? Nothing.
And its good Cap is alive, now someone can go to him and say "You know You could have sided with Vision and end this before it even began but You chose to protect Your values. Now Vision and half Universe is dead but You still have values intact so i guess it is ok".
You know, after thinking about it a bit more, the strategy of the heroes in this movie was really, really questionable. I'm not sure what they were going for. Of the separate little subplots, the only one that actually proved to be a constructive development was Thor getting his new weapon. Heading to Knowhere - a fight they couldn't win that just let Thanos take Gamora and gain a gem for free. Heading to Titan rather than changing course and making a last stand on Earth with the rest of the team? That just made the Earth battle a lot more difficult and gave Thanos the Time Gem, the one that made the biggest difference of all of them in terms of what he was actually able to do against the heroes.
All in all it kind of feels like a self-imposed divide-and-conquer. The fact that Thanos struggled in some of those battles shows that he isn't really fully impervious, but the heroes split up and made it possible to be defeated.
On May 09 2018 23:57 LegalLord wrote: You know, after thinking about it a bit more, the strategy of the heroes in this movie was really, really questionable. I'm not sure what they were going for. Of the separate little subplots, the only one that actually proved to be a constructive development was Thor getting his new weapon. Heading to Knowhere - a fight they couldn't win that just let Thanos take Gamora and gain a gem for free. Heading to Titan rather than changing course and making a last stand on Earth with the rest of the team? That just made the Earth battle a lot more difficult and gave Thanos the Time Gem, the one that made the biggest difference of all of them in terms of what he was actually able to do against the heroes.
All in all it kind of feels like a self-imposed divide-and-conquer. The fact that Thanos struggled in some of those battles shows that he isn't really fully impervious, but the heroes split up and made it possible to be defeated.
Meh, its not like really any of them knew what they were actually dealing with to formulate an effective strategy, aside from Gamora (and she and the Guardians wanted to try and get to Knowhere first, but didn't). Especially the ones from Earth, who only knew he was a big scary guy.
On May 09 2018 23:57 LegalLord wrote: You know, after thinking about it a bit more, the strategy of the heroes in this movie was really, really questionable. I'm not sure what they were going for. Of the separate little subplots, the only one that actually proved to be a constructive development was Thor getting his new weapon. Heading to Knowhere - a fight they couldn't win that just let Thanos take Gamora and gain a gem for free. Heading to Titan rather than changing course and making a last stand on Earth with the rest of the team? That just made the Earth battle a lot more difficult and gave Thanos the Time Gem, the one that made the biggest difference of all of them in terms of what he was actually able to do against the heroes.
All in all it kind of feels like a self-imposed divide-and-conquer. The fact that Thanos struggled in some of those battles shows that he isn't really fully impervious, but the heroes split up and made it possible to be defeated.
Meh, its not like really any of them knew what they were actually dealing with to formulate an effective strategy, aside from Gamora (and she and the Guardians wanted to try and get to Knowhere first, but didn't). Especially the ones from Earth, who only knew he was a big scary guy.
While there may be some truth to that, I don’t think “the heroes were incompetent and underestimated their opponent” is great storytelling, especially since nothing suggests that Thanos is a brilliant strategist or anything. He’s just powerful and has a tough military.
And if stopping Thanos at Knowhere was the best strategy they had, man does that suck because that backfired about as much as you could expect. Not only failed to stop him but gifted him another gem knowing full well that that was a possibility. Was kind of a really bad risk.
Why didn't Dr Strange ever open a portal up to earth and bring people to it / go back? Tactical retreat when they were getting ass kicked or at the end when Thanos dissapears you can portal back to earth and see what is going on there as Ironman becomes +10% stronger when his computer is working.
Anyway, i still prefer the comic book way this went with Thanos killing absolutely everyone "with ease" the way it should be, not nearly dying to Thor and his big axe with a bit of Groot's "body" on it per se xD
In the next film i hope Ironman really gives the run around to Captain Marvel as well, he best make sure he is the boss or does his this is my bat and ball and goes home.
On May 09 2018 23:43 Silvanel wrote: As to dying scenes i am of the opinion they were ok, when spidey was dying i was actually thinking "wtf why is this taking so long, be gone already". On the more funnier note every one in theater was so silent during that scene and i just wanted to clap and scream "GO THANOS".
It took so long because Spiderman sensed it was coming. Remember, he senses danger ahead of time, so not only was his agony much longer than everyone else's (as everyone else didn't realize anything except during the five seconds it took for them to crumble), but Spiderman also sensed literally half the universe succumbing to the same fate. That's probably why everyone else was silent... Spiderman got screwed so frickin hard by having the superability that he had. Plus the fact that, true to his character in previous movies, he totally idolizes Tony Stark and feels like he let him down, making things even worse.
On May 09 2018 23:57 LegalLord wrote: You know, after thinking about it a bit more, the strategy of the heroes in this movie was really, really questionable. I'm not sure what they were going for. Of the separate little subplots, the only one that actually proved to be a constructive development was Thor getting his new weapon. Heading to Knowhere - a fight they couldn't win that just let Thanos take Gamora and gain a gem for free. Heading to Titan rather than changing course and making a last stand on Earth with the rest of the team? That just made the Earth battle a lot more difficult and gave Thanos the Time Gem, the one that made the biggest difference of all of them in terms of what he was actually able to do against the heroes.
All in all it kind of feels like a self-imposed divide-and-conquer. The fact that Thanos struggled in some of those battles shows that he isn't really fully impervious, but the heroes split up and made it possible to be defeated.
They didn't need the rest of the team for Titan. They didn't need the rest of the team to beat Thanos. All they needed was for Star Lord to stay home sick that day.
I agree with you about Knowhere, but bringing the fight to Earth on purpose, where other families/ loved ones could be directly hurt, wouldn't be ideal.
On May 09 2018 23:57 LegalLord wrote: You know, after thinking about it a bit more, the strategy of the heroes in this movie was really, really questionable. I'm not sure what they were going for. Of the separate little subplots, the only one that actually proved to be a constructive development was Thor getting his new weapon. Heading to Knowhere - a fight they couldn't win that just let Thanos take Gamora and gain a gem for free. Heading to Titan rather than changing course and making a last stand on Earth with the rest of the team? That just made the Earth battle a lot more difficult and gave Thanos the Time Gem, the one that made the biggest difference of all of them in terms of what he was actually able to do against the heroes.
All in all it kind of feels like a self-imposed divide-and-conquer. The fact that Thanos struggled in some of those battles shows that he isn't really fully impervious, but the heroes split up and made it possible to be defeated.
They didn't need the rest of the team for Titan. They didn't need the rest of the team to beat Thanos. All they needed was for Star Lord to stay home sick that day.
I agree with you about Knowhere, but bringing the fight to Earth on purpose, where other families/ loved ones could be directly hurt, wouldn't be ideal.
Starlord certainly jobbed. But if they didn't divide the team they wouldn't have even had to depend on him not jobbing to win.
The fight was inevitably going to come to Earth (because of Vision, at the very least) and they certainly did have the benefit of being able to fight at a battleground of their choosing. Wakanda proved to be an extremely effective fortress to protect against the incoming threat, and if they had more heroes available to both fight the armies AND protect Vision, they would have had a much easier time of it all. It was fairly clear that Thanos and their army are very single-minded in pursuit of the infinity stones, so they would attack there if all the heroes clustered in that spot. Given how close they got with what they actually had, all the heroes together would have a very good chance against Thanos with just three stones.
There is no doubt they could have had a better strategy. I simply reject the notion that if heroes don't always choose the best or ideal strategy, then they are somehow stupid or incompetent. Much less when such decisions are made under stress, pressure, and with very little intel or time for planning.
While I admit Strange could have told them what was happening back home, there was otherwise no way to know whether Vision was even still alive, or there was a dead android lying somewhere in Scotland with his head ripped off and on its way to Titan...
I was wondering the same thing about the portal thing for Strange. Why not go back to Earth, gather everyone, go back to Titan to kick his ass? Why stay in Titan with 6 people?
On May 10 2018 03:43 Sentenal wrote: There is no doubt they could have had a better strategy. I simply reject the notion that if heroes don't always choose the best or ideal strategy, then they are somehow stupid or incompetent. Much less when such decisions are made under stress, pressure, and with very little intel or time for planning.
The problem is a lack of communication and coordination, a recurring issue with the Avengers members. While that alone is an understandable weakness, it’s both been explored and addressed a fair bit throughout the series and just far too incidental in this specific movie to be so easily accepted. Wherever and however they chose to fight, they should have had a larger strategy coordinated for the task, but it was pretty much “every task force for themselves” here. Not great to see it happen again, and especially without any acknowledgement that that’s a reason why they lost.
The breakdown of communication, coordination, and trust among the core Avengers was like the whole focus of Captain America: Civil War. To just have everyone get over that now would trivialize that whole event.
Was one of the core focuses of Avengers 1 as well. And it was trivialized here, in that it’s never addressed in any useful way; more so it’s just forgotten the way inconvenient plot points are forgotten between films in the MCU. Here, that’s more of a convenient handwave for the problem that is justified by appealing selectively to older films than by any actual themes of the current movie.
The only direct reference to that problem I can recall is Stark saying “I’m not on speaking terms [with Cap]” which is hella flimsy because it’s clear he was even then just about ready to suck it up and make the call.
On May 10 2018 05:08 LegalLord wrote: Was one of the core focuses of Avengers 1 as well. And it was trivialized here, in that it’s never addressed in any useful way; more so it’s just forgotten the way inconvenient plot points are forgotten between films in the MCU. Here, that’s more of a convenient handwave for the problem that is justified by appealing selectively to older films than by any actual themes of the current movie.
The only direct reference to that problem I can recall is Stark saying “I’m not on speaking terms [with Cap]” which is hella flimsy because it’s clear he was even then just about ready to suck it up and make the call.
Ok, but they had no idea Thor was alive, or who the guardians even were. Returning to earth would have made sense to get backup from captain and black panther (and Wong?), but strange and iron man are kinda in a different ballpark from them. They'd be great at holding off stooges while they tackle Thanos, but conveniently there were no stooges on Titan anyway, so... /shrug. Also, captain wouldn't have lost his cool over Gamora (only over Bucky), so that would have been GG right there.
Why doesn't Doctor Strange just use his giant rewind-and-redo-anything-button at, like, any point in the movie? That thing is easily the most powerful of the gems, as you can just fucking undo whatever the other gems are doing. That's godhood right there.
Isn't that a much bigger plot-hole than not making portals galaxies away? Or why didn't Tony Stark turn the ship around and fly back home?... Which doesn't even make sense to me. Tony doesn't know shit in this movie, why would he do that? Dr Strange and Tony are both largely victims of circumstance in this movie, they're not really deciding anything. Strategy is a weird word to use here.
I think this movie, more than any other Marvel Studios to date, is why some comics are referred to as "mythological". The movie actually sets that tone pretty hard right at the start. Strategy or logistics aren't really things here, even if it is talked about. The movie is more about god vs god, who could deserve it, who wants it, why, etc.
As for the Avengers being in discord, they kept that continuity well, and it's still there. It didn't resolve in 1 or 2 films, although LegalLord is seemingly forgetting the War Machine scene, where he ignores orders from that General to reunite with Captain America. I'd say that's a bigger reference than Tony's internal dilemma. I can't think of any scene where the movie just forgets the division happened.
It's ongoing, and I think the movie made it pretty clear it's a huge problem. Tony is basically alone. He doesn't even have Vision. It's not a focus to the movie, because it... shouldn't be? Like, maybe they're saving some of that for when they're not all running for their lives and dying, but actually achieving some success? Or maybe not, maybe it's something they'll stitch together character-by-character, like they did with War Machine in this one.
I rewatched the movie today (something I never do, but my dad wanted company, so why not).
Dr Strange's change of attitude from "I will not trade the stone for anyone's life including my own" (paraphrasing here) to giving it up without using it's power to save iron man is so blalant and so stark (see what I did there?) that it just can't be bad writing. It was deliberate.Given that it was deliberate, the question is when did he figure out that he had to willingly give up the time stone or, alternatively, when did he figure out that tony stark had to survive no matter what? If it was before the movie, then all actions by Dr. Strange (including agreeing to go fight Thanos in Titan) can be justified by saying that he was doing it to get everyone where they ended up, that is, in order to lose to Thanos in a specific way that will be justified in movie 2.
Another thing that I noticed was kind of a throaway line when they get to Titan. Someone (Peter Quill or Tony Stark, I don't know) says something like "the axis is off by 5 degrees" while mantis jumps in the background. This got me thinking, maybe this throaway line is actually a point about Thanos: his beliefs are based quite a bit on the catastrophy that happened on his planet, and he thinks it could have been averted by culling half the population. This would delusional, though, because the environmental consequences of having the planet axis change by 8 degrees is catastrophic no matter what, and his people were doomed either way. The message being that tyrants can't be trusted even if they are genuine about both their beliefs and their benevolence, because there's always a good chance they are delusional. Or maybe the message is about reading too much into a throaway line
1) The Marvel Universe has a running theme of Tony waving his gigantic ego around and causing half the problems that the Avengers have to deal with. And his fallback has always been "I can do better next time", instead of "maybe I'm a moron". This movie was no different, so his actions were not shocking in the slightest.
2) The questions about a better strategy. Dr. Strange saw the future, and I think the overall point is that Thanos is so far beyond all of the other characters that they still would have lost. Their brief chance of winning on Titan was just taking the gauntlet away from him. Thanos is still the big-ass fucker that boxed the Hulk into submission. We don't actually know if Strange could open a portal all the way across galaxies to get the Gauntlet someplace safe, and Thanos thus far is the only person seen using the Infinity Stones as more than big sources of destructive power. End game is basically that Thanos uses the gauntlet and burns it out (the whole thing was busted and gone-dark after his genocide), which leads to...
3) My one complaint about this movie: could they have phoned in the reset button any harder? Of all the main cast that were killed off in the end sequence, Bucky is literally the only one without a slated sequel already announced. The next Avengers is obviously going to be the final swan-song of the original group (all of which are still alive), where hopefully we will see some permanent deaths that stick.
On May 10 2018 15:46 WolfintheSheep wrote: Saw this tonight...so:
1) The Marvel Universe has a running theme of Tony waving his gigantic ego around and causing half the problems that the Avengers have to deal with. And his fallback has always been "I can do better next time", instead of "maybe I'm a moron". This movie was no different, so his actions were not shocking in the slightest.
Can you elaborate on this, because I interpreted most of the character flaws* in the movie to other superheroes being too emotional, like how Captain America and Scarlet Witch aren't willing to sacrifice Vision (in fact, a lot of previous issues come from CA allowing destruction in the name of his selfish friendship with Bucky too) or Star Lord fucking everything up or the Hulk being too much of a sore loser to come out at all.
*I understand that characters are allowed to have flaws, irrationalities, and other personal issues that permit them to make glaring mistakes. I just didn't see this movie as Iron Man specifically sabotaging it.
If you want to blame anyone for the splitting up of troops / bad strat its 100% on Thor. For a start he splits up the Guardians because he needs a new weapon and let them go off alone to Thanos and Titan instead of saying come with me then we will go to Thanos but he just takes Rocket and Groot then leaves them be which is stupid. Then when he finally gets his new hammer surely going to Thanos at Titan rather than earth (As he would not know whats happenig on earth at this point?) would have been the play to see how the people he knew where there are getting on. Also lets not forget, if he didn't hit Thanos in the chest instead of his head / stopped him from using the gauntlet, half the universe does not die.
So yeah, well played Thor you done goofed.
On May 10 2018 15:46 WolfintheSheep wrote: Saw this tonight...so:
1) The Marvel Universe has a running theme of Tony waving his gigantic ego around and causing half the problems that the Avengers have to deal with. And his fallback has always been "I can do better next time", instead of "maybe I'm a moron". This movie was no different, so his actions were not shocking in the slightest.
2) The questions about a better strategy. Dr. Strange saw the future, and I think the overall point is that Thanos is so far beyond all of the other characters that they still would have lost. Their brief chance of winning on Titan was just taking the gauntlet away from him. Thanos is still the big-ass fucker that boxed the Hulk into submission. We don't actually know if Strange could open a portal all the way across galaxies to get the Gauntlet someplace safe, and Thanos thus far is the only person seen using the Infinity Stones as more than big sources of destructive power. End game is basically that Thanos uses the gauntlet and burns it out (the whole thing was busted and gone-dark after his genocide), which leads to...
3) My one complaint about this movie: could they have phoned in the reset button any harder? Of all the main cast that were killed off in the end sequence, Bucky is literally the only one without a slated sequel already announced. The next Avengers is obviously going to be the final swan-song of the original group (all of which are still alive), where hopefully we will see some permanent deaths that stick.
The next movie is Captain Marvel who is going to be the one saving the universe and fixing everything in Avengers 4 and everyone will come back alive. It's going to be woeful
On May 10 2018 15:46 WolfintheSheep wrote: Saw this tonight...so:
1) The Marvel Universe has a running theme of Tony waving his gigantic ego around and causing half the problems that the Avengers have to deal with. And his fallback has always been "I can do better next time", instead of "maybe I'm a moron". This movie was no different, so his actions were not shocking in the slightest.
Can you elaborate on this, because I interpreted most of the character flaws* in the movie to other superheroes being too emotional, like how Captain America and Scarlet Witch aren't willing to sacrifice Vision (in fact, a lot of previous issues come from CA allowing destruction in the name of his selfish friendship with Bucky too) or Star Lord fucking everything up or the Hulk being too much of a sore loser to come out at all.
*I understand that characters are allowed to have flaws, irrationalities, and other personal issues that permit them to make glaring mistakes. I just didn't see this movie as Iron Man specifically sabotaging it.
Was specifically referring to Tony deciding to fly to Titan and fight Thanos. It was incredibly dumb, but entirely on par with other dumb decisions he has done throughout the movies.
On May 11 2018 01:31 Manit0u wrote: My only question is: When are they going to whip out Adam Warlock? They teased him so much...
He's clearly going to be a Guardians villain, so whenever Guardians 3 comes out.
On May 11 2018 02:36 WolfintheSheep wrote: He's clearly going to be a Guardians villain, so whenever Guardians 3 comes out.
So...is he going to be the Magus heading the Universal Church of Truth, then somehow purified to become Adam? And somehow Marvel will still find a way to cop out of showing The High Evolutionary?
Would be a bit weird to throw him into Guardians film no, maybe he will come along with Captain Marvel to rightfully save everything in Avengers 4 like it was written!
On May 11 2018 04:11 Pandemona wrote: Would be a bit weird to throw him into Guardians film no, maybe he will come along with Captain Marvel to rightfully save everything in Avengers 4 like it was written!
Why would it be weird to put magus in a Guardians movie? Hes a textbook guardians badguy.
On May 11 2018 09:00 Liquid`Drone wrote: While I dunno if it's been officially confirmed, it seems overwhelmingly likely that Adam Warlock is part of Guardians 3.
Why do you think so? What hints or foreshadowings have there been to suggest this?
On May 11 2018 09:00 Liquid`Drone wrote: While I dunno if it's been officially confirmed, it seems overwhelmingly likely that Adam Warlock is part of Guardians 3.
Why do you think so? What hints or foreshadowings have there been to suggest this?
Initially he was going to play a huge role in guardians 2
On May 11 2018 09:00 Liquid`Drone wrote: While I dunno if it's been officially confirmed, it seems overwhelmingly likely that Adam Warlock is part of Guardians 3.
Why do you think so? What hints or foreshadowings have there been to suggest this?
He was in one of the Guardians 2 stingers. That gold woman was making him.
I kinda wish I didn't watch this movie. Not because it's bad or because the story was hard to follow or anything. The way it ended was too much for me. I'd rather I watch the two movies back to back. To me it seem like Thanos knows what he is doing and feels no joy whatsoever - only sadness. And yet he must, for that is what he thinks the survival of the universe entails. A good villain - I enjoyed him.
Also, I like how Tony Stark survives. It's obvious he's one of the main reasons for Thanos' downfall and I think it's a nice way to end things as he is the godfather of MCU.
Had some faults or things I was not happy with but overall, a good way to spend a couple of hours.
On May 11 2018 09:00 Liquid`Drone wrote: While I dunno if it's been officially confirmed, it seems overwhelmingly likely that Adam Warlock is part of Guardians 3.
Why do you think so? What hints or foreshadowings have there been to suggest this?
He was in one of the Guardians 2 stingers. That gold woman was making him.
Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Because then everyone gets tired of recreating the same 5 or so heroes, and it's not as epic if you don't position them in a universe with other heroes and cameos.
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Wait... you think the comics don't have gaping plotholes?
Ok plothole might be the wrong word but i mean when they say they took the comic book story for the plot and then make it nothing to do with that minus the fact somehow they got to the part where Thanos manages to achieve his plan of eradicating half the universe. They don't even get the ending right as the end was he killed all the avengers then he gets stopped thanks to Nebula re doing everything to "spite" Thanos, after the remaining good guys recruit Thanos to confront Nebula. Adam Warlock also plays a huge part in this due to being in the Soul World at the time and coming out of it.
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Because then everyone gets tired of recreating the same 5 or so heroes, and it's not as epic if you don't position them in a universe with other heroes and cameos.
But we don't even have the X-men, Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer who play huge roles in avengers stuff
They said that is what they were doing that is why it attracts this criticism. They title it Infinity war and base the core concept of the gauntlet the only adaption from said comic book series with same title.
On May 09 2018 23:57 LegalLord wrote: You know, after thinking about it a bit more, the strategy of the heroes in this movie was really, really questionable. I'm not sure what they were going for. Of the separate little subplots, the only one that actually proved to be a constructive development was Thor getting his new weapon. Heading to Knowhere - a fight they couldn't win that just let Thanos take Gamora and gain a gem for free. Heading to Titan rather than changing course and making a last stand on Earth with the rest of the team? That just made the Earth battle a lot more difficult and gave Thanos the Time Gem, the one that made the biggest difference of all of them in terms of what he was actually able to do against the heroes.
All in all it kind of feels like a self-imposed divide-and-conquer. The fact that Thanos struggled in some of those battles shows that he isn't really fully impervious, but the heroes split up and made it possible to be defeated.
Meh, its not like really any of them knew what they were actually dealing with to formulate an effective strategy, aside from Gamora (and she and the Guardians wanted to try and get to Knowhere first, but didn't). Especially the ones from Earth, who only knew he was a big scary guy.
While there may be some truth to that, I don’t think “the heroes were incompetent and underestimated their opponent” is great storytelling, especially since nothing suggests that Thanos is a brilliant strategist or anything. He’s just powerful and has a tough military.
And if stopping Thanos at Knowhere was the best strategy they had, man does that suck because that backfired about as much as you could expect. Not only failed to stop him but gifted him another gem knowing full well that that was a possibility. Was kind of a really bad risk.
I will include a spoiler warning for the comics portion of the argument in spoiler tag. So here's where the contradiction begins. In the official comic, or at least the one marvel decided to use as the base narrative they attempt to pull from, Undisputedly, he is one of the most intelligent beings in the galactic universe. So much of the decision making process that leads up to thanos intiating his war isn't seen or due to the constraints and decision making of the studio, were not portrayed. which to MCU fans (movie fans only) it looks like a complete ass-pull of power from no where. Every action that thanos has taken in the comics alludes to him having an incredibly high IQ, that which can even rival the decision making process of galatic dieities.
So the only way to logically hash this argument out is to look at what ONLY the movies have shown so far, and compare that to the actions of what has been portrayed in the comic narrative. (Cannon, and only directly related to comics based on "Infinity Gauntlet, Infinity War, Infinity Crusade, Infinity / and comics of the resistance which hasn't been shown, AW-Infinity watch, etc).
Then compare that to the story-telling format of cinema and which aspects they focus on and you get a general idea of their decision-making process going forward, given the constraints with limited-hero roster franchise. So here's a list of things they DID reveal about thanos. Instead of writing "marvel" i'll abbreviate with MCU to simply generalise what happened in only the movies. The reason for doing so is, the movies are basically an entirely different narrative in it's own right due to them having to swap out the stuff that would make no sense or being too difficult or colluded if portrayed in a movie format and to this day's standard of storytelling. It's basically a completely different story entirely going forward. Things that have occured in the comics may never exist in the movies because it could not be explained or adapted to be emotionally compelling and entertaining / believeable.
So what MCU did decide to show with the movies, that are consistent with his comic character 1. Thanos is morally conflicted. (A theme across all comics of him) Based on the statistics of "duration of characters on screen" Thanos had the longest screen time. (Justifiably so, as they couldn't give him a movie, and they re-wrote the narrative) there were only 2 general times in which the narrative slowed down: - Thano's interaction with his adopted daughter Gramora. (Proof of this in his hesistancy in his decision making when it came to his adopted daughter. - The other pertaining to humor, banter that came with character interactions.
2. Thano's Incredible Intelligence For Strategic Warfare. The speed of the story is proof, along with his technology. Due to not having a back story so many plot holes occur when they introduce powerful abstracts. Aka Infinity stones/gems. Here's where the spoiler proof begins.
Thanos Is almost always alluded to as being the most cunning schemer by deities and heroes alike. 1. When making a deal with mesphisto and fulfilling the conditions of obtaining information in exchange for a cosmic cube but destroying it's functionality. thus outwitting the "devil" himself. 2. Thano has peered into the pool of wisdom (owned by death's domain, for the longest duration of time) we don't know the extent of knowledge he gained outside the location of the other infinity stones, but the pool represents the closest thing to omniscience outside the watcher, living tribunal and TOAA. Further proof of this is how the movie shows close to nothing in his deals with obtaining the infinity stones and his decision making that lead up to it. They only show the last moments in which he obtains them. 3. The owners of the infinitiy stones depict which narrative in the comic that will be held true in the movie universe. The collector was shown to be in possession of one of the stones in the movie. This alludes to his cunning prowess in how he handled the collector portrayed in the comic. The collector being, someone who only traded something for something more rare. the collector held the infinity stone as one of his rarest prizes only willing to let it go for the exchange of the ownership of a hero he wanted to get his hands on. thanos generally kills everyone he gets the stones from, because that entity generally attempts to kill him as well or screw him over. He beat grandmaster at his own game, another all encompassing diety which can not "by marvel's definition" be challenged in his own dimension. 4. Thanos's technological innovations basically rival that of other dieities. he's aware of even the technology of dieities such as galactus and his ownership of the nullifier (basically the most powerful technological weapon) in crusade 5. He created a gun that imprisons even a madness induced thor with a power gem, for some time until they cure him. So far the movies depicted no hero scientiest being smart enough to produce technology capable of combating even the power of any infinity stone, and would make sense that they all get slaughtered easily. 6. he can read the charts and graphs of even galctus's ship and has his own instrumentality. 7. He's in possession and built his own gun that was capable of being near the power of the nullifier. in infinity crusade. 8. The only person who is shown cunning enough to outwit him is generally...himself...in his other arcs of going to the past and killing himself, along with the infinity war arc in which warlock's evil side makes a copy of him. Basically the only people smart enough to end the world, and or throw a wrench in the plans of stopping it, are the ones who face off and become major players. everyone else is basically helpless. 9. Adam warlock, basically the only one who can perhaps outscheme everyone else, acknowledges thano's freighting ability to comprehend the use of the gauntlet in the small duration he's had it.
- Thano's decision making which leads to the overarching Pace of the movie The overarching theme is told from the hero's prospective with no time to build up the back story of thanos. This resulted in them having to keep consistent with a theme of "an imminent threat / doomsday is approaching with very little if any awareness of such threat" Which in hindsight, makes sense if your audience only can see through the eyes of the heroes they were told the story by. writing from there would only be logical that, the heroes have no way to prepare for something they had no clue of until it was probably too late. BUT it also removes any believeablility, in introducing a threat without fleshing out an emotional backstory. Arguably, Thanos should have probably had 2-3 movies worth of backstory, which ground his motives, demonstrate his incredible knowledge of the universe, and his experience prior to that war. His cunning prowess in how he earned all his stones from its previous owners in dealing with them, is a faucet that sadly, MCU refused to flesh out. This further proves, they scrapped a large portion of the narrative that makes Thanos, one of the most compelling and complex characters in MCU, if not the most. The original creator of Thanos is also justifiably disgusted with it in recent interviews. Thanos became a major player because of his pivotal involvement in all future plots, (so they can't, not introduce him) but the direction either summarized or skimmed over everything that makes him compelling for the narrative to move forward due to not owning the other franchises and cinema adaptation.
So they did show these things occurred, whether or not MCU chooses to iron out the consistency of its occurrence in comics for the future is up for debate but being a movie, their job is to summarize in a small time frame, not flesh out all points. The majority of individuals say that Infinity Gauntlet is the major premise of the movie, but i don't necessarily agree due to the resolution of the 2nd half of the film. The 2nd half of the film then puts a major focus on a franchise i don't believe they own, along with the obscurity of having to explain abstract deities. They do start the premise from a comic strip of gauntlet, (Just the beginning in someone falling through strange's roof) but the events they do show in thanos obtaining the stones are taken from thanos quest, the result is seen but the narrative in how he does it is not portrayed. Not to mention, if we look at the title itself of the movie, that should give you a huge clue in which plotlines they are not going to flesh out.
The infinity war comic has NOTHING to do with the contents of the narrative of the infinity war movie. In chronological order of occurrence in the comic, Infinity war is like the 3rd or 2nd arc that occurs in the infinity series, with an entirely different villian, and narrative. Movie wise, the events would occur in 1 or 2 movies after the next one is released. + Show Spoiler +
Infinity War Narrative is the relinquishment of thano's ownership of the gauntlet, along with a huge narrative of adam warlock's ownership and entire narrative of his ownership of the gauntlet. and then it's the build-up of adam's infinity watch backstory, and THEN his resolvement of the gauntlet, to then face the outcome of his evil parts manifested from the usage of the gauntlet. it's so far off in the future, you couldn't possibly summarize the major points before then without scrunching or skipping out so many things that make the story good.
MCU has shown that they're willing to scrunch and write an entirely new story even if it means taking out the juicy parts of the comic. Actor's who they can't retain for their original role in their franchise, clearly affects the future narrative they're willing to put out. Thor being the most revealing in how his trilogy was the start and end of Asgard entirely within the movies. + Show Spoiler +
Asgardians timeline plays out significantly longer in the infinity series (they're not dead, the world is not destroyed, odin is still alive and thano's clash with odin puts in perspective his power and place in the universe) along with painting thanos as one of the people who assist with aiding and being a pivotal role to the survival of the galaxy. Thano's with no gems, stands on equal footing with a crazed thor imbedded with a power gem that continuously draws power from it, and at the end, concluded that thanos merely got bored of trying to beat him into submission. This was probably the only panel that ever showed thanos even bleed majorly when being hit by the opposition.
TL:DR - Avengers: Infinity war is told from the avengers perspective, WITH the MOVIE being based on multiple different narratives from the "Infinity series" we do not get the Thanos perspective which resulted in plot holes occurring everywhere. It's safe to assume, what occured in the comic, may not be consistent with future direction of the narrative. As the movie itself, is merely a makeup of different scenarios that occur in different timelines and stories. It looks like the future narrative of Avengers is jepordized based on whether Disney is capable of purchasing Fox, and acquiring the major franchises which allow them the continuation of the story. Basically marvel is positioning in a way where they have to tell the story on the off chance they don't obtain fox, which leads to this resolvement and direction of ant man and captain marvel. Avengers HQ is a cumilation of X-men, and fantastic 4, and sadly play major roles in continuing the Infinity arc along with every future threat of the marvel narrative.
On May 11 2018 22:58 Pandemona wrote: They said that is what they were doing that is why it attracts this criticism. They title it Infinity war and base the core concept of the gauntlet the only adaption from said comic book series with same title.
Did they really say that? Generally speaking they don't do that (claim they will make a 1:1 recreation), they usually claim it will be "inspired" by the comic book storyline, and frankly, that's a good thing. For example, I think Civil War worked at least in part because they didn't try to recreate the comics, they just took the characters and the main idea and worked it around.
On May 11 2018 22:58 Pandemona wrote: They said that is what they were doing that is why it attracts this criticism. They title it Infinity war and base the core concept of the gauntlet the only adaption from said comic book series with same title.
Did they really say that? Generally speaking they don't do that (claim they will make a 1:1 recreation), they usually claim it will be "inspired" by the comic book storyline, and frankly, that's a good thing. For example, I think Civil War worked at least in part because they didn't try to recreate the comics, they just took the characters and the main idea and worked it around.
yeah they are quoted in an interview for telling the audience, it's an "adaptation, not a translation"
What they did was take Infinity Gem concept and produce something that will make money off of Captain Marvel ! #Triggered.
Anyway enough of me and my spouting off at how i hate the way the tried to adapt one of the best storylines in comic book world (imo) and gave us this weird ass movie which is a spin off to milking the Captain Marvel franchise!
If they add Adam Warlock into Guardians as a villain i think i will be officially done with Marvel movies Guardians was very good film too, both of those two felt very new when they were produced and are quite funny which always helps. Maybe Deadpool 2 will inspire me again!
On May 11 2018 22:58 Pandemona wrote: They said that is what they were doing that is why it attracts this criticism. They title it Infinity war and base the core concept of the gauntlet the only adaption from said comic book series with same title.
Did they really say that? Generally speaking they don't do that (claim they will make a 1:1 recreation), they usually claim it will be "inspired" by the comic book storyline, and frankly, that's a good thing. For example, I think Civil War worked at least in part because they didn't try to recreate the comics, they just took the characters and the main idea and worked it around.
yeah they are quoted in an interview for telling the audience, it's an "adaptation, not a translation"
Yeah they said Adaptation and what we got was, here is a story titled Infinity Wars but its all wrong minus facts Thanos actually achieves his main goal of whiping out half the universe, how he got there and what was all completely wrong, so it is just a straight up re design with a "concept/theme" from the comic book xD
On May 11 2018 22:09 Pandemona wrote: Ok plothole might be the wrong word but i mean when they say they took the comic book story for the plot and then make it nothing to do with that minus the fact somehow they got to the part where Thanos manages to achieve his plan of eradicating half the universe. They don't even get the ending right as the end was he killed all the avengers then he gets stopped thanks to Nebula re doing everything to "spite" Thanos, after the remaining good guys recruit Thanos to confront Nebula. Adam Warlock also plays a huge part in this due to being in the Soul World at the time and coming out of it.
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Because then everyone gets tired of recreating the same 5 or so heroes, and it's not as epic if you don't position them in a universe with other heroes and cameos.
But we don't even have the X-men, Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer who play huge roles in avengers stuff
I would love to see those heroes in Avengers movie in the future (I don't know if all the rights to those characters/ movies are in the correct hands/ had always been in the correct hands), but I also don't mind having new characters too
On May 11 2018 22:09 Pandemona wrote: Ok plothole might be the wrong word but i mean when they say they took the comic book story for the plot and then make it nothing to do with that minus the fact somehow they got to the part where Thanos manages to achieve his plan of eradicating half the universe. They don't even get the ending right as the end was he killed all the avengers then he gets stopped thanks to Nebula re doing everything to "spite" Thanos, after the remaining good guys recruit Thanos to confront Nebula. Adam Warlock also plays a huge part in this due to being in the Soul World at the time and coming out of it.
On May 11 2018 21:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Because then everyone gets tired of recreating the same 5 or so heroes, and it's not as epic if you don't position them in a universe with other heroes and cameos.
But we don't even have the X-men, Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer who play huge roles in avengers stuff
I would love to see those heroes in Avengers movie in the future (I don't know if all the rights to those characters/ movies are in the correct hands/ had always been in the correct hands), but I also don't mind having new characters too
Yeah don't worry i have a personal vendetta against anything Brie Larson does and Captain Marvel as hero is plain silly (imo as well) so add those together and what happened (again imo) to Infinity War and you get one salty panda :D
On May 11 2018 22:09 Pandemona wrote: Ok plothole might be the wrong word but i mean when they say they took the comic book story for the plot and then make it nothing to do with that minus the fact somehow they got to the part where Thanos manages to achieve his plan of eradicating half the universe. They don't even get the ending right as the end was he killed all the avengers then he gets stopped thanks to Nebula re doing everything to "spite" Thanos, after the remaining good guys recruit Thanos to confront Nebula. Adam Warlock also plays a huge part in this due to being in the Soul World at the time and coming out of it.
On May 11 2018 21:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Because then everyone gets tired of recreating the same 5 or so heroes, and it's not as epic if you don't position them in a universe with other heroes and cameos.
But we don't even have the X-men, Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer who play huge roles in avengers stuff
I would love to see those heroes in Avengers movie in the future (I don't know if all the rights to those characters/ movies are in the correct hands/ had always been in the correct hands), but I also don't mind having new characters too
Yeah don't worry i have a personal vendetta against anything Brie Larson does and Captain Marvel as hero is plain silly (imo as well) so add those together and what happened (again imo) to Infinity War and you get one salty panda :D
The current social climate largely depicts and influences the stories. The current star wars only make sense if you view it from pushing a feminist agenda. While it is silly, it was probably their only option in case they cannot acquire FOX. and it's not looking good for Disney based on the fact, the deal is now considered a horizontal merger of another huge media corporation. Even with Captain Marvel leading the next wave of heroes, it kinda doesn't work without X-men. So it's marvel's ONLY current option and falls in line with the feminist empowerment agenda. It doesn't help that they make more money from it, so they'll keep doing it despite it being a horrible story.
On May 11 2018 22:09 Pandemona wrote: Ok plothole might be the wrong word but i mean when they say they took the comic book story for the plot and then make it nothing to do with that minus the fact somehow they got to the part where Thanos manages to achieve his plan of eradicating half the universe. They don't even get the ending right as the end was he killed all the avengers then he gets stopped thanks to Nebula re doing everything to "spite" Thanos, after the remaining good guys recruit Thanos to confront Nebula. Adam Warlock also plays a huge part in this due to being in the Soul World at the time and coming out of it.
On May 11 2018 21:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Because then everyone gets tired of recreating the same 5 or so heroes, and it's not as epic if you don't position them in a universe with other heroes and cameos.
But we don't even have the X-men, Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer who play huge roles in avengers stuff
I would love to see those heroes in Avengers movie in the future (I don't know if all the rights to those characters/ movies are in the correct hands/ had always been in the correct hands), but I also don't mind having new characters too
Yeah don't worry i have a personal vendetta against anything Brie Larson does and Captain Marvel as hero is plain silly (imo as well) so add those together and what happened (again imo) to Infinity War and you get one salty panda :D
The current social climate largely depicts and influences the stories. The current star wars only make sense if you view it from pushing a feminist agenda. While it is silly, it was probably their only option in case they cannot acquire FOX. and it's not looking good for Disney based on the fact, the deal is now considered a horizontal merger of another huge media corporation. Even with Captain Marvel leading the next wave of heroes, it kinda doesn't work without X-men. So it's marvel's ONLY current option and falls in line with the feminist empowerment agenda. It doesn't help that they make more money from it, so they'll keep doing it despite it being a horrible story.
Just to be clear, when you use phrases like "feminist empowerment agenda" you're referring to the idea that it's okay to occasionally have a female superhero save the day, rather than it always being a male superhero, right? I would imagine that diversity with superheroes can lead to more people being interested in the movies, whether it's gender or race or anything else.
As far as it being "a horrible story", I think that's dependent on one's approach to the movies and expectations. For example, if a moviegoer is looking to see a story that's essentially the same as the comic book story (i.e., someone who expects canon and purist writing), then that moviegoer could certainly be disappointed as things are changed. On the other hand, I'd imagine that the majority of moviegoers either don't mind adaptations or new stories or retcons or honestly don't know enough about the comic storylines to even notice, so as long as the movies all make sense within their own movie universe, it could be seen as a totally fine storyline (even if it's not the same one as the comic's).
On May 11 2018 22:09 Pandemona wrote: Ok plothole might be the wrong word but i mean when they say they took the comic book story for the plot and then make it nothing to do with that minus the fact somehow they got to the part where Thanos manages to achieve his plan of eradicating half the universe. They don't even get the ending right as the end was he killed all the avengers then he gets stopped thanks to Nebula re doing everything to "spite" Thanos, after the remaining good guys recruit Thanos to confront Nebula. Adam Warlock also plays a huge part in this due to being in the Soul World at the time and coming out of it.
On May 11 2018 21:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Because then everyone gets tired of recreating the same 5 or so heroes, and it's not as epic if you don't position them in a universe with other heroes and cameos.
But we don't even have the X-men, Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer who play huge roles in avengers stuff
I would love to see those heroes in Avengers movie in the future (I don't know if all the rights to those characters/ movies are in the correct hands/ had always been in the correct hands), but I also don't mind having new characters too
Yeah don't worry i have a personal vendetta against anything Brie Larson does and Captain Marvel as hero is plain silly (imo as well) so add those together and what happened (again imo) to Infinity War and you get one salty panda :D
The current social climate largely depicts and influences the stories. The current star wars only make sense if you view it from pushing a feminist agenda. While it is silly, it was probably their only option in case they cannot acquire FOX. and it's not looking good for Disney based on the fact, the deal is now considered a horizontal merger of another huge media corporation. Even with Captain Marvel leading the next wave of heroes, it kinda doesn't work without X-men. So it's marvel's ONLY current option and falls in line with the feminist empowerment agenda. It doesn't help that they make more money from it, so they'll keep doing it despite it being a horrible story.
You hate female heroes on general principle? I was expecting very little of Wonder Woman, but it is by far the best movie in DC's rebooted cinematic universe (in fact, frankly, everything else so far outright sucks). Who's to say Captain Marvel doesn't turn out to be great? Because lets face it, the Black Panther comics aren't great either, but the movie was excellent.
I'd actually argue that it's about time the MCU started using their female superheroes. Scarlet Witch could use some development, and I'd like for them to introduce Angela (although I haven't really looked at the Marvel version, she was awesome in Spawn).
As for rights, there's plenty more non-X-men, non-fantastic-four characters to develop. And even if they do get the X-men back into the universe, I really doubt it'll be in time for them to do more than use them in the post-credit teaser. I expect Avengers 4 to be the swan song for Captain America and Iron Man, and maybe for Thor as well. And Captain Marvel, Ant Man and Wasp will have strong supporting roles. And there will probably be a curveball in there somewhere.
On May 11 2018 22:09 Pandemona wrote: Ok plothole might be the wrong word but i mean when they say they took the comic book story for the plot and then make it nothing to do with that minus the fact somehow they got to the part where Thanos manages to achieve his plan of eradicating half the universe. They don't even get the ending right as the end was he killed all the avengers then he gets stopped thanks to Nebula re doing everything to "spite" Thanos, after the remaining good guys recruit Thanos to confront Nebula. Adam Warlock also plays a huge part in this due to being in the Soul World at the time and coming out of it.
On May 11 2018 21:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Because then everyone gets tired of recreating the same 5 or so heroes, and it's not as epic if you don't position them in a universe with other heroes and cameos.
But we don't even have the X-men, Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer who play huge roles in avengers stuff
I would love to see those heroes in Avengers movie in the future (I don't know if all the rights to those characters/ movies are in the correct hands/ had always been in the correct hands), but I also don't mind having new characters too
Yeah don't worry i have a personal vendetta against anything Brie Larson does and Captain Marvel as hero is plain silly (imo as well) so add those together and what happened (again imo) to Infinity War and you get one salty panda :D
The current social climate largely depicts and influences the stories. The current star wars only make sense if you view it from pushing a feminist agenda. While it is silly, it was probably their only option in case they cannot acquire FOX. and it's not looking good for Disney based on the fact, the deal is now considered a horizontal merger of another huge media corporation. Even with Captain Marvel leading the next wave of heroes, it kinda doesn't work without X-men. So it's marvel's ONLY current option and falls in line with the feminist empowerment agenda. It doesn't help that they make more money from it, so they'll keep doing it despite it being a horrible story.
You hate female heroes on general principle? I was expecting very little of Wonder Woman, but it is by far the best movie in DC's rebooted cinematic universe (in fact, frankly, everything else so far outright sucks). Who's to say Captain Marvel doesn't turn out to be great? Because lets face it, the Black Panther comics aren't great either, but the movie was excellent.
Is it actually good? I left Man of Steel with a bitter enough aftertaste that I had no interest in further DC movies for this generation. The fact that BvS looked like suck didn't exactly help either.
On May 12 2018 01:12 LegalLord wrote: Is it actually good? I left Man of Steel with a bitter enough aftertaste that I had no interest in further DC movies for this generation. The fact that BvS looked like suck didn't exactly help either.
I wasn't too fond of BvS, but I really liked Wonder Woman, especially compared to the other DC movies. After seeing WW, I joked that it was so good that it must have been made by Marvel lol.
On May 11 2018 22:09 Pandemona wrote: Ok plothole might be the wrong word but i mean when they say they took the comic book story for the plot and then make it nothing to do with that minus the fact somehow they got to the part where Thanos manages to achieve his plan of eradicating half the universe. They don't even get the ending right as the end was he killed all the avengers then he gets stopped thanks to Nebula re doing everything to "spite" Thanos, after the remaining good guys recruit Thanos to confront Nebula. Adam Warlock also plays a huge part in this due to being in the Soul World at the time and coming out of it.
On May 11 2018 21:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becoming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Because then everyone gets tired of recreating the same 5 or so heroes, and it's not as epic if you don't position them in a universe with other heroes and cameos.
But we don't even have the X-men, Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer who play huge roles in avengers stuff
I would love to see those heroes in Avengers movie in the future (I don't know if all the rights to those characters/ movies are in the correct hands/ had always been in the correct hands), but I also don't mind having new characters too
Yeah don't worry i have a personal vendetta against anything Brie Larson does and Captain Marvel as hero is plain silly (imo as well) so add those together and what happened (again imo) to Infinity War and you get one salty panda :D
The current social climate largely depicts and influences the stories. The current star wars only make sense if you view it from pushing a feminist agenda. While it is silly, it was probably their only option in case they cannot acquire FOX. and it's not looking good for Disney based on the fact, the deal is now considered a horizontal merger of another huge media corporation. Even with Captain Marvel leading the next wave of heroes, it kinda doesn't work without X-men. So it's marvel's ONLY current option and falls in line with the feminist empowerment agenda. It doesn't help that they make more money from it, so they'll keep doing it despite it being a horrible story.
Just to be clear, when you use phrases like "feminist empowerment agenda" you're referring to the idea that it's okay to occasionally have a female superhero save the day, rather than it always being a male superhero, right? I would imagine that diversity with superheroes can lead to more people being interested in the movies, whether it's gender or race or anything else.
As far as it being "a horrible story", I think that's dependent on one's approach to the movies and expectations. For example, if a moviegoer is looking to see a story that's essentially the same as the comic book story (i.e., someone who expects canon and purist writing), then that moviegoer could certainly be disappointed as things are changed. On the other hand, I'd imagine that the majority of moviegoers either don't mind adaptations or new stories or retcons or honestly don't know enough about the comic storylines to even notice, so as long as the movies all make sense within their own movie universe, it could be seen as a totally fine storyline (even if it's not the same one as the comic's).
Generally yes. I should have clarified such an ambiguous term. To further clarify the context I do use that term in, I believe we should at this point have no qualms regardless of who is being portrayed as the superhero, male, female, sex, gender, ideology, religion, etc. A good story at the end of the day should only be about a good story. But quite frankly, these things do matter as the movie industry, is still a business and one that has a major influence on the media and those who consume it.
As a business, it thrives on pushing narratives that people can identify with, social issues that were important in that period of time (Race is a prevalent issue in this regard, and along the lines of screening but this is another discussion) and willing to pay money to watch, and to that end I have a firm belief that influence in part holds a greater importance in sales than it does a consistent narrative and cast. within these past years, social climates that seem to be a big factor are BlackLivesMatter & Feminism or female empowerment.
So to put some context, i'm all for equal representation, believe there should be MORE diversity. But in actuality, the opposite occurs, in that hollywood sticks to a business model of pushing narratives which only pay off and sticking to those narratives at the expense of compromising an original story. They say it's about diversity, but in a realistic scenario, diversity would include at the very minimum every race starred in every lead role, and then so on and so fourth but we know this is not what occurs, and even sometimes impractical or jeopardize the story. It's for the very same reason that, you won't see an asian, indian, latino, middle eastern, super hero with a 3 part triology.
So my issue with starwars is that, the story is for this era, but they force the narrative of feminism not because it fits in the grand scheme of things or make a more coherent compelling story, but because thats what currently sells more cause the current social issue is a large one and one others are willing to pay to watch. It's not done under a real premise of "diversity" but is sold under that notion.
So back to the context in which i use it to describe the timing of marvel's release, was more on the reasons why i think they had no other option than to fall back on releasing the next phase of the MCU story which is captain marvel, because that falls in line with the only franchise they do currently own in the next phase of the story and because marvel hasn't introduced a strong lead female heroine yet as far as the movies go. in this case i felt the timing made sense and was a + not because it was forced. The transition of the next phase is also congruent with captain marvel being the next lead of said team.
TL:DR, I don't hate female heroes, i hate when they force it for that said reason, it has to make sense in terms of the story. Marvel's case it makes sense, as they sold every hero franchise that would already continue the narrative to infinity war. The only franchise left that remotely can claim it ties in, is Captain Marvel. My example of star-wars is, the movie felt like it was forced for that very reason, not because it furthers the plot or because the intent of producing that movie was to tell a compelling narrative true to it's franchise. The motivations of polarizing characters in star wars is more identifiable with the female empowerment agenda than it is because it serves a purpose in the greater story. Basically, I'm reinforcing the notion Mark Hamil has stated in his interviews "The movie was made for this time, not because it was consistent with the earlier movies, he also elaborated as to not hate it for that very purpose."
I think people misunderstood when i wrote it sucks, because i described the benefit of the timing to it's release. (They had that going for them) More that, it sucks because i vastly believe a more compelling story could be told with the rest of the infinity story. Vs having to fall back on telling the next phase through the leadership of Captain Marvel. I loved DC's wonder woman, and also believe it was one of the best to date, i don't think it tops the batman trilogy, i don't even think it can be compared to the acting of heath ledger and what he brought to the 2nd movie. But yes it was wonderfully done, fell short near wrapping up the end in her battle against ares. heck, god of war told a better narrative of fighting ares.
On May 11 2018 22:09 Pandemona wrote: Ok plothole might be the wrong word but i mean when they say they took the comic book story for the plot and then make it nothing to do with that minus the fact somehow they got to the part where Thanos manages to achieve his plan of eradicating half the universe. They don't even get the ending right as the end was he killed all the avengers then he gets stopped thanks to Nebula re doing everything to "spite" Thanos, after the remaining good guys recruit Thanos to confront Nebula. Adam Warlock also plays a huge part in this due to being in the Soul World at the time and coming out of it.
On May 11 2018 21:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Because then everyone gets tired of recreating the same 5 or so heroes, and it's not as epic if you don't position them in a universe with other heroes and cameos.
But we don't even have the X-men, Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer who play huge roles in avengers stuff
I would love to see those heroes in Avengers movie in the future (I don't know if all the rights to those characters/ movies are in the correct hands/ had always been in the correct hands), but I also don't mind having new characters too
Yeah don't worry i have a personal vendetta against anything Brie Larson does and Captain Marvel as hero is plain silly (imo as well) so add those together and what happened (again imo) to Infinity War and you get one salty panda :D
The current social climate largely depicts and influences the stories. The current star wars only make sense if you view it from pushing a feminist agenda. While it is silly, it was probably their only option in case they cannot acquire FOX. and it's not looking good for Disney based on the fact, the deal is now considered a horizontal merger of another huge media corporation. Even with Captain Marvel leading the next wave of heroes, it kinda doesn't work without X-men. So it's marvel's ONLY current option and falls in line with the feminist empowerment agenda. It doesn't help that they make more money from it, so they'll keep doing it despite it being a horrible story.
I feel like the X-men will never be pulled into the MCU proper. The movie-verse already had a serious issue with "where the hell was ______ while the world was ending?", and adding in hundreds of individuals spread across the world who are all individually as powerful, or more powerful, than the Avengers cast just amplifies the problem.
On May 11 2018 22:09 Pandemona wrote: Ok plothole might be the wrong word but i mean when they say they took the comic book story for the plot and then make it nothing to do with that minus the fact somehow they got to the part where Thanos manages to achieve his plan of eradicating half the universe. They don't even get the ending right as the end was he killed all the avengers then he gets stopped thanks to Nebula re doing everything to "spite" Thanos, after the remaining good guys recruit Thanos to confront Nebula. Adam Warlock also plays a huge part in this due to being in the Soul World at the time and coming out of it.
On May 11 2018 21:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Because then everyone gets tired of recreating the same 5 or so heroes, and it's not as epic if you don't position them in a universe with other heroes and cameos.
But we don't even have the X-men, Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer who play huge roles in avengers stuff
I would love to see those heroes in Avengers movie in the future (I don't know if all the rights to those characters/ movies are in the correct hands/ had always been in the correct hands), but I also don't mind having new characters too
Yeah don't worry i have a personal vendetta against anything Brie Larson does and Captain Marvel as hero is plain silly (imo as well) so add those together and what happened (again imo) to Infinity War and you get one salty panda :D
The current social climate largely depicts and influences the stories. The current star wars only make sense if you view it from pushing a feminist agenda. While it is silly, it was probably their only option in case they cannot acquire FOX. and it's not looking good for Disney based on the fact, the deal is now considered a horizontal merger of another huge media corporation. Even with Captain Marvel leading the next wave of heroes, it kinda doesn't work without X-men. So it's marvel's ONLY current option and falls in line with the feminist empowerment agenda. It doesn't help that they make more money from it, so they'll keep doing it despite it being a horrible story.
I feel like the X-men will never be pulled into the MCU proper. The movie-verse already had a serious issue with "where the hell was ______ while the world was ending?", and adding in hundreds of individuals spread across the world who are all individually as powerful, or more powerful, than the Avengers cast just amplifies the problem.
I think you've summarized it best. I totally agree, in that it's directed and written clearly under the premise, "we have no choice to stick to this route because we don't own those heroes that resolve the story, and we have no way to explain the plot holes and back stories of said entity, if we introduce that element." You're absolutely right in that avengers amplifies the problem already existing in the comic. because the way thano utlizies his power and reasons why he does it, is basically cut out entirely. so people have no reference as to why certain things play out the way it does and mainly the issues i had when i watched the movie, but didn't read the comics.
On The subject of integrating Fox's Franchise which correct me if i'm wrong, owns X-Men & Fantastic Four currently. (i'm unaware of who owns Adam Warlock and Infinity Watch) I actually think they CAN integrate it back into the story without it being too late, and that their pitch to fox was on a timeline in which they would be able to do it. I mean in one of the infinity arcs, it was Dr. Strange who called out to every individual on the planet for aid. I haven't read other comics in how X-Men & F4 got together to create the avengers HQ, but i'm guessing that could be the point in which they integrate it or Nick Fury / Captain Marvel "Knowing some people" Wolverines Movies have been kept up on, making him a relevant character including the fact he's a direct member who works with Captain Marvel. Nick Fury's Ambiguity in the entire marvel episodes and universe, allows for a believeable ass pull here despite it being off screen. The guy's basically a higher degree of NSA with super-power contacts.
If they can't buy fox or even if they do and chose NOT to integrate X-Men, the only outcome i see is the New avengers HQ is current hero roster + wakanda being base. Which is the setup to why wakanda was the technological super power, and the building up of shuri who will be the instrumentality creator. Shuri would then replace the tech roles which were otherwise reserved for Dr. Reed Richards of F4, The Beast, and not put an emphasis on perhaps Filling that with Bruce Banner or Iron Man's tech division. New Iron Man was also slated to be played by an african american girl who was prodigious, which they could either have shuri play it or have a child from wakanda (They have the tech, they have in their lore, the most tech advanced educated country) An african american Male will also be slated to replace Captain America, which justifies the merger of wakanda and avengers. The most odd thing that could occur is if they do instate fantasitc 4 because The actor for captain america was reed richards and the antagonist for black panther was also one of the actors in the f4 squad.
I'm convinced, Captain Marvel being announced will, in fact, wrap up the roster of Avengers 1.0 and infinity wars in its entirety without ever going into the abstracts and galactic deities and further fighting for ownership of the gauntlet. It's been a trend of marvel to take what they can, but never flesh it out when it comes to cinema. Thanos and Thor being great examples, as Thanos, and Loki has one of the most compelling backstories EVER. i don't think anything is quite as compelling as thano's character period. and it looks like they might just let him die and wrap it up in the finishing of the next avenger's film. It even looks more to be that way as thano's gauntlet blew up upon use of the snap, all they have to do is revive the ones that play in the roster in the new avengers. (contracts including hints in the movie were given out, especially by iron man's quip to spider man about being an avenger, and him calling it a suicide mission, thor's continuation serves no follow up if asgard doesn't exist, odin playing a role in portraying thanos, but they decided to show how he was basically a broken man losing everything prior to infinity wars and would make sense in ending the franchise here as even if he lived, there'd be no reason to have him come back to the universe.)
Continuing infinity wars only makes sense if AW, Odin and asgard, silver surfer, infinity watch exist as they tie into fleshing out thano's character. I'm going to take a huge gamble and guess they'll substitute Captain Marvel for the major things that Adam Warlock would have done to close the thanos arc out and or ant-man being that individual. If the infinity stones are still in play for future story lines and for the creation of infinity watch, i can definitly see how they could use another character to fill in adam warlock's role if they scrap his entire involvement with deities including thano's story line.
I think the only way to get X-Men in would be to have Mutants and Inhumans be the same thing. Inhumans are already a thing in the MCU, and got a lot of focus in Agents of SHIELD. Even had an invent where new Inhumans started to awaken to their powers all around the planet. Aside from the origins of Mutants vs the origins of Inhumans, its not like they are that different. Wouldn't be a clean inclusion, obviously, but its somewhat possible.
On May 12 2018 00:14 Liquid`Drone wrote: How is Brie Larson offensive to you? What did she ever do?
Awful actress and is only in the business because she failed hard at singing. But because she looks pretty she gets cast in big things which such is life i guess, but her personally i cannot stand
On May 11 2018 22:09 Pandemona wrote: Ok plothole might be the wrong word but i mean when they say they took the comic book story for the plot and then make it nothing to do with that minus the fact somehow they got to the part where Thanos manages to achieve his plan of eradicating half the universe. They don't even get the ending right as the end was he killed all the avengers then he gets stopped thanks to Nebula re doing everything to "spite" Thanos, after the remaining good guys recruit Thanos to confront Nebula. Adam Warlock also plays a huge part in this due to being in the Soul World at the time and coming out of it.
On May 11 2018 21:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On May 11 2018 19:46 Pandemona wrote: Making Adam Warlock a villian for Guardians is such a silly move for me. Makes no sense with the comic book world to have him like that. He was made on Earth originally, then rebels against creators, then fights Thor, then saves Counter Earth to then ally with Magus and Thanos when he is "soul searching" after not understanding who he is. Then when he realisizes Magus is him from the future he rebels on him and takes a Soul Gem and then Thanos gets all 5 to begin the destruction of the universe. Then he helps save the universe with his weirdness, the "hero" is way to complex to throw it into a villian mode first in Guardians without there being someone behind him as he would have to "turn good" somewhere.
The reason i am becomming a bit anal with the "lore" and such is because they made it this way trying to copy paste comic book lore into a film like Avengers 4. Why not just not do that and just make a film with amazing well known super heroes instead. If you do that then you will just get people enjoying it without finding plot holes and get triggered when things are all messed up.
Because then everyone gets tired of recreating the same 5 or so heroes, and it's not as epic if you don't position them in a universe with other heroes and cameos.
But we don't even have the X-men, Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer who play huge roles in avengers stuff
I would love to see those heroes in Avengers movie in the future (I don't know if all the rights to those characters/ movies are in the correct hands/ had always been in the correct hands), but I also don't mind having new characters too
Yeah don't worry i have a personal vendetta against anything Brie Larson does and Captain Marvel as hero is plain silly (imo as well) so add those together and what happened (again imo) to Infinity War and you get one salty panda :D
The current social climate largely depicts and influences the stories. The current star wars only make sense if you view it from pushing a feminist agenda. While it is silly, it was probably their only option in case they cannot acquire FOX. and it's not looking good for Disney based on the fact, the deal is now considered a horizontal merger of another huge media corporation. Even with Captain Marvel leading the next wave of heroes, it kinda doesn't work without X-men. So it's marvel's ONLY current option and falls in line with the feminist empowerment agenda. It doesn't help that they make more money from it, so they'll keep doing it despite it being a horrible story.
Just to be clear, when you use phrases like "feminist empowerment agenda" you're referring to the idea that it's okay to occasionally have a female superhero save the day, rather than it always being a male superhero, right? I would imagine that diversity with superheroes can lead to more people being interested in the movies, whether it's gender or race or anything else.
As far as it being "a horrible story", I think that's dependent on one's approach to the movies and expectations. For example, if a moviegoer is looking to see a story that's essentially the same as the comic book story (i.e., someone who expects canon and purist writing), then that moviegoer could certainly be disappointed as things are changed. On the other hand, I'd imagine that the majority of moviegoers either don't mind adaptations or new stories or retcons or honestly don't know enough about the comic storylines to even notice, so as long as the movies all make sense within their own movie universe, it could be seen as a totally fine storyline (even if it's not the same one as the comic's).
I agree with what your saying 100%, i go into transformers movies just earning to hear Optimus' voice or big robots fighting, i know it couldn't further away from the cartoon series etc. But when the movie is titled after one of the famous comic strips and says "it will be an adaption" and it literally isn't minus there being a gauntlet in it and half the universe dying then it triggers me a bit. But the main reason like i did say a few posts back, they are forcing you to watch every single movie, whether you like said hero or not. I don't like black panther, i don't like dr strange, i don't like thor or captain america, the only movies i watched are Ironman 1-3, all spidermans and all guardians movies. But going in on the basis of that you get a bit miffed when everything is so random because things happen in thor 2 or captain america 3 that you missed. So they are shoving it down your throat without an avengers fan per se knowing that you have to watch them all.
Or they could just never justify it and just say mutants started cropping up due to all the Avengers + cosmic voodooOoOoOoOo. Where the powers came from was never the interesting part these stories anyways.
weird. I feel she's pretty plain looking by hollywood standards (so she's pretty, but less so than the average movie star), but a good actress. Won an oscar, too.
Yeah she won an oscar for her lowest grosing film and she been in some terrible ones. Her biggest film was Kong:Skull Island where the film was a major success wise. Also she started in that disgraceful Amy Schumer film and to be asociated with that women is crazy.
Anyway :D
With Disney trying to purchase Fox or about to, i hope it helps Marvel intergrate some more super heroes like X-Men or Fantastic 4 back into Avengers but i highly doubt that will happen and we all know what Disney wants. Many movies to make many money from regardless of story. Star Wars episode 8 just about killed everyone better than Thos ever could
On May 12 2018 03:37 Sentenal wrote: I think the only way to get X-Men in would be to have Mutants and Inhumans be the same thing. Inhumans are already a thing in the MCU, and got a lot of focus in Agents of SHIELD. Even had an invent where new Inhumans started to awaken to their powers all around the planet. Aside from the origins of Mutants vs the origins of Inhumans, its not like they are that different. Wouldn't be a clean inclusion, obviously, but its somewhat possible.
I don't think it would be too difficult if they do decide to get into the multiverse. But yeah you are correct they're basically the same. But if I recall correctly, I remember somewhere in the Avengers comic or either I read it somewhere else, X-Men was a universe where evolution resulted in the natural mutation of superpowers (Correct me if I'm wrong cause I can't remember and haven't read/watched an X-Men related plot in forever) Some of it was even genetic.) and it played up a species born different but can't be accepted in society. I can't recall how wolverine's powers came about outside being experimented on, and dead pool being the same way.
Whereas Marvel went about that as more of scientific curiosity gone wrong which resulted in said mutation and power. But yeah in both stories both did occur as a result of mutation or they were born differently something like that. Marvel so far kept it at "earth's Avengers, resulted in scientific advancement from earth" Captain America's power is from a secret experiment/injection, Ironman, Antman, black panther were suits. outside w/e ritual power from earth black panther got his power from. scarlet witch is experimentation with the power gem, and I don't know the story behind black widow and forgot hulks ironically but I'm sure Bruce banners was vaguely along those same lines.
The only ones with unscientific power are like galactic godlings / demigods or gods. Shield is more like alien entities and then you have people who abuse alien artifacts / use alien artifacts to alter the human DNA. I haven't kept up with the series in 2 years though.
On Captain Marvel I don't know if Brie can pull it off. I guess marvel could do it, and tested out the waters of lead female roles over the course of shield, but the only time they had a lead female role produced by marvel studios was Elektra. Perhaps wonder woman gave them confidence for how it could be done? but the task at hand is pretty huge, we're talking the leader of the new avengers squad basically....multiple reoccurring films will flop or not based on how well she pulls it off. I don't think wonder woman as a story is good enough to have a continuation in a story, seeing that they chose the god of war as THE end battle in her franchise, despite them pulling it off, that's a one-time thing to build that hero into reoccurring support roles. In a nut shell her importance would be similar to how RDJ and iron man's appearance is to build value. For whatever reason, her leaked photos in the outfit look NOTHING like the photoshop of her hero.
On May 12 2018 03:53 Plansix wrote: Or they could just never justify it and just say mutants started cropping up due to all the Avengers + cosmic voodooOoOoOoOo. Where the powers came from was never the interesting part these stories anyways.
Unless they're doing something like alternate-universe merging, that seems like a gigantically terrible mess. And Alt-Universe stories are giant messes in their own right.
We really don't need another reboot of the X-Men and the whole mutantverse, especially when you strip away all the backstory that makes most of the cast interesting and start from year 0 in the new 10's.
Personally, I'd rather X-Men remain in their own universe. One of the most defining characteristics of their stories is that a lot of the public hates them, and this never really made sense in the context of there being a whole bunch of other superpowered humans running around doing their thing.
On May 12 2018 00:14 Liquid`Drone wrote: How is Brie Larson offensive to you? What did she ever do?
Awful actress and is only in the business because she failed hard at singing. But because she looks pretty she gets cast in big things which such is life i guess, but her personally i cannot stand.
I can't talk for all of her performance, but I tought she did an amazing job in Room. Not exacly the same as playing a Marvel super hero of course.
The magic of a world with a hidden nation ruled by a super power king that dresses like panther that no one knows about is it justifies that wolverine could have been running around going wolverine things the entire time and no one knew.
And to be fair to the X-men plot, the NYPD constantly tries to arrest Spiderman and DareDevil.
On May 12 2018 03:51 Pandemona wrote: Awful actress and is only in the business because she failed hard at singing. But because she looks pretty she gets cast in big things which such is life i guess, but her personally i cannot stand
I'll pretend this section doesn't exist. :D
On May 12 2018 04:03 saocyn wrote: I don't think it would be too difficult if they do decide to get into the multiverse. But yeah you are correct they're basically the same. But if I recall correctly, I remember somewhere in the Avengers comic or either I read it somewhere else, X-Men was a universe where evolution resulted in the natural mutation of superpowers (Correct me if I'm wrong cause I can't remember and haven't read/watched an X-Men related plot in forever) Some of it was even genetic.) and it played up a species born different but can't be accepted in society. I can't recall how wolverine's powers came about outside being experimented on, and dead pool being the same way.
Yes and no. Mutants and Inhumans stem from the same source.
Long story short, a race of near-omnipotent energy gods called the Celestials experimented on nascent species across the universe. Their aim was to grant them the potential to develop superpowers down the line. In theory, the races could progressively evolve in power and scope until they matched their creators (which was the Celestials' endgame). This ultimately succeeds in an unintentional manner, which the MCU can't address until the Fantastic Four are properly integrated into it.
Your basic breakdown looks like this:
Eternals, who are genetically stable but they evolve very slowly. They act as the 'immune system' of the planet to protect it from outside threats. Narrative-wise, they are redundant with the Avengers and such bandying about.
Deviants, who was genetically unstable but can progress quickly. They are a catalyst for enormous spurts of advancement but also fail to play nice with other species.
The dominant species on the planet. Humans, Kree, Skrulls, whatever. They have a latent potential for mutation spread out among the population, just significant enough to progress at a steady pace.
The Inhumans are a subset of humanity experimented on by the Kree after the Celestials came and went. Due to a bunch of comic-book contrivances that are best ignored, the Kree were basically stuck evolution-wise: no genotype mutations occurred in their children besides your standard recombination. Genetic engineering and other avenues compensated for a select few but the Kree had hit a dead end. So they tried to jump-start by using humans as a work-around. The result was the Inhumans, an offshoot group whose groups must be activated by an outside agent (a mutagen called Terrigen Mist, think of Agent Orange cranked up to 11). The good news is all Inhuman members have the capacity to gain powers; the bad news is the power-sets are random and lead to...issues.
These two critical departures from mutants dictate all their major storylines stemming back to their original incarnations, and everything that has happened in the last 10-15 years in comic books. You can't combine mutants and Inhumans unless you're willing to work from scratch - their story arcs almost never overlap.
On May 12 2018 04:03 saocyn wrote: On Captain Marvel I don't know if Brie can pull it off. I guess marvel could do it, and tested out the waters of lead female roles over the course of shield, but the only time they had a lead female role produced by marvel studios was Elektra. Perhaps wonder woman gave them confidence for how it could be done? but the task at hand is pretty huge, we're talking the leader of the new avengers squad basically....multiple reoccurring films will flop or not based on how well she pulls it off. I don't think wonder woman as a story is good enough to have a continuation in a story, seeing that they chose the god of war as THE end battle in her franchise, despite them pulling it off, that's a one-time thing to build that hero into reoccurring support roles. In a nut shell her importance would be similar to how RDJ and iron man's appearance is to build value. For whatever reason, her leaked photos in the outfit look NOTHING like the photoshop of her hero.
Captain Marvel will have an even harder time establishing a place than Wonder Woman, who has a litany of hero-specific bad guys for solo stories as well as a long-established personality and a fan base who recognizes the title. Marvel has none of that to work from. Their sole support to lean against is a middling reboot.
On a petty note, I far prefer the Ms. Marvel costume from the late 2000s.
On May 12 2018 05:06 Sbrubbles wrote: Personally, I'd rather X-Men remain in their own universe. One of the most defining characteristics of their stories is that a lot of the public hates them, and this never really made sense in the context of there being a whole bunch of other superpowered humans running around doing their thing.
...what do you mean? Unlike heroes who are victims of circumstances, self-created or have their powers bestowed by outside entities, anyone on planet Earth can be a mutant. The possibility is built into their genetic code and outside of selective breeding, it's random. This can evoke more latent fear and apprehension in the average person than the existence of guys with random backstories for their superpowers.
On May 12 2018 06:48 Plansix wrote: The magic of a world with a hidden nation ruled by a super power king that dresses like panther that no one knows about is it justifies that wolverine could have been running around going wolverine things the entire time and no one knew.
And to be fair to the X-men plot, the NYPD constantly tries to arrest Spiderman and DareDevil.
Wolverine is kind of the lowest of problems, considering his legit comic backstory is being a barely mentioned urban legend for over a century until he joins every Marvel team in the universe.
It's the other core cast of mutants that need to be retconned in, which creates a giant elephant in the room.
Plus it would require retconning Deadpool, which is just completely unacceptable.
On May 12 2018 03:51 Pandemona wrote: Awful actress and is only in the business because she failed hard at singing. But because she looks pretty she gets cast in big things which such is life i guess, but her personally i cannot stand
On May 12 2018 04:03 saocyn wrote: I don't think it would be too difficult if they do decide to get into the multiverse. But yeah you are correct they're basically the same. But if I recall correctly, I remember somewhere in the Avengers comic or either I read it somewhere else, X-Men was a universe where evolution resulted in the natural mutation of superpowers (Correct me if I'm wrong cause I can't remember and haven't read/watched an X-Men related plot in forever) Some of it was even genetic.) and it played up a species born different but can't be accepted in society. I can't recall how wolverine's powers came about outside being experimented on, and dead pool being the same way.
Yes and no. Mutants and Inhumans stem from the same source.
Long story short, a race of near-omnipotent energy gods called the Celestials experimented on nascent species across the universe. Their aim was to grant them the potential to develop superpowers down the line. In theory, the races could progressively evolve in power and scope until they matched their creators (which was the Celestials' endgame). This ultimately succeeds in an unintentional manner, which the MCU can't address until the Fantastic Four are properly integrated into it.
Your basic breakdown looks like this:
Eternals, who are genetically stable but they evolve very slowly. They act as the 'immune system' of the planet to protect it from outside threats. Narrative-wise, they are redundant with the Avengers and such bandying about.
Deviants, who was genetically unstable but can progress quickly. They are a catalyst for enormous spurts of advancement but also fail to play nice with other species.
The dominant species on the planet. Humans, Kree, Skrulls, whatever. They have a latent potential for mutation spread out among the population, just significant enough to progress at a steady pace.
The Inhumans are a subset of humanity experimented on by the Kree after the Celestials came and went. Due to a bunch of comic-book contrivances that are best ignored, the Kree were basically stuck evolution-wise: no genotype mutations occurred in their children besides your standard recombination. Genetic engineering and other avenues compensated for a select few but the Kree had hit a dead end. So they tried to jump-start by using humans as a work-around. The result was the Inhumans, an offshoot group whose groups must be activated by an outside agent (a mutagen called Terrigen Mist, think of Agent Orange cranked up to 11). The good news is all Inhuman members have the capacity to gain powers; the bad news is the power-sets are random and lead to...issues.
These two critical departures from mutants dictate all their major storylines stemming back to their original incarnations, and everything that has happened in the last 10-15 years in comic books. You can't combine mutants and Inhumans unless you're willing to work from scratch - their story arcs almost never overlap. .
Agents of SHIELD had one of those Terrigen Crystals get broken up in the Ocean, and essentially contaminated the whole planet's water supply. It was broken up and diluted enough in the water that it wouldn't kill regular humans, but still present enough to cause Terrigenesis and produce powers in an Inhuman. The result of this in the show has Inhumans with super powers starting to pop up en mass all over the planet. With this happening, I could see the MCU introducing various Mutants, and just having them be Inhuman instead. Their origin is completely different from the Comic, but we already have some Mutants in the MCU like the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, who aren't Mutants at all anymore, and Quake in Agents of Shield being an Inhuman (IIRC Daisy Johnson is a Mutant in the comics, right?). And there is a lot of public antagonism towards Inhumans as well, so I think it would be enough to work in at least some of the younger Mutants who don't need to have been around for 60 years doing things.
On May 12 2018 03:51 Pandemona wrote: Awful actress and is only in the business because she failed hard at singing. But because she looks pretty she gets cast in big things which such is life i guess, but her personally i cannot stand
I'll pretend this section doesn't exist. :D
On May 12 2018 04:03 saocyn wrote: I don't think it would be too difficult if they do decide to get into the multiverse. But yeah you are correct they're basically the same. But if I recall correctly, I remember somewhere in the Avengers comic or either I read it somewhere else, X-Men was a universe where evolution resulted in the natural mutation of superpowers (Correct me if I'm wrong cause I can't remember and haven't read/watched an X-Men related plot in forever) Some of it was even genetic.) and it played up a species born different but can't be accepted in society. I can't recall how wolverine's powers came about outside being experimented on, and dead pool being the same way.
Yes and no. Mutants and Inhumans stem from the same source.
Long story short, a race of near-omnipotent energy gods called the Celestials experimented on nascent species across the universe. Their aim was to grant them the potential to develop superpowers down the line. In theory, the races could progressively evolve in power and scope until they matched their creators (which was the Celestials' endgame). This ultimately succeeds in an unintentional manner, which the MCU can't address until the Fantastic Four are properly integrated into it.
Your basic breakdown looks like this:
Eternals, who are genetically stable but they evolve very slowly. They act as the 'immune system' of the planet to protect it from outside threats. Narrative-wise, they are redundant with the Avengers and such bandying about.
Deviants, who was genetically unstable but can progress quickly. They are a catalyst for enormous spurts of advancement but also fail to play nice with other species.
The dominant species on the planet. Humans, Kree, Skrulls, whatever. They have a latent potential for mutation spread out among the population, just significant enough to progress at a steady pace.
The Inhumans are a subset of humanity experimented on by the Kree after the Celestials came and went. Due to a bunch of comic-book contrivances that are best ignored, the Kree were basically stuck evolution-wise: no genotype mutations occurred in their children besides your standard recombination. Genetic engineering and other avenues compensated for a select few but the Kree had hit a dead end. So they tried to jump-start by using humans as a work-around. The result was the Inhumans, an offshoot group whose groups must be activated by an outside agent (a mutagen called Terrigen Mist, think of Agent Orange cranked up to 11). The good news is all Inhuman members have the capacity to gain powers; the bad news is the power-sets are random and lead to...issues.
These two critical departures from mutants dictate all their major storylines stemming back to their original incarnations, and everything that has happened in the last 10-15 years in comic books. You can't combine mutants and Inhumans unless you're willing to work from scratch - their story arcs almost never overlap. .
Agents of SHIELD had one of those Terrigen Crystals get broken up in the Ocean, and essentially contaminated the whole planet's water supply. It was broken up and diluted enough in the water that it wouldn't kill regular humans, but still present enough to cause Terrigenesis and produce powers in an Inhuman. The result of this in the show has Inhumans with super powers starting to pop up en mass all over the planet. With this happening, I could see the MCU introducing various Mutants, and just having them be Inhuman instead. Their origin is completely different from the Comic, but we already have some Mutants in the MCU like the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, who aren't Mutants at all anymore, and Quake in Agents of Shield being an Inhuman (IIRC Daisy Johnson is a Mutant in the comics, right?). And there is a lot of public antagonism towards Inhumans as well, so I think it would be enough to work in at least some of the younger Mutants who don't need to have been around for 60 years doing things.
On May 12 2018 07:50 Sentenal wrote: Agents of SHIELD had one of those Terrigen Crystals get broken up in the Ocean, and essentially contaminated the whole planet's water supply. It was broken up and diluted enough in the water that it wouldn't kill regular humans, but still present enough to cause Terrigenesis and produce powers in an Inhuman. The result of this in the show has Inhumans with super powers starting to pop up en mass all over the planet. With this happening, I could see the MCU introducing various Mutants, and just having them be Inhuman instead. Their origin is completely different from the Comic, but we already have some Mutants in the MCU like the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, who aren't Mutants at all anymore, and Quake in Agents of Shield being an Inhuman (IIRC Daisy Johnson is a Mutant in the comics, right?). And there is a lot of public antagonism towards Inhumans as well, so I think it would be enough to work in at least some of the younger Mutants who don't need to have been around for 60 years doing things.
That's a rough facsimile of the Inhumanity crossover from 2013.
Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver were acceptable changes because their origin has always been in flux. They were at various points either Magneto's children, creations of the High Evolutionary, or unconsciously siphoning powers from the Elder God Chthon. So altering them once again is part of the well-worn tradition. Daisy Johnson is an Inhuman whose powers were activated by her father instead of Terrigenesis.
Sure, you can change Mercury, Dust, Sunspot, Loa, etc. to be Inhumans. They are relatively minor characters (well, not Sunspot anymore) who will be begrudgingly accepted. But that's because most casual comic book fans don't give a shit about them. If you're Marvel Studios, you're pondering how to reintroduce the big fish now that you have the rights back. And Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Storm, Rogue, Gambit, Magneto, Apocalypse, Emma Frost, blah blah blah have always been mutants.
On May 12 2018 05:06 Sbrubbles wrote: Personally, I'd rather X-Men remain in their own universe. One of the most defining characteristics of their stories is that a lot of the public hates them, and this never really made sense in the context of there being a whole bunch of other superpowered humans running around doing their thing.
...what do you mean? Unlike heroes who are victims of circumstances, self-created or have their powers bestowed by outside entities, anyone on planet Earth can be a mutant. The possibility is built into their genetic code and outside of selective breeding, it's random. This can evoke more latent fear and apprehension in the average person than the existence of guys with random backstories for their superpowers.
What are you talking about? It's the superpower itself that creates the fear. It's the fear of a random superhero or villain exerting his will on you.
My argument is that there is no defining physical trait that differentiates a mutant from everyone else, and being able to tell who's "in" the group and who's "out" is critical. Notice that almost every superhero can be retconned to have been a mutant all along. Captain America? Super serum activated his x-gene. Spider-Man? Same thing, but with the radioactive spider. Iron Man? Actually a super genius because of his power, like Forge. The same can be done the other way around. So how would a regular Joe be able to tell who's a mutant and who got his powers in some other way? He wouldn't. I'm not saying that it makes no sense for some heroes to be loved while others not, I'm saying the origin of the power is irrelevant when they can't be told apart.
On May 12 2018 03:57 Liquid`Drone wrote: weird. I feel she's pretty plain looking by hollywood standards (so she's pretty, but less so than the average movie star), but a good actress. Won an oscar, too.
A lot of ppl, myself included, were really hoping for Katheryn Winnick. She just looks exactly the part, and has done a lot of combat-acting in Vikings. + Show Spoiler +
But Marvel Studios casting has done pretty well so far, and I certainly don't dislike Brie Larson. I'd guess the most important thing, to Marvel, is personality and humor. So they probably found something they like in Brie, and I wouldn't judge until the product is there.
It sounds petty, but my biggest gripe so far from what I've seen of set-photos is Brie's hair. I kind of appreciate Captain Marvel's athletic hair-style. You're whipping through the wind, you're sweating -- you don't want a mass of hair hanging around your ears. At least tie it back. It's become a genuine pet-peeve whenever I see action scenes with long, flowing hair. Anyone who is doing anything athletic, and is used to having long hair, is going to tie that shit up. Even if you're Wonder Woman.
On May 12 2018 03:51 Pandemona wrote: Awful actress and is only in the business because she failed hard at singing. But because she looks pretty she gets cast in big things which such is life i guess, but her personally i cannot stand
On May 12 2018 04:03 saocyn wrote: I don't think it would be too difficult if they do decide to get into the multiverse. But yeah you are correct they're basically the same. But if I recall correctly, I remember somewhere in the Avengers comic or either I read it somewhere else, X-Men was a universe where evolution resulted in the natural mutation of superpowers (Correct me if I'm wrong cause I can't remember and haven't read/watched an X-Men related plot in forever) Some of it was even genetic.) and it played up a species born different but can't be accepted in society. I can't recall how wolverine's powers came about outside being experimented on, and dead pool being the same way.
Yes and no. Mutants and Inhumans stem from the same source.
Long story short, a race of near-omnipotent energy gods called the Celestials experimented on nascent species across the universe. Their aim was to grant them the potential to develop superpowers down the line. In theory, the races could progressively evolve in power and scope until they matched their creators (which was the Celestials' endgame). This ultimately succeeds in an unintentional manner, which the MCU can't address until the Fantastic Four are properly integrated into it.
Your basic breakdown looks like this:
Eternals, who are genetically stable but they evolve very slowly. They act as the 'immune system' of the planet to protect it from outside threats. Narrative-wise, they are redundant with the Avengers and such bandying about.
Deviants, who was genetically unstable but can progress quickly. They are a catalyst for enormous spurts of advancement but also fail to play nice with other species.
The dominant species on the planet. Humans, Kree, Skrulls, whatever. They have a latent potential for mutation spread out among the population, just significant enough to progress at a steady pace.
The Inhumans are a subset of humanity experimented on by the Kree after the Celestials came and went. Due to a bunch of comic-book contrivances that are best ignored, the Kree were basically stuck evolution-wise: no genotype mutations occurred in their children besides your standard recombination. Genetic engineering and other avenues compensated for a select few but the Kree had hit a dead end. So they tried to jump-start by using humans as a work-around. The result was the Inhumans, an offshoot group whose groups must be activated by an outside agent (a mutagen called Terrigen Mist, think of Agent Orange cranked up to 11). The good news is all Inhuman members have the capacity to gain powers; the bad news is the power-sets are random and lead to...issues.
These two critical departures from mutants dictate all their major storylines stemming back to their original incarnations, and everything that has happened in the last 10-15 years in comic books. You can't combine mutants and Inhumans unless you're willing to work from scratch - their story arcs almost never overlap.
On May 12 2018 04:03 saocyn wrote: On Captain Marvel I don't know if Brie can pull it off. I guess marvel could do it, and tested out the waters of lead female roles over the course of shield, but the only time they had a lead female role produced by marvel studios was Elektra. Perhaps wonder woman gave them confidence for how it could be done? but the task at hand is pretty huge, we're talking the leader of the new avengers squad basically....multiple reoccurring films will flop or not based on how well she pulls it off. I don't think wonder woman as a story is good enough to have a continuation in a story, seeing that they chose the god of war as THE end battle in her franchise, despite them pulling it off, that's a one-time thing to build that hero into reoccurring support roles. In a nut shell her importance would be similar to how RDJ and iron man's appearance is to build value. For whatever reason, her leaked photos in the outfit look NOTHING like the photoshop of her hero.
Captain Marvel will have an even harder time establishing a place than Wonder Woman, who has a litany of hero-specific bad guys for solo stories as well as a long-established personality and a fan base who recognizes the title. Marvel has none of that to work from. Their sole support to lean against is a middling reboot.
On a petty note, I far prefer the Ms. Marvel costume from the late 2000s.
On May 12 2018 05:06 Sbrubbles wrote: Personally, I'd rather X-Men remain in their own universe. One of the most defining characteristics of their stories is that a lot of the public hates them, and this never really made sense in the context of there being a whole bunch of other superpowered humans running around doing their thing.
...what do you mean? Unlike heroes who are victims of circumstances, self-created or have their powers bestowed by outside entities, anyone on planet Earth can be a mutant. The possibility is built into their genetic code and outside of selective breeding, it's random. This can evoke more latent fear and apprehension in the average person than the existence of guys with random backstories for their superpowers.
wonderful breakdown! I have come across the concept of celestials but i wasn't aware these other universes and worlds were a direct result of their experimentation! that's really cool to find out. I was always alluded to the fact celestials were space-dieties but were a band of scientist as well. Which event in the marvel universe timeline is this so i can read it? there's too many comics to read and could you recommend a few good arcs? i've read most of the infinity saga including the spin off chapters.
on Another note - My Review of Captain Marvel - The Complete Collection. I just finished Jim Starlin's Captain's marvel. I don't quite know how i feel about it. It was more somber than exciting. While the writing is always on point as expected of Starlin, the story behind this one doesn't seem to entice me in the least, good but not memorable enough for me to get hyped for. Only the last scene of the arc was something that I believed was beautifully written when mar-vell is split from rick, Rick was notified of Mar-Vells cancer, but goes to avenger HQ to shout at everyone for being incapable of curing cancer despite their supernatural gifts and high intelligence. Plot-wise, Thanos attempting to grab the cosmic cube just seems like a poorer reiteration of his attempts at the infinity stones. If they attempted to show another movie with thano's new nefarious plans after the current movie we saw, it would feel like a cheesy dbz reboot and some new villain who wanted to grab the dragonballs. Only the back story of thano's past and how they showed the ancestry tree all the way up to diety kronos was the only thing compelling for me. On top of introducing Drax and his relationship to moondragon and her backstory. Captain marvel really just seemed like a Hero to introduce and setup the back story of other heroes...
So what I'm confused about, is the exact order in the Marvel Universe Timeline where these events are occurring. I was under the impression Captain Marvel occurred BEFORE the first avengers. But in cinema, the order is reversed. I'm really confused in how they will attempt to weave Captain Marvel into the infinity wars saga when Captain Marvel is the first one to basically stop Thanos but with the cosmic cube...but then dies in the end to cancer... I really don't know how they're going to spin it, I'm guessing they'll re-write the entirety of it.
Good luck on having Rick & marvel talk to each other about swapping out from the "Nega-World" (Abbreviated for negative-world for those who haven't read it, no i'm not a racist) lol. I can't see how basically the 2nd part of infinity war would end when you're depending on a person who loses half their strength at night. The ending being the most fluke ass pull ever...where him being turned old before death jumps on the discarded cube and judo chops it to victory.
If you want the breakdown on how the Marvel universe currently "works", The Ultimates (2015) and Ultimates 2 (2016) are where that kind of all gets put into place. It occasionally references some obscure characters, especially towards the end. But you don't really need to know them.
It does seek to explain a lot about the universe(s), the "cosmic beings", the celestials, Galactus, etc. The whole thing is kind of... in flux, though. Marvel kind of went a little haywire with the creation-stuff in the Secret Wars series, and they're trying to put the cat back in the bag. In the end, nothing feels concrete. It's all very subject-to-change. 22 comics between both series. Some of them are actually fun reads. And some really great artwork.
edit: Honestly, one thing I really love about Infinity War and Guardians of the Galaxy and the MCU is they're able to go into these cosmic and god-like story-lines without feeling completely aloof of the real-world. Keeping things a mystery, simplifying the mythology a bit, and using allegory instead of trying to actually explain the universe. Whereas the comics... sometimes feels like they were written by a Scientologist.
On May 13 2018 05:00 Leporello wrote: If you want the breakdown on how the Marvel universe currently "works", The Ultimates (2015) and Ultimates 2 (2016) are where that kind of all gets put into place. It occasionally references some obscure characters, especially towards the end. But you don't really need to know them.
It does seek to explain a lot about the universe(s), the "cosmic beings", the celestials, Galactus, etc. The whole thing is kind of... in flux, though. Marvel kind of went a little haywire with the creation-stuff in the Secret Wars series, and they're trying to put the cat back in the bag. In the end, nothing feels concrete. It's all very subject-to-change. 22 comics between both series. Some of them are actually fun reads. And some really great artwork.
edit: Honestly, one thing I really love about Infinity War and Guardians of the Galaxy and the MCU is they're able to go into these cosmic and god-like story-lines without feeling completely aloof of the real-world. Keeping things a mystery, simplifying the mythology a bit, and using allegory instead of trying to actually explain the universe. Whereas the comics... sometimes feels like they were written by a Scientologist.
Thanks for the recommendation this is definitely something I want to read. It would grant much-needed perspective into who's role is what, and who's related to who. I do agree with the introduction of these cosmic entities, though sometimes i feel being too aloof and too ambiguous is a variable that causes more problems than resolves, especially within the format of a cinematic movie with a time-frame you must meet. Not enough elaboration, backstory, and proper pacing of the infinity stones left me with an absolute disconnect in feeling the importance of it and why they needed to stop thanos.
Marvel may be better off reintegrating some of the X-properties with character names and rough sketches. Kinda like what they've already done with some of the TV properties (Runaways (Molly) and Jessica Jones (Kilgrave) both feature prominent mutant characters, they just don't say "mutant").
The main hurdle would be trying to utilize the storylines from the Fox stories, which I think is just impractical and would clash heavily with the MCU visions. They could probably maintain Deadpool as its own thing and lean heavily on the issue (assuming this second one is actually worthwhile).
A total reboot integration into the MCU also isn't out of the question since we already have evolutionarily "gifted" people running around the MCU tv shows, and someone like Xavier's school of gifted youngsters might not be the worst idea.
That said, it would be both tragic and hilarious if the Inhumans just replaced mutants in the MCU since Marvel has basically been trying to make that happen in the comics since the MCU got started in earnest (or fans have interpreted it that way at any rate).
i'm more optimistic about this than i guess some others are. If there's any proof for it, avengers in itself is a makeup of interactions between worlds or characters that may have never happened. Now that's not to say i'm for full blow integration, but possible appearances and aid have always benefited a struggling series vs not. The spider man franchise was beaten to a pulp, but was saved in part with putting basically their most profitable character / favorite actor in it being ironman/RDJ. I think marvel has been consistent enough to do that in the past and not oversaturate or over mix a different franchise, but sudden appearances are always welcomed in my book.
I'm more of the side of them having the option TO DO IT vs not having the possibility to go down that avenue if and when that time comes. entertainment and media should have as many tangents to explore their creativity as possible just to meet the demands of a pretty critical audience. I suppose i'm also a bit more biased in the regard that the original creator of a character should have rights to his own creation. this probably challenges the laws that pretty much govern what marvel is built on, where the studio owns the characters and not the creators. or the fact that you can sell the rights to your creation / let people lease it essentially.
In this day and age where we're accustomed to strong stories, unique characters, I would very much like to see a studio who has both the financial backing and actually uses it to push good content on a timeline. lesser studios cannot or do not meet those demands and quite frankly I'm not interested enough to wait a year to follow up on a story. the fact that I know Captain Marvel and Antman are not far off, is something to look forward to. I am not at all anticipating another transformers movie despite them having a great CGI team.
as far as what Fox has done for x-men, I actually don't think they did a bad job. when Fox decided to release apocalypse they really failed hard. Marvel clearly has shown they can deliver big projects consistently, imagine if they rebooted the series, kept actors like Logan, but re-did the apocalypse movie alongside another Avengers movie? we'd have twice as many storylines to look forward to in-between waiting for the other ones. the movie industry could definitely use a makeover in terms of the quality of movies in this day and age. almost nothing entices me to watch anything anymore.
Captain Marvel is almost certainly going to have been off in space doing something, like she usually is in the comics. They've already said the Skrulls and Kree are going to be in the Cap Mar movie, probably seeding that the next big crossover they'll be building to is a Secret Invasion adaptation.
I don't consider a solo CapMar movie anymore of a risk than a solo Black Panther movie (I think we can agree that one kind of worked out okay in the end). People have been openly clamouring for a female led marvel movie, so it'll have eyes on it for that fact alone, the strength of the property is basically irrelevant.
What I think some posters are forgetting is that the movies are based on the comics but one's success does not feed the other. Marvel is still - mostly - doing worse than DC outside of Spiderman titles and the odd exception limited series or #1 issue. Oh, and Thor usually sells well, too. The brand itself sells because the MCU has an established pedigree of putting out good to great movies that people like to watch. Black Panther was a massive test of the brand, because despite a long history he's always been one of those characters who doesn't shift comics. The fact he's been in the Avengers for years, the New Avengers for years, and The Ultimates, yet tons of people still don't even know who he is, says a lot. Same for Captain Marvel (she led The Ultimates for its first arc and was its big hitter in the second, and was the other half of Civil War 2).
The only thing that matters is them putting together a good, passionate team that want to make Marvel's first female superhero make as much of a splash as its first black superhero. If they do that, there's no reason for Captain Marvel not to make millions and millions.
As for the griping about changes to the Infinity War storyline... I'm sorry, but it hasn't aged well. The dialogue is mostly clunky as hell, the story is cluttered and overly complicated, and every criticism you can level at the movie applies to the comic as well. It has its place in history as probably the best crossover of all time and Thanos's rise to being one of Marvel's most enduring villains, but a one-one adaption would be an utter disaster. Adam Warlock would have been a terrible inclusion into Infinity War, given how ridiculously complex his background is in the comics and exactly why he was so important to defeating Thanos (for those who don't know, in the comics he has a roundabout, metaphysical connection to the soul stone and has spent a good chunk of time inside it either actually dead or imprisoned for one reason or another).
As for Thanos himself, while he was well written in the comics, his motivation was considerably less sympathetic or interesting than the movie version. Ultimately, he was doing it all to impress a girl in the comics. And because he was insane. Sure, love's the oldest motivation there is, but it's a lot more compelling to have a villain who thinks the heroes are the villains for trying to stop him, and can be seen to have a point than one who is literally in love with death and wants to impress her with his new-fangled finger clicking bling-assisted party trick.
The movie is also very clearly taking inspiration from both the original saga and later appearances of Thanos, given the inclusion of the Black Order, who were - IIRC - introduced first in the Infinity storyline three years ago or so.
For hints for where things are going from here: Gamora in the Soul Stone is pretty clearly playing the Warlock role and her presence/influence there will be key to Thanos's armour getting cracked. It seems entirely plausible that ultimately he can't bear having sacrificed her, and his guilt over doing it will ultimately allow the Avengers to undo his great work, playing off of Thanos's comic book sense of deep-seated self-hate, depression and nihilisim. Assuming the Xmen/Fantastic Four are legally entering the Disney sphere, and the likelihood the gems will be destroyed rather than cast about in guardianship of individuals on The Living Tribunal's orders, the release of all that power will somehow cause mutants to happen, or whoever unclicks will create them accidentally. Added bonus, someone somewhere in the universe is going to trace all of these 'half of all life dying' shenanigans back to earth, which will be what causes the next big crossover (which I think will be Secret Invasion but might not be, depending on whether they intend to repeat the structure for phase 4 onward) and might well be the final stinger, though probably not.
And obviously, Tony will be key to sorting it out, and probably have to die to do it. A friend of mine reckons the six stones will pair up to one of the six original avengers, and they'll all have to work together to use the gauntlet one last time, but the effort will kill a few of them (mortals not being meant to wield it and all). Seems feasible to me, but I'm not sure.
As for the X Men not making sense in this world... actually they'd work perfectly. Bear in mind the Sokovia Accords were brought in after just a few operations undertaken by The Avengers, and these are all well known superheroes with traceable pasts and mostly one-off accidents. In addition, most have government connections are are ostensibly professionals working towards a goal.
Mutants are usually young adults or teenagers who suddenly develop massive powers, often have no control for months or even years that can lead to causing enormous damage before they isolate themselves/go to Xaviers/get killed, and have no training, no purpose beyond trying to just live in a world that doesn't understand them. Avengers are about power and responsibility, X Men are about racism, bigotry and growing up. It's not an accident that the X Men got a sales boost when they brought back the original, younger team from the past. Fully grown up X Men don't quite work, because many of the fundamental issues the comics are about are juvenile (in a non-derogatory sense).
But in an MCU sense, you go from the Sokovia Accords, a reasonable attempt to put a cap on a sudden rash of really destructive events, to near-anarchy, where these events can randomly happen anywhere you go, at any time, to anybody, for no reason whatsoever.
I can see a film-maker working something good out of that premise.
Though yes, another X-Men reboot would be a bit of a bummer. On the other hand, Marvel would then get to recast the roles, which I'm mostly on board with as I don't think Fox did the best job on that front.
I think that's a great speculation as well with gramora perhaps taking adam warlock's role. that's something i didn't catch, and i truly believe in hindsight they will go this direction. Reason being, after the movie the actress was given a hollywood star as well...for what? i'm unaware. But that will probably ultimately sway in her favor.
On May 13 2018 19:39 iamthedave wrote: Captain Marvel is almost certainly going to have been off in space doing something, like she usually is in the comics. They've already said the Skrulls and Kree are going to be in the Cap Mar movie, probably seeding that the next big crossover they'll be building to is a Secret Invasion adaptation.
I don't consider a solo CapMar movie anymore of a risk than a solo Black Panther movie (I think we can agree that one kind of worked out okay in the end). People have been openly clamouring for a female led marvel movie, so it'll have eyes on it for that fact alone, the strength of the property is basically irrelevant.
What I think some posters are forgetting is that the movies are based on the comics but one's success does not feed the other. Marvel is still - mostly - doing worse than DC outside of Spiderman titles and the odd exception limited series or #1 issue. Oh, and Thor usually sells well, too. The brand itself sells because the MCU has an established pedigree of putting out good to great movies that people like to watch. Black Panther was a massive test of the brand, because despite a long history he's always been one of those characters who doesn't shift comics. The fact he's been in the Avengers for years, the New Avengers for years, and The Ultimates, yet tons of people still don't even know who he is, says a lot. Same for Captain Marvel (she led The Ultimates for its first arc and was its big hitter in the second, and was the other half of Civil War 2).
The only thing that matters is them putting together a good, passionate team that want to make Marvel's first female superhero make as much of a splash as its first black superhero. If they do that, there's no reason for Captain Marvel not to make millions and millions.
As for the griping about changes to the Infinity War storyline... I'm sorry, but it hasn't aged well. The dialogue is mostly clunky as hell, the story is cluttered and overly complicated, and every criticism you can level at the movie applies to the comic as well. It has its place in history as probably the best crossover of all time and Thanos's rise to being one of Marvel's most enduring villains, but a one-one adaption would be an utter disaster. Adam Warlock would have been a terrible inclusion into Infinity War, given how ridiculously complex his background is in the comics and exactly why he was so important to defeating Thanos (for those who don't know, in the comics he has a roundabout, metaphysical connection to the soul stone and has spent a good chunk of time inside it either actually dead or imprisoned for one reason or another).
As for Thanos himself, while he was well written in the comics, his motivation was considerably less sympathetic or interesting than the movie version. Ultimately, he was doing it all to impress a girl in the comics. And because he was insane. Sure, love's the oldest motivation there is, but it's a lot more compelling to have a villain who thinks the heroes are the villains for trying to stop him, and can be seen to have a point than one who is literally in love with death and wants to impress her with his new-fangled finger clicking bling-assisted party trick.
The movie is also very clearly taking inspiration from both the original saga and later appearances of Thanos, given the inclusion of the Black Order, who were - IIRC - introduced first in the Infinity storyline three years ago or so.
For hints for where things are going from here: Gamora in the Soul Stone is pretty clearly playing the Warlock role and her presence/influence there will be key to Thanos's armour getting cracked. It seems entirely plausible that ultimately he can't bear having sacrificed her, and his guilt over doing it will ultimately allow the Avengers to undo his great work, playing off of Thanos's comic book sense of deep-seated self-hate, depression and nihilisim. Assuming the Xmen/Fantastic Four are legally entering the Disney sphere, and the likelihood the gems will be destroyed rather than cast about in guardianship of individuals on The Living Tribunal's orders, the release of all that power will somehow cause mutants to happen, or whoever unclicks will create them accidentally. Added bonus, someone somewhere in the universe is going to trace all of these 'half of all life dying' shenanigans back to earth, which will be what causes the next big crossover (which I think will be Secret Invasion but might not be, depending on whether they intend to repeat the structure for phase 4 onward) and might well be the final stinger, though probably not.
And obviously, Tony will be key to sorting it out, and probably have to die to do it. A friend of mine reckons the six stones will pair up to one of the six original avengers, and they'll all have to work together to use the gauntlet one last time, but the effort will kill a few of them (mortals not being meant to wield it and all). Seems feasible to me, but I'm not sure.
As for the X Men not making sense in this world... actually they'd work perfectly. Bear in mind the Sokovia Accords were brought in after just a few operations undertaken by The Avengers, and these are all well known superheroes with traceable pasts and mostly one-off accidents. In addition, most have government connections are are ostensibly professionals working towards a goal.
Mutants are usually young adults or teenagers who suddenly develop massive powers, often have no control for months or even years that can lead to causing enormous damage before they isolate themselves/go to Xaviers/get killed, and have no training, no purpose beyond trying to just live in a world that doesn't understand them. Avengers are about power and responsibility, X Men are about racism, bigotry and growing up. It's not an accident that the X Men got a sales boost when they brought back the original, younger team from the past. Fully grown up X Men don't quite work, because many of the fundamental issues the comics are about are juvenile (in a non-derogatory sense).
But in an MCU sense, you go from the Sokovia Accords, a reasonable attempt to put a cap on a sudden rash of really destructive events, to near-anarchy, where these events can randomly happen anywhere you go, at any time, to anybody, for no reason whatsoever.
I can see a film-maker working something good out of that premise.
Though yes, another X-Men reboot would be a bit of a bummer. On the other hand, Marvel would then get to recast the roles, which I'm mostly on board with as I don't think Fox did the best job on that front.
X-Men or Fantastic Four getting introducted into MCU has me concerned. I even worry about Spider-Man, especially with Sony being involved. If Marvel Studios has to decide between keeping Spider-Man, or severing itself from another movie studio, I honestly they'd just get rid of him. They don't need these characters.
To me, Marvel (Movie) Studios really is a whole different beast from the comics, and its strength is in its own creators, not the comic-creators. They haven't needed the comic-favorites to succeed. They can make good movies with characters no one would think of, like Ant-Man and Guardians. And it's refreshing to see new things.
I'm a big fan on the MCU, obviously. But I do worry that after Thanos, and they retire Iron Man and Cap, that they're going to revert back to characters and plot-lines that will put people into a fatigue. I'd almost rather see them try to make something entirely off-comic, than redo X-Men or Fantastic Four. I just have zero enthusiasm for those franchises, having seen them done before. Maybe a little enthusiasm for Fantastic Four (and Dr. Doom). But X-Men has me groaning. Please no more Wolverine.
On May 13 2018 04:47 Leporello wrote: It sounds petty, but my biggest gripe so far from what I've seen of set-photos is Brie's hair. I kind of appreciate Captain Marvel's athletic hair-style. You're whipping through the wind, you're sweating -- you don't want a mass of hair hanging around your ears. At least tie it back. It's become a genuine pet-peeve whenever I see action scenes with long, flowing hair. Anyone who is doing anything athletic, and is used to having long hair, is going to tie that shit up. Even if you're Wonder Woman.
It's one of those aesthetic problems you run into when you want to capture something on film. In reality, almost every person in combat will either shave their hair or tie it back for the sake of practicality. Depicted in fiction, they are...very boring to watch. And superheroes, unlike soldiers in war stories, dominate their specific narrative more than vice versa. Most storylines so far have embraced MacGuffins or ancillary plots in service of the characters' development.
On May 13 2018 04:47 saocyn wrote: wonderful breakdown! I have come across the concept of celestials but i wasn't aware these other universes and worlds were a direct result of their experimentation! that's really cool to find out. I was always alluded to the fact celestials were space-deities but were a band of scientists as well. Which event in the marvel universe timeline is this so i can read it? there's too many comics to read and could you recommend a few good arcs? i've read most of the infinity saga including the spin off chapters.
Eternals #1-13 Thor #283-300 Hickman's Fantastic Four run The Ultimates vol. 1 and 2
On May 13 2018 04:47 saocyn wrote: So what I'm confused about, is the exact order in the Marvel Universe Timeline where these events are occurring. I was under the impression Captain Marvel occurred BEFORE the first avengers. But in cinema, the order is reversed. I'm really confused in how they will attempt to weave Captain Marvel into the infinity wars saga when Captain Marvel is the first one to basically stop Thanos but with the cosmic cube...but then dies in the end to cancer... I really don't know how they're going to spin it, I'm guessing they'll re-write the entirety of it.
Remember that this version of Captain Marvel will not be Mar-Vell. I highly doubt any of his successors (Monica Rambeau, Genis, Phyla, Noh-Varr) will make appearances aside from minor or one-off roles. Carol Danvers is Captain Marvel now, which allows the screenwriters to jettison the somewhat complex backstory - to whatever extent is necessary - to streamline the script. Most likely she will inherit Mar-Vell's responsibility and powers at the beginning, with the rest of the film showing how she comes to cope and gradually accept her newfound identity.
On May 13 2018 19:39 iamthedave wrote: Captain Marvel is almost certainly going to have been off in space doing something, like she usually is in the comics. They've already said the Skrulls and Kree are going to be in the Cap Mar movie, probably seeding that the next big crossover they'll be building to is a Secret Invasion adaptation.
The premise of Secret Invasion in itself may be too underwhelming as the followup to Infinity War. Planetary invasion versus universal peril is a great step down in the apocalypse department, and technically we had an invasion with ghetto Skrulls in the first Avengers movie. With the insistent promotion of Inhumans in the MCU, the next great MCU story arc may be a mashup of Secret Invasion + War of Kings. Depending on when Marvel Studios capitalizes off the reinstatement of FF property rights, it may also include elements of the Annihilation Wave. I don't see Marvel Studios pushing another Galactus arc or Hickman's buildup to Secret Wars. Cosmic stories perpetually risk being too abstract for a mainstream audience.
On May 13 2018 19:39 iamthedave wrote: I don't consider a solo CapMar movie anymore of a risk than a solo Black Panther movie (I think we can agree that one kind of worked out okay in the end). People have been openly clamoring for a female led marvel movie, so it'll have eyes on it for that fact alone, the strength of the property is basically irrelevant.
Black Panther was never risky. That was a spurious part of the advertising narrative that helped make it into a global phenomenon. But notice the absence of buzz around making a Falcon movie, and for damn good reason.
On May 13 2018 19:39 iamthedave wrote: As for Thanos himself, while he was well written in the comics, his motivation was considerably less sympathetic or interesting than the movie version. Ultimately, he was doing it all to impress a girl in the comics. And because he was insane. Sure, love's the oldest motivation there is, but it's a lot more compelling to have a villain who thinks the heroes are the villains for trying to stop him, and can be seen to have a point than one who is literally in love with death and wants to impress her with his new-fangled finger clicking bling-assisted party trick.
I have to vehemently disagree. Thanos in the Infinity War movies is just a mediocre shounen villain i.e. he has a bad experience in his youth, and spins it off into a nonsensical worldview that is supposed to be repulsive yet sympathetic. This works for street-level narratives and is acceptable if we're doing a Moon Knight (please Marvel, get on that shit!) or Iron Fist film. However, cosmic-level storylines have so much more at stake that villain motivations almost demand an ironclad rationale or must exist beyond human comprehension (e.g. Galactus). Without those, storylines degrade into DBZ-esque conflicts that ratch up basic conflicts to the millionth degree.
At the very least, Thanos' original motivations were so ludicrous that it made sense why he would go that far to fulfill them.
On May 13 2018 19:39 iamthedave wrote: Mutants are usually young adults or teenagers who suddenly develop massive powers, often have no control for months or even years that can lead to causing enormous damage before they isolate themselves/go to Xaviers/get killed, and have no training, no purpose beyond trying to just live in a world that doesn't understand them. Avengers are about power and responsibility, X Men are about racism, bigotry and growing up. It's not an accident that the X Men got a sales boost when they brought back the original, younger team from the past. Fully grown up X Men don't quite work, because many of the fundamental issues the comics are about are juvenile (in a non-derogatory sense).
I would attribute it to nostalgia more than thematic harmony. The sheer number of divergent X-men comics, combined with the pervasive "realism" and in the auxiliary titles, lead to annoyance and fatigue; this has been a recurrent issue since the mid-2000s. When Beast brought the original X-men into the present, it gave writers a outlet to return back to optimistically funny stories. In short, they could write in the same vein as older comics.
On May 14 2018 01:54 Leporello wrote: To me, Marvel (Movie) Studios really is a whole different beast from the comics, and its strength is in its own creators, not the comic-creators. They haven't needed the comic-favorites to succeed. They can make good movies with characters no one would think of, like Ant-Man and Guardians. And it's refreshing to see new things.
The thing is, the MCU is still parasitically dependent on the comic books for structure. They have an enormous berth to do whatever they want: almost anything they put out will be a guaranteed hit by association alone. And yet they shy away from taking any major risks when it comes to the long-term storylines. Their departures in this regard were for one-off movies that didn't need to be integrated with the Avengers narratives. Guardians was one exception, but the character dynamics and so forth were heavily modeled off late 70's and early 80's blockbusters. Ant-Man is a caper comedy only tangentially related to the rest of the MCU.
On May 14 2018 01:54 Leporello wrote: I'm a big fan on the MCU, obviously. But I do worry that after Thanos, and they retire Iron Man and Cap, that they're going to revert back to characters and plot-lines that will put people into a fatigue. I'd almost rather see them try to make something entirely off-comic, than redo X-Men or Fantastic Four. I just have zero enthusiasm for those franchises, having seen them done before. Maybe a little enthusiasm for Fantastic Four (and Dr. Doom). But X-Men has me groaning. Please no more Wolverine.
The gravy train can't last forever, and big properties like X-Men and Spider-Man will let Marvel Studios weather whatever dips in attendance result when key players leave. The FF's ethos and general missions makes them unappealing for people who want a standard MCU story; not even having one of the best villains in Marvel history compensates for that.
Sometimes I dream that studios would take a risk story-wise in their main properties. Perhaps one day we'll get the Supernovas arc for a X-Men entry, a properly psychedelic Strange movie or an awesome Thunderbolts incarnation. But then I wake up and remember movie-making is a business.
On May 14 2018 05:34 CosmicSpiral wrote: I have to vehemently disagree. Thanos in the Infinity War movies is just a mediocre shounen villain i.e. he has a bad experience in his youth, and spins it off into a nonsensical worldview that is supposed to be repulsive yet sympathetic. This works for street-level narratives and is acceptable if we're doing a Moon Knight (please Marvel, get on that shit!) or Iron Fist film. However, cosmic-level storylines have so much more at stake that villain motivations almost demand an ironclad rationale or must exist beyond human comprehension (e.g. Galactus). Without those, storylines degrade into DBZ-esque conflicts that ratch up basic conflicts to the millionth degree.
At the very least, Thanos' original motivations were so ludicrous that it made sense why he would go that far to fulfill them.
Any "sympathy" generated for the character is solely because he's the viewpoint for the movie. There's really nothing in his goals, motivations, or even his character interactions (namely Gamora) that should remotely engender anything resembling acceptance.
Cosmic level stories work for things like Galactus or Lovecraftian Horrors, beings of generic doomsdayness that exist more as plot devices rather than characters.
Thanos is a character, and always has been. More importantly, he's the Mad Titan, and I think the movies shows that perfectly. He is utterly sociopathic and detached from any reasonable standards of morality, but he presents himself with such calm conviction that at no point can the audience doubt that he believes in his goal.
On May 14 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote: Any "sympathy" generated for the character is solely because he's the viewpoint for the movie. There's really nothing in his goals, motivations, or even his character interactions (namely Gamora) that should remotely engender anything resembling acceptance.
Well, they said the same thing about the Joker in The Dark Knight. It turns out plenty of people will root for the bad guy at the mere suggestion that a justification exists, plus being perceived as superior to the hero in some manner.
On May 14 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote: Cosmic level stories work for things like Galactus or Lovecraftian Horrors, beings of generic doomsdayness that exist more as plot devices rather than characters.
Galactus has been written past that point for decades.
On May 14 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote: Thanos is a character, and always has been. More importantly, he's the Mad Titan, and I think the movies shows that perfectly. He is utterly sociopathic and detached from any reasonable standards of morality, but he presents himself with such calm conviction that at no point can the audience doubt that he believes in his goal.
By "ironclad" I meant intellectually. Usually a villain's philosophy can be boiled down to a few archetypes: universalizing personal suffering, self-focus that leads to indifference towards others, misalignment in scope, or first principles that deviate from other people. In the Marvel universe we can roughly map these onto Magneto, Venom, Doctor Doom, and Galactus.
My problem is I don't buy Thanos' motivation as a character. His Malthusian utilitarianism doesn't make sense if you spend 10 minutes thinking about it. This would be excusable if he was a blunt battering ram, but he has been consistently written as a scientific and strategic genius; the very traits that make him dangerous should have led him to see the enormous holes in his logic, let alone its application with the Infinity Gauntlet. Previously his obsession with Death, the abstract entity who he encountered in person, make it believable that some impetus could supersede those traits and justify the insane risks he necessarily took to bring about his goals. It's the equivalent of an Old Testament figure conversing with Yahweh and becoming a prophet. Undoubtedly it seems silly in a time when we prize psychological realism, but the loss of a transcendental motivation makes Thanos' philosophy seem flimsy and pointlessly extreme.
I dunno, I think Thanos' motivation makes some sense when you combine it with him considering himself vastly superior to the forms of life he is extinguishing. Humans literally justify hunting animals (hunting of moose in norway is 100% justified ilke this) by the logic that if we don't, they will multiply out of control and eventually die from starvation instead, which is then argued to be worse, a life filled with suffering, than being killed relatively painlessly by a bullet through the head. Thanos' superiority to the life he kills by the fingersnap is just as great as that of humans compared to moose, or at least it's plausible that Thanos perceives it that way.
I'm not approaching this as a comic book reader so I'm not struggling with the frustration of him being less fleshed out in terms of character and justification than what the case is for the comic book version, I'm not gonna argue that the movies did an equally good job as the comics do - so no qualms about any possible frustration people felt through this type of disappointment. But I thought the movie version was pretty solid.
Thanos was always a nonsensically silly character in the comics. His obsession with death was completely literal. Death is a character, he loved her, he killed for her. He made Deadpool immortal because he was a love rival. He likes farming after his grand schemes.
I can understand missing the hammy ridiculousness of the character from the comics, but making sense is not really his shtick.
On May 13 2018 19:39 iamthedave wrote: Captain Marvel is almost certainly going to have been off in space doing something, like she usually is in the comics. They've already said the Skrulls and Kree are going to be in the Cap Mar movie, probably seeding that the next big crossover they'll be building to is a Secret Invasion adaptation.
The premise of Secret Invasion in itself may be too underwhelming as the followup to Infinity War. Planetary invasion versus universal peril is a great step down in the apocalypse department, and technically we had an invasion with ghetto Skrulls in the first Avengers movie. With the insistent promotion of Inhumans in the MCU, the next great MCU story arc may be a mashup of Secret Invasion + War of Kings. Depending on when Marvel Studios capitalizes off the reinstatement of FF property rights, it may also include elements of the Annihilation Wave. I don't see Marvel Studios pushing another Galactus arc or Hickman's buildup to Secret Wars. Cosmic stories perpetually risk being too abstract for a mainstream audience.
But there is no follow up to Infinity War that has the same scope. Maybe the new iteration of Secret Wars/the recent Infinity storyline. It's possible Secret Wars might end up being Captain Marvel 2 or 3, assuming her standalone does well enough for sequels, of course.
Of course, a Galactus story is also their next possible destination.
The question is whether the scope of the story or the crossover itself is the draw. Civil War was a small scale story that did massive numbers based on the crossover aspect (and being a good movie).
On May 13 2018 19:39 iamthedave wrote: I don't consider a solo CapMar movie anymore of a risk than a solo Black Panther movie (I think we can agree that one kind of worked out okay in the end). People have been openly clamoring for a female led marvel movie, so it'll have eyes on it for that fact alone, the strength of the property is basically irrelevant.
Black Panther was never risky. That was a spurious part of the advertising narrative that helped make it into a global phenomenon. But notice the absence of buzz around making a Falcon movie, and for damn good reason.
I'm not sure that's fair. Falcon is solidly slotted in as Captain America's supporting character. There's no buzz for him getting a solo movie because... he's a supporting character. Same as there's no buzz for Drax getting a solo movie.
I don't know if I'd agree with your suggestion that it's 'spurious'. Given how much talk there is about how risk averse Marvel is, to the point that the Avengers had only one character and an all-white cast when the comic Avengers has always been diverse (The Wasp being one of the founding members, for example, and Monica Rambeau being both one of its core and most powerful members for a good while). Black Panther was definitely a bit of a risk, given that the character isn't a high profile Marvel figure, despite the length of time he's been around.
Though shifts in Hollywood did make it more likely to succeed, for sure.
On May 13 2018 19:39 iamthedave wrote: As for Thanos himself, while he was well written in the comics, his motivation was considerably less sympathetic or interesting than the movie version. Ultimately, he was doing it all to impress a girl in the comics. And because he was insane. Sure, love's the oldest motivation there is, but it's a lot more compelling to have a villain who thinks the heroes are the villains for trying to stop him, and can be seen to have a point than one who is literally in love with death and wants to impress her with his new-fangled finger clicking bling-assisted party trick.
I have to vehemently disagree. Thanos in the Infinity War movies is just a mediocre shounen villain i.e. he has a bad experience in his youth, and spins it off into a nonsensical worldview that is supposed to be repulsive yet sympathetic. This works for street-level narratives and is acceptable if we're doing a Moon Knight (please Marvel, get on that shit!) or Iron Fist film. However, cosmic-level storylines have so much more at stake that villain motivations almost demand an ironclad rationale or must exist beyond human comprehension (e.g. Galactus). Without those, storylines degrade into DBZ-esque conflicts that ratch up basic conflicts to the millionth degree.
At the very least, Thanos' original motivations were so ludicrous that it made sense why he would go that far to fulfill them.
If everyone said the same thing you'd be right, but there are tons of reviews from professional film critics saying he's a) the best bit of movie and b) sympathetic, and audiences have reacted the same way. So while it didn't work for you it clearly did for a lot of people.
Really it's just Josh Brolin putting in a grade-A performance with B-B+ material, and thus raising it, same way Heath Ledger raised The Joker in The Dark Knight (not that the Joker was poorly written or anything).
On May 13 2018 19:39 iamthedave wrote: Mutants are usually young adults or teenagers who suddenly develop massive powers, often have no control for months or even years that can lead to causing enormous damage before they isolate themselves/go to Xaviers/get killed, and have no training, no purpose beyond trying to just live in a world that doesn't understand them. Avengers are about power and responsibility, X Men are about racism, bigotry and growing up. It's not an accident that the X Men got a sales boost when they brought back the original, younger team from the past. Fully grown up X Men don't quite work, because many of the fundamental issues the comics are about are juvenile (in a non-derogatory sense).
I would attribute it to nostalgia more than thematic harmony. The sheer number of divergent X-men comics, combined with the pervasive "realism" and in the auxiliary titles, lead to annoyance and fatigue; this has been a recurrent issue since the mid-2000s. When Beast brought the original X-men into the present, it gave writers a outlet to return back to optimistically funny stories. In short, they could write in the same vein as older comics.
But they didn't write optimistically funny stories. They wrote dark miserable ones. The WRITING didn't change, the characters did. I put it down to nostalgia myself, at first, but over time I can see it's far more that the X Men as a comic series is about younger people with abilities, and if they get too old it just doesn't work anymore.
On May 14 2018 01:54 Leporello wrote: I'm a big fan on the MCU, obviously. But I do worry that after Thanos, and they retire Iron Man and Cap, that they're going to revert back to characters and plot-lines that will put people into a fatigue. I'd almost rather see them try to make something entirely off-comic, than redo X-Men or Fantastic Four. I just have zero enthusiasm for those franchises, having seen them done before. Maybe a little enthusiasm for Fantastic Four (and Dr. Doom). But X-Men has me groaning. Please no more Wolverine.
The gravy train can't last forever, and big properties like X-Men and Spider-Man will let Marvel Studios weather whatever dips in attendance result when key players leave. The FF's ethos and general missions makes them unappealing for people who want a standard MCU story; not even having one of the best villains in Marvel history compensates for that.
Sometimes I dream that studios would take a risk story-wise in their main properties. Perhaps one day we'll get the Supernovas arc for a X-Men entry, a properly psychedelic Strange movie or an awesome Thunderbolts incarnation. But then I wake up and remember movie-making is a business.
Well, you say it can't last forever, but they've stretched it out far further than anyone thought possible and they're still raising the ceiling on how much money they can make with these properties. There must, logically, be a point where people stop going to see them... but we haven't seen it yet. For me, if there's no precipitous drop-off after Infinity War part 2, it might just be that the only thing that can kill superhero movies is uninspired film making.
The Fantastic Four can easily work if you get Doctor Doom right. But people keep screwing him up. They're not that hard to do. The only obvious problem is that they don't have standout stories quite the same way most other properties do, outside run-ins with Galactus or Doom, and many of those were crossovers. I think a lot of people would struggle to name a signature FF story arc that wasn't Galactus or Doom related.
And you can't deny, Infinity War itself was a risk. Bordering on insane, actually. A movie built up to after ten years of other movies, counting on the entire genre not losing momentum and all of those movies being at least good enough to keep building interest in the next ones? And that it ends with - at least on screen - killing everyone? Obviously we comic fans know what happens next, but a lot of people don't and didn't. There's plenty of accounts of people breaking down in theatres or shortly afterward.
Speaking of taking bigger risks, though, have you got your eye on the New Mutants? Looks like a straight up horror story so far.
As to X Men: I don't think they'll recast Hugh Jackman. Wolverine filled the part so iconically - in the real sense of the word - that I don't know if anyone will accept someone else as Hugh Jackman. It seems more likely they'll run with Laura and see if she works out. There seems to be some genuine buzz, and the actress nailed it. Plus it can literally be a role she grows into. We'll see, though.
How likely is it that the deal gets blocked in the end, by the way? I've checked but I can't see much in the way of updates.
On May 15 2018 21:05 Hyperbola wrote: I haven't seen any of these movies past the first Avengers movie. Are any worth watching?
There was a list before...
In no particular order:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Captain America: Civil War
Guardians of the Galaxy 1 & 2
Logan
X-Men: First Class
Ant-Man
Deadpool
Iron Man (just the first)
Thor: Ragnarok
I'm pretty sure I forgot about something...
spiderman: homecoming is fun (imho better than ragnarok) dr strange is visually stunning (but the story is rather bland) black panther is decent (moreso if you see this as a cultural revolution. as a movie it's decent, but not outstanding) x-men: days of futures past was great. but only if you watched all the other x-men up to then. Imho it was more interesting than Logan and first class (but first class is a prerequisite to understand days of futures past).
I personally believe Age of Ultron, Iron Man 3, Spiderman Homecoming and X-men; Days of Future Past also belong in the "decent-good marvel movies list".
Ragnarok is bad but kinda fun if you are nerdy enough. Black Panther is just bad period, even Transformers was better. Ant-man and Logan are fine, but nothing special.
I wasn't too fond of Age of Ultron, though admittedly I was really, really bitter that day so I might have just taken it out on the movie. I liked the concept of "men of peace create weapons of war" as pushed, but the villain and plot seemed so cookie-cutter and barely serviceable as to make me question if it was any good. Iron Man 3 was not bad, nothing special though. Haven't seen any of the other ones.
Thor 1 and 2 fall into the "should have been good but were merely ok because of some questionable plot inconsistencies" basket. All the Captain America movies were good, especially Winter Soldier. Guardians 1 & 2 were fun.
Ironman 3 is pretty good. I liked that they focused on keeping Tony out of the Armor as much as possible, which is where he is most interesting.
Approximately Three weeks of Ultron is a weird film for me. I like it, but also I'm also fully aware that nothing really happens in that movie. The movie is Tony bug testing for using alien tech to build AIs. And then version 1.0 kills the Version .89. But it brings us Scarlet Witch, so it was a net gain.
I would prefer more super hero movies got away from the bombastic last battle and saving entire nations/the world. There is merit to stories where the stakes smaller. Spiderman Homecoming is a great example of this.
On May 16 2018 02:36 Plansix wrote: I would prefer more super hero movies got away from the bombastic last battle and saving entire nations/the world. There is merit to stories where the stakes smaller. Spiderman Homecoming is a great example of this.
The big different IMO was that Spiderman Homecoming was still a story about being a hero, about rising up and doing the right thing. Iron Man 3 was about Tony Stark suffering from being a hero and ultimately getting out of the business (which lasted a total of 0 movies since Avengers 2 followed not long after). Now obviously, Iron Man was still Iron Man and still had him doing Super Hero things, but it definitely wasn't the focus, like most other successful Super Hero movies.
It also didn't help they cheapened Iron Man's gimmick with how easily destroyed all his suits were.
Marvel movies have a tendency towards "fuck the plot of the previous one, we'll do what's convenient for this one." Remember how SHIELD was supposed to kick the bucket because it was co-opted for evil? That also didn't last.
On May 16 2018 04:34 LegalLord wrote: Marvel movies have a tendency towards "fuck the plot of the previous one, we'll do what's convenient for this one." Remember how SHIELD was supposed to kick the bucket because it was co-opted for evil? That also didn't last.
Well SHIELD kinda did kick the bucket. Also in the series.
I'm going to be pissed when they introduce Capt. Marvel and she simply kills Thanos aka a Mary Sue, due to her unique power. if that happens they might as well flush 15 years of movies and sub plots down the toilet.
I'm going to be pissed when they introduce Capt. Marvel and she simply kills Thanos aka a Mary Sue, due to her unique power. if that happens they might as well flush 15 years of movies and sub plots down the toilet.
I love the contortions people are going to in order to be angry about the existence of Captain Marvel in the MCU.
Age of Ultron is an example of Old Comic Book Movie Syndrome; i.e. the old style of making movies where you 'adapt' a comic book in such a manner that you lose all the elements that made it work in the first place. Ultron as Tony's dark side is too narrow a focus, too simple. The comic book version, who exists as his own thing and is driven primarily by hatred for the thing he wants more than anything else, is far more interesting (if you don't know, comic book Ultron despises the Avengers so much because he kind of wishes he could be one of them and have a family, and variously seems to wish it could kill/replace its father and/or start its own family). There was no need to change Ultron at all, and it would have been better if they hadn't, save switched his origin from Pym to Stark.
I'm going to be pissed when they introduce Capt. Marvel and she simply kills Thanos aka a Mary Sue, due to her unique power. if that happens they might as well flush 15 years of movies and sub plots down the toilet.
I love the contortions people are going to in order to be angry about the existence of Captain Marvel in the MCU.
Age of Ultron is an example of Old Comic Book Movie Syndrome; i.e. the old style of making movies where you 'adapt' a comic book in such a manner that you lose all the elements that made it work in the first place. Ultron as Tony's dark side is too narrow a focus, too simple. The comic book version, who exists as his own thing and is driven primarily by hatred for the thing he wants more than anything else, is far more interesting (if you don't know, comic book Ultron despises the Avengers so much because he kind of wishes he could be one of them and have a family, and variously seems to wish it could kill/replace its father and/or start its own family). There was no need to change Ultron at all, and it would have been better if they hadn't, save switched his origin from Pym to Stark.
Nobody is angry that Cpt. Marvel is going to be introduced unless you believe that she should have been introduced during the Cpt. America arc. She has a unique power that defends her from Thanos, especially Thanos. I'm just praying they don't use that as a get out of jail free card.
Anyone who beats Thanos is going to be a Mary Sue. One does not fight a villain with wield six plot devices without the plot gods support. Capt. Marvel is going to end up taking a hit for the Marvel universe. It will be way better than the ending of the infinity war in the comic.
Also, Thanos has a little Mary Sue all his own. There is literally no reason for him to be as powerful as he is beyond being a villain of equal power to fight the Avengers. At least Ultron was skynet and had the believable justification that he read the whole internet and decided humanity needed a hard kick in the pants.
On May 17 2018 02:01 Plansix wrote: Anyone who beats Thanos is going to be a Mary Sue. One does not fight a villain with wield six plot devices without the plot gods support. Capt. Marvel is going to end up taking a hit for the Marvel universe. It will be way better than the ending of the infinity war in the comic.
Also, Thanos has a little Mary Sue all his own. There is literally no reason for him to be as powerful as he is beyond being a villain of equal power to fight the Avengers. At least Ultron was skynet and had the believable justification that he read the whole internet and decided humanity needed a hard kick in the pants.
He already had one of the infinity stones at the start of the film. Making him already pretty powerful.
On May 17 2018 02:01 Plansix wrote: Anyone who beats Thanos is going to be a Mary Sue. One does not fight a villain with wield six plot devices without the plot gods support. Capt. Marvel is going to end up taking a hit for the Marvel universe. It will be way better than the ending of the infinity war in the comic.
Also, Thanos has a little Mary Sue all his own. There is literally no reason for him to be as powerful as he is beyond being a villain of equal power to fight the Avengers. At least Ultron was skynet and had the believable justification that he read the whole internet and decided humanity needed a hard kick in the pants.
He already had one of the infinity stones at the start of the film. Making him already pretty powerful.
The infinity stones are just glorified macguffins for heroes and villains to fight over. Their justification for existing is that they are old, from the start of time and are themed for reasons. Thanos is powers because he obtained a macguffin off camera, which means he has powers beyond normal villains, the ability to do things outside of the confines of the script.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, I like these movies. Just throwing around the term Mary Sue in an Avengers movie sort of misses the point. Cross over comics were about team ups and great scenes with heroes that should never hang out and never hung their hat on a well thought out plot. Its all about the group shots.
Given how the MCU dials back on a lot of the power levels, especially for the heroes, Cpt. Marvel's probably just going to be a flying brick that shoots laser beams. Possibly low-key energy absorption.
If the movies were comic "faithful", then Hulk would get pissed enough to curbstomp everyone, Stark would have an armour for everything, Strange would be untouchable and Scarlet Witch would remake the universe.
The best thing the MCU did was nerf all the heroes. Ironman is far more compelling as a powerful character that Captain American might be able to beat if he could get him on the ground long enough. And if they can make Dr. Strange work in the movies, they can have Captain Marvel do her own thing. Her flight powers might be the hardest part, since floating heroes are generally bad action scenes(looking at you Vision).
On May 15 2018 21:05 Hyperbola wrote: I haven't seen any of these movies past the first Avengers movie. Are any worth watching?
There was a list before...
In no particular order:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Captain America: Civil War
Guardians of the Galaxy 1 & 2
Logan
X-Men: First Class
Ant-Man
Deadpool
Iron Man (just the first)
Thor: Ragnarok
I'm pretty sure I forgot about something...
spiderman: homecoming is fun (imho better than ragnarok) dr strange is visually stunning (but the story is rather bland) black panther is decent (moreso if you see this as a cultural revolution. as a movie it's decent, but not outstanding) x-men: days of futures past was great. but only if you watched all the other x-men up to then. Imho it was more interesting than Logan and first class (but first class is a prerequisite to understand days of futures past).
I would also skip ant-man.
I mostly agree with this except I was a bigger fan of dr.strange. I guess the story in general is rather bland, but I thought the ending was perhaps the smartest resolution out of any MCU movie. I loved both days of future past and logan, first class a bit less (but should indeed be watched before days of future past. Actually you could also watch xmen 1+2 from the original series).
On May 17 2018 03:09 Plansix wrote: The best thing the MCU did was nerf all the heroes. Ironman is far more compelling as a powerful character that Captain American might be able to beat if he could get him on the ground long enough. And if they can make Dr. Strange work in the movies, they can have Captain Marvel do her own thing. Her flight powers might be the hardest part, since floating heroes are generally bad action scenes(looking at you Vision).
Well, Iron Man, War Machine and Thor can fly too. It's not that big a deal if you don't make them do it too often. Captain Marvel, I assume, is going to take Thor's role in the team since I think the original cast members (Evans, Downey, Hemsworth) aren't returning after Infinity War 2. Making Scarlet Witch essentially Marvel Girl-lite worked out too.
On May 17 2018 03:09 Plansix wrote: The best thing the MCU did was nerf all the heroes. Ironman is far more compelling as a powerful character that Captain American might be able to beat if he could get him on the ground long enough. And if they can make Dr. Strange work in the movies, they can have Captain Marvel do her own thing. Her flight powers might be the hardest part, since floating heroes are generally bad action scenes(looking at you Vision).
Well, Iron Man, War Machine and Thor can fly too. It's not that big a deal if you don't make them do it too often. Captain Marvel, I assume, is going to take Thor's role in the team since I think the original cast members (Evans, Downey, Hemsworth) aren't returning after Infinity War 2. Making Scarlet Witch essentially Marvel Girl-lite worked out too.
All of those heroes have a clear source propulsion that drives them through the sky. When they float(or don’t in the case of Thor), it is clear they are holding themselves up with jets and could be knocked down given enough force. There is fragility to their flying that makes it dynamic and appear to obey some knowable laws of real world physics.
We will have to see what happens post Avengers 4. This is comic books, so not one is really dead. No one really leaves the series. We just might see less of them or they might appear in supporting roles. Retirements are only a lead up to a dramatic return to action.
They've said Captain Marvel will be the most powerful character in the MCU, so it sounds like they're actually upgrading her from the comics (though she is very powerful in the comics).
I can see her going binary against Thanos, given it would be a) an awesome visual and b) arguably make sense. Depends if they make it clear she can absorb energy in her own movie.
Considering how they have depicted Thor, who is one of the more powerful characters, I’m not that concerned. So long as they don’t go full Man of Steel level of untouchable, it will be fine.
On May 17 2018 17:45 iamthedave wrote: They've said Captain Marvel will be the most powerful character in the MCU, so it sounds like they're actually upgrading her from the comics (though she is very powerful in the comics).
I can see her going binary against Thanos, given it would be a) an awesome visual and b) arguably make sense. Depends if they make it clear she can absorb energy in her own movie.
Super strength, speed, flight and laser beams already makes her stronger than all the other heroes in the MCU. It's not a very competitive field (which is fine).
I thought power creeps and stuff would bother me but in the MCU and in Avengers it seems to have been handled quite well (granted Thor was quite powerful in Infinity but that was so badass damn). I mean after all Black Widow and Hawkeye are just random ass humans basically. Yet it didn't bother me in any of the earlier Avenger movies (Also issn't Scarlet Witch supposed to one of the strongest players out there).
I was much more bothered by it in Justice League actually, there was quite a bit of an emphasis on that there.
Power creep would be really unwieldy to depict in an CGI-filled movie, especially at the scale that is common within the comics. Thor has done outrageous shit in the past (busted planets, contained black holes, tanked explosions that would devastate solar systems, etc.) but the sheer cost of replicating those feats on-screen would eat up most of the budget. Besides that it would force the MCU to constantly resort to cosmic-level threats for any sort of narrative tension.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: But there is no follow up to Infinity War that has the same scope. Maybe the new iteration of Secret Wars/the recent Infinity storyline. It's possible Secret Wars might end up being Captain Marvel 2 or 3, assuming her standalone does well enough for sequels, of course.
Of course, a Galactus story is also their next possible destination.
The question is whether the scope of the story or the crossover itself is the draw. Civil War was a small scale story that did massive numbers based on the crossover aspect (and being a good movie).
I'm not sure Marvel Studios wants to replicate the plan they had executed over the last 5 years. It took a lot of movies to set up Infinity War, which was relatively simple given the thrust of the plot. The character dynamics and establishing the locations of the stones were the primary concerns for those preceding movies; Thanos and his schemes were barely touched upon prior to the movie.
By contrast, Secret Wars is immensely complex. When Hickman was tasked with it, he utilized an immense amount of planning to make sure all the storylines made comprehensive sense. He introduced 10-12 new concepts and fleshed them out over several years across multiple comic books (even his FF run was essential to getting the Incursions) so they could converge into the primary storyline. And it's largely abstract shit that would turn off a mainstream audience. The MCU would have to massively simplify the entire thing to fit it into their current model. And that assumes the FF comes into play: Doom and Molecule Man are integral to Secret Wars. The prospect of escalation after their most successful venture may be too intimidating.
I think the crossover aspect takes precedence for fans. We might see that come into play if a Galactus story is the endgame; given the importance of Celestials to the X-Men, Inhumans, and recent FF runs, they could be the next big baddie in Phase 5.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: I'm not sure that's fair. Falcon is solidly slotted in as Captain America's supporting character. There's no buzz for him getting a solo movie because... he's a supporting character. Same as there's no buzz for Drax getting a solo movie.
That's my point. Falcon is a supporting character and lacks the mythos + connotations that made Black Panther a much better sell. What BP represents as a concept is what made his movie so insanely popular.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: I don't know if I'd agree with your suggestion that it's 'spurious'. Given how much talk there is about how risk averse Marvel is, to the point that the Avengers had only one character and an all-white cast when the comic Avengers has always been diverse (The Wasp being one of the founding members, for example, and Monica Rambeau being both one of its core and most powerful members for a good while). Black Panther was definitely a bit of a risk, given that the character isn't a high profile Marvel figure, despite the length of time he's been around.
The assumption was that audiences would not watch a black cast in a superhero movie built around notions and explorations of black identity, not that BP was a niche property. Marvel had already proven via GotG and Ant-Man that audiences would show up regardless of the relative popularity of a character in the public consciousness, as long as they trusted the brand's reliability. I'd argue that the race angle was a spurious, self-serving narrative promoted by the media. A movie marrying the pyrotechnics of a superhero movie with the social prestige of a 'topical' film was a gold mine waiting to happen, especially in the modern era. It was only a risk if one believed we were living in 60's Georgia.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: If everyone said the same thing you'd be right, but there are tons of reviews from professional film critics saying he's a) the best bit of movie and b) sympathetic, and audiences have reacted the same way. So while it didn't work for you it clearly did for a lot of people.
Really it's just Josh Brolin putting in a grade-A performance with B-B+ material, and thus raising it, same way Heath Ledger raised The Joker in The Dark Knight (not that the Joker was poorly written or anything).
By not work, I mean Thanos' rationale doesn't hold water under the very philosophy he advocates. But that would require a moderate understanding of utilitarianism to debate and well...bluntly, most professional critics are not very good at their craft. They either follow each other opinion's sheep-like or operate along a very narrow set of prejudices; most don't even know the technical aspects of filmmaking. These are the same people who praised The Last Jedi purely on its progressive 'merits' while ignoring all the plot, character, and thematic flaws.
I mean, doesn't any good performance necessarily rise above the material? The screenplay and setting acts as a base, but only really great actors can find something beyond what's on the surface. This even applies to your revered works like Death of a Salesman.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: But they didn't write optimistically funny stories. They wrote dark miserable ones. The WRITING didn't change, the characters did. I put it down to nostalgia myself, at first, but over time I can see it's far more that the X Men as a comic series is about younger people with abilities, and if they get too old it just doesn't work anymore.
Most of the misery is about seeing their hopes for the future dashed by the reality of the present. They fervently believed mutantkind could overcome prejudice by the time they were adults. However, these comics are innately more optimistic as they treat this as something to fix instead of the norm (remember the sheer grimdarkness of X-Force?) Even recent team-ups like in Uncanny X-Men firmly reject human-mutant division when ~5-7 years ago, it was treated as a malleable question. I've also noticed the reintroduction of certain types of humor that were completely absent during the previous era.
While the series followed a group of young mutants, story-wise the X-Men were nothing without the older players. Professor X, Magneto, Apocalypse, etc. were all mirrors reflecting their potential choices as they grew up.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: Well, you say it can't last forever, but they've stretched it out far further than anyone thought possible and they're still raising the ceiling on how much money they can make with these properties. There must, logically, be a point where people stop going to see them... but we haven't seen it yet. For me, if there's no precipitous drop-off after Infinity War part 2, it might just be that the only thing that can kill superhero movies is uninspired film making.
No narrative movie trend has ever lasted more than 20 years in its heyday. Noir, Westerns, sci-fi dystopia, they all came to an end at some point. In microcosm the same thing will happen to the Avengers franchise, so it's smart for Marvel Studios to expand their repertoire in advance.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: The Fantastic Four can easily work if you get Doctor Doom right. But people keep screwing him up. They're not that hard to do. The only obvious problem is that they don't have standout stories quite the same way most other properties do, outside run-ins with Galactus or Doom, and many of those were crossovers. I think a lot of people would struggle to name a signature FF story arc that wasn't Galactus or Doom related.
As a potential movie franchise, the FF doesn't fit the typical mold of a superhero film. Their problems mostly come from internal dynamics, various characters feeling disconnected or useless in the grand scheme of things; those are eventually solved by their innate trust and acknowledgement of being a balanced family. In a sense they'd fit a costume drama more than a blockbuster. The FF are explorers at heart and all their relevant story arcs come from unpleasant encounters with the unknown. Any decent stab at tackling the property needs to focus on that first and foremost. The recent attempts tried to work off the origin story, but that is easily the most tedious and limited aspect of their backstory.
Finding the right tone for Doom is also a nightmare for screenwriters (seriously, just hire Hickman as consultant and be done with it). It's easy to focus too much on the melodramatic, megalomaniac aspects while ignoring the more interesting characteristics that elevate the villain above a stereotype. His stringent sense of honor, being an actual capable leader, his ability to concoct interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge - even Richards admits he cannot understand how Doom synthesizes magic with science - his weird mixture of affection and respect for Valeria, his subconscious desire to replace Reed in the FF family, these have been pointlessly ignored in the past for HAHAHA I'M EVIL inanity.
I think for the sake of meaningful conflict without homogenizing the basic premise of the FF, the movie versions would have to skip the origin story and start with Valeria and Franklin already existing.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: And you can't deny, Infinity War itself was a risk. Bordering on insane, actually. A movie built up to after ten years of other movies, counting on the entire genre not losing momentum and all of those movies being at least good enough to keep building interest in the next ones? And that it ends with - at least on screen - killing everyone? Obviously we comic fans know what happens next, but a lot of people don't and didn't. There's plenty of accounts of people breaking down in theatres or shortly afterward.
I mean risk-taking in terms of narrative. Marvel Studios doesn't need to rely on the Dark Phoenix saga, Secret Wars, Secret Invasion, or any large-scale comic book event as the building block for the MCU. Most of their fanbase are casual fans or newcomers to the genre. They can do anything they want as long as it results in a palatable story.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: Speaking of taking bigger risks, though, have you got your eye on the New Mutants? Looks like a straight up horror story so far.
I'm keeping close watch on it. I'm curious what the threat will be and what type of horror they're going for. Will it be Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Takashi Miike's The Box? I can see both at the same time with some weird mashup of the Necrosha story arc.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: As to X Men: I don't think they'll recast Hugh Jackman. Wolverine filled the part so iconically - in the real sense of the word - that I don't know if anyone will accept someone else as Hugh Jackman. It seems more likely they'll run with Laura and see if she works out. There seems to be some genuine buzz, and the actress nailed it. Plus it can literally be a role she grows into. We'll see, though.
Hmmm, it depends on how popular Wolverine remains in the cultural zeitgeist. At his height Wolverine was in 3 Avengers teams and multiple X-Men teams simultaneously: his popularity from the movie trilogy made his appearances free cash, and he was still recognized enough to have multiple spin-off movies. So it's likely they'll recast Wolverine for the main cast while retaining X-23 whenever they want to employ some subsidiary team like X-Force. She was never meant to permanently replace him as Wolverine even during his death.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: How likely is it that the deal gets blocked in the end, by the way? I've checked but I can't see much in the way of updates.
Getting the rights of the FF and X-Men? Disney acquired 20th Century Fox back in December, so they already have the rights on lockdown. The problem is Marvel Studios has planned out their schedule years in advance so we're not getting those properties in theaters anytime soon. The fine details won't be completed hashed out until 2019 either, so they probably won't work on a FF or X-Men movie until after Phase 4 finishes.
Marvel has its plan most likely complete until phase 4 completes. Since it has acquired fox, they dont necessarily have to introduce doom to the story for secret wars right? They can use thanos' mindset of doing what it is for the world to ascend to 'godhood' and create battleworld by pulling from the resources of other realities. Which could then introduce xmen and ff into the mcu later. If and when it concludes, the heros at the end would be the original avengers going outside of the multiverse to restore the damage thanos has done like what the ff did in the comics. It doesnt have to use the same characters for the whole of secret wars. That way when all is send and done the mcu permanently could have a newly created history that contains mutants in the world. Just a thought. I dont need to be right on this. I just think disney could do this as it doesnt really kill anyone. Compared to secret invasions where they may need to kill major characters on screen before a later reveal that they were shape shifters.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: But there is no follow up to Infinity War that has the same scope. Maybe the new iteration of Secret Wars/the recent Infinity storyline. It's possible Secret Wars might end up being Captain Marvel 2 or 3, assuming her standalone does well enough for sequels, of course.
Of course, a Galactus story is also their next possible destination.
The question is whether the scope of the story or the crossover itself is the draw. Civil War was a small scale story that did massive numbers based on the crossover aspect (and being a good movie).
I'm not sure Marvel Studios wants to replicate the plan they had executed over the last 5 years. It took a lot of movies to set up Infinity War, which was relatively simple given the thrust of the plot. The character dynamics and establishing the locations of the stones were the primary concerns for those preceding movies; Thanos and his schemes were barely touched upon prior to the movie.
By contrast, Secret Wars is immensely complex. When Hickman was tasked with it, he utilized an immense amount of planning to make sure all the storylines made comprehensive sense. He introduced 10-12 new concepts and fleshed them out over several years across multiple comic books (even his FF run was essential to getting the Incursions) so they could converge into the primary storyline. And it's largely abstract shit that would turn off a mainstream audience. The MCU would have to massively simplify the entire thing to fit it into their current model. And that assumes the FF comes into play: Doom and Molecule Man are integral to Secret Wars. The prospect of escalation after their most successful venture may be too intimidating.
I think the crossover aspect takes precedence for fans. We might see that come into play if a Galactus story is the endgame; given the importance of Celestials to the X-Men, Inhumans, and recent FF runs, they could be the next big baddie in Phase 5.
The question, surely, is how much of the complexity can be dealt with by adaptation. The fundament is 'alien shapeshifter invasion', at its core not much more of a complex plot than 'EGADS, SHIELD HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY HYDRA!!!!' In Winter Soldier. Only it turns out it's actual heroes instead.
There's also such huge narrative/drama possibility to a Secret Wars movie, because all the 'heroes' and heroes will be fighting each other. There's fight scenes possible there that are almost impossible in all other situations. I'm not wedded to it, just if they're specifically bringing in the Skrulls for Captain Marvel... I have to think Secret Invasion is in the back of their minds somewhere.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: If everyone said the same thing you'd be right, but there are tons of reviews from professional film critics saying he's a) the best bit of movie and b) sympathetic, and audiences have reacted the same way. So while it didn't work for you it clearly did for a lot of people.
Really it's just Josh Brolin putting in a grade-A performance with B-B+ material, and thus raising it, same way Heath Ledger raised The Joker in The Dark Knight (not that the Joker was poorly written or anything).
By not work, I mean Thanos' rationale doesn't hold water under the very philosophy he advocates. But that would require a moderate understanding of utilitarianism to debate and well...bluntly, most professional critics are not very good at their craft. They either follow each other opinion's sheep-like or operate along a very narrow set of prejudices; most don't even know the technical aspects of filmmaking. These are the same people who praised The Last Jedi purely on its progressive 'merits' while ignoring all the plot, character, and thematic flaws.
I mean, doesn't any good performance necessarily rise above the material? The screenplay and setting acts as a base, but only really great actors can find something beyond what's on the surface. This even applies to your revered works like Death of a Salesman.
The issue is never that a villain's rationale makes sense, it's that he can convince you it makes sense to him. If the villain's rationale was watertight they wouldn't be a villain, they'd actually be a hero.
I'm not a fan of The Last Jedi, but I can see why it won over the critics. They were blown away with how 'surprising' it was, by going in all kinds of unexpected directions. I can see that, especially since they're all going in there with 'okay, another Star Wars movie' on their minds. Never mind that the reason some of the decisions in TLJ were surprising is because they were exceptionally dumb ideas (see: Holdo plot, entire Finn storyline)...
To a degree yes, but I think there's lines to be drawn between material that is itself good that only a bad actor could ruin, and material that's good but won't work without an excellent actor to deliver it. I think Infinity War Thanos is the second category. I would say Dark Knight Joker is the first category, material so good that it would have taken a bad actor to screw it up. And then of course there's bad material that only good actors can save, which the Star Wars movies have often specialised in.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: But they didn't write optimistically funny stories. They wrote dark miserable ones. The WRITING didn't change, the characters did. I put it down to nostalgia myself, at first, but over time I can see it's far more that the X Men as a comic series is about younger people with abilities, and if they get too old it just doesn't work anymore.
Most of the misery is about seeing their hopes for the future dashed by the reality of the present. They fervently believed mutantkind could overcome prejudice by the time they were adults. However, these comics are innately more optimistic as they treat this as something to fix instead of the norm (remember the sheer grimdarkness of X-Force?) Even recent team-ups like in Uncanny X-Men firmly reject human-mutant division when ~5-7 years ago, it was treated as a malleable question. I've also noticed the reintroduction of certain types of humor that were completely absent during the previous era.
While the series followed a group of young mutants, story-wise the X-Men were nothing without the older players. Professor X, Magneto, Apocalypse, etc. were all mirrors reflecting their potential choices as they grew up.
I wouldn't say they were 'nothing'. In fact there were years of good to excellent storylines in the post-X post-Mags world. It's more that Professor X and Magneto filled such important, specific roles in the ideological spectrum of the X Men mythos that if you don't have them, you pretty much have to create them, as they eventually did with Schism, when Cyclops became ersatz Magneto, and Wolverine ersatz Professor X. As you say, in the end they became the mirror.
The X Men dynamic simply works better with Professor X around. Which is a pain because they clearly don't want to bring him back, but he was on page for like three panels in a recent X Men Blue storyline and it was immediately better for him being there. Watching the X Men bumble around being clueless is thrown into sharp relief when put up against the rock of moral/intellectual clarity, and it actually cuts through some of the annoying BS they indulge in. I never really thought I'd want him back, as I felt when they killed him it was absolutely time, with the X-verse having outgrown him completely and so many storylines having assassinated his character metaphorically, but they really are missing something without him there.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: The Fantastic Four can easily work if you get Doctor Doom right. But people keep screwing him up. They're not that hard to do. The only obvious problem is that they don't have standout stories quite the same way most other properties do, outside run-ins with Galactus or Doom, and many of those were crossovers. I think a lot of people would struggle to name a signature FF story arc that wasn't Galactus or Doom related.
As a potential movie franchise, the FF doesn't fit the typical mold of a superhero film. Their problems mostly come from internal dynamics, various characters feeling disconnected or useless in the grand scheme of things; those are eventually solved by their innate trust and acknowledgement of being a balanced family. In a sense they'd fit a costume drama more than a blockbuster. The FF are explorers at heart and all their relevant story arcs come from unpleasant encounters with the unknown. Any decent stab at tackling the property needs to focus on that first and foremost. The recent attempts tried to work off the origin story, but that is easily the most tedious and limited aspect of their backstory.
Finding the right tone for Doom is also a nightmare for screenwriters (seriously, just hire Hickman as consultant and be done with it). It's easy to focus too much on the melodramatic, megalomaniac aspects while ignoring the more interesting characteristics that elevate the villain above a stereotype. His stringent sense of honor, being an actual capable leader, his ability to concoct interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge - even Richards admits he cannot understand how Doom synthesizes magic with science - his weird mixture of affection and respect for Valeria, his subconscious desire to replace Reed in the FF family, these have been pointlessly ignored in the past for HAHAHA I'M EVIL inanity.
They need to get the dynamic between Doom and Richards correct. It's that simple. It's also such a simple dynamic that I don't understand why all the others completely fuck it up. Both men are geniuses. One is selfish and egotistical. One is altruistic and humble (YMMV). One both fears, and is disgusted at the thought of, being inferior to the other. The other is willing to admit the other might be his better. There you go. It's the basis of everything else.
Of course, the Doctor Doom we all deserve does require a lot of work to get just right, and I hope Marvel gives it to us (after Thanos, I'm relatively certain that they will). Not least because if they get him right they could use him in multiple moves across different parts of the franchise, just like in the comics, where I think he's faced every single marvel hero at some point or other. Even Squirrel Girl. ESPECIALLY Squirrel Girl.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: As to X Men: I don't think they'll recast Hugh Jackman. Wolverine filled the part so iconically - in the real sense of the word - that I don't know if anyone will accept someone else as Hugh Jackman. It seems more likely they'll run with Laura and see if she works out. There seems to be some genuine buzz, and the actress nailed it. Plus it can literally be a role she grows into. We'll see, though.
Hmmm, it depends on how popular Wolverine remains in the cultural zeitgeist. At his height Wolverine was in 3 Avengers teams and multiple X-Men teams simultaneously: his popularity from the movie trilogy made his appearances free cash, and he was still recognized enough to have multiple spin-off movies. So it's likely they'll recast Wolverine for the main cast while retaining X-23 whenever they want to employ some subsidiary team like X-Force. She was never meant to permanently replace him as Wolverine even during his death.
I assume the Dark Phoenix movie is still going to happen since it was in situ before the buy-out, so I support we'll see, as that will be the first x-men movie without even a hint of High Jackman shenanigans in it. If there's a significant drop off from Apocalypse, we can probably assume Hugh Jackman is very important in some form, and they'll recast the role. But there's been no hint of it so far.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: How likely is it that the deal gets blocked in the end, by the way? I've checked but I can't see much in the way of updates.
Getting the rights of the FF and X-Men? Disney acquired 20th Century Fox back in December, so they already have the rights on lockdown. The problem is Marvel Studios has planned out their schedule years in advance so we're not getting those properties in theaters anytime soon. The fine details won't be completed hashed out until 2019 either, so they probably won't work on a FF or X-Men movie until after Phase 4 finishes.
Do they, though? I thought the deal itself could be annulled on Monopoly laws? If that happened wouldn't the rights revert to Fox?
Star Wars movies and good actors?! Come on now, you're really stretching it.
E: let's face it, no amount of acting would have made the casino planet plot make sense. Rose and Finn did fine. The plot was just absurd, and you either take that in stride, or decide the movie is irredeemable shit based the various parts of the plot not actually making sense.
That tangent aside, so far the MCU has actually done an amazing job of maintaining internal coherence. Actually, a lot better than the comics :D
Even if Hugh Jackman isn't playing the current wolverine, they can still bring him back as some time-displaced Old Man Logan a few years from now. Just make his hair even greyer and say he's from -yet another- alternate future.
On May 18 2018 17:36 17Sphynx17 wrote: Since it has acquired fox, they don't necessarily have to introduce doom to the story for secret wars right?
No, but any revision would suffer from the awkwardness of substituting characters in key roles that lack the motivation and capacity to pull off said roles. Infinity War is lesser from this to an extent as the scale of the MCU universe was never established. You'll likely have to throw out all of Hickman's self-introduced ideas like Black Swans, Black Priests, Builders, The Garden, the new Beyonders, The Bridge, blah blah blah as they would require introductions in previous films. And frankly, the plausibility of Secret Wars requires characters with a level of intellect that don't exist in the current MCU; so far, only Stark has developed groundbreaking tech attributable to him alone. The movies have heavily downplayed Banner's and T'Challa's acumen. I can buy a guy who won a 4-dimensional chess gambit against virtually omnipotent beings to create Battleworld from scratch, not Thanos.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: The question, surely, is how much of the complexity can be dealt with by adaptation. The fundament is 'alien shapeshifter invasion', at its core not much more of a complex plot than 'EGADS, SHIELD HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY HYDRA!!!!' In Winter Soldier. Only it turns out it's actual heroes instead.
There's also such huge narrative/drama possibility to a Secret Wars movie, because all the 'heroes' and heroes will be fighting each other. There's fight scenes possible there that are almost impossible in all other situations. I'm not wedded to it, just if they're specifically bringing in the Skrulls for Captain Marvel... I have to think Secret Invasion is in the back of their minds somewhere.
Secret Invasion is a simple premise. Secret Wars II is really complicated, arguably the most ambitious thing Marvel has tried in the last 30 years. It took immense coordination to even get the pieces (e.g. The Garden, Future Foundation) in place to make the run smooth.
I see it being the natural followup if Infinity War: Part 2 doesn't reverse the effects of the gauntlet on a universal scale. The original invasion occurred after the Annihilation Wave destroyed the Skrull Empire, with Galactus eating the Skrulls' Throneworld. The decimation of Infinity War is a serviceable substitute and Captain Marvel + later GotG can provide the Skrulls' backstory.
However two issues will become a problem:
Secret Invasion was a long-term infiltration of Earth preceding the Kree-Skrull War. That story was published in 1971-1972. The in-universe explanation was that the Skrulls had years, perhaps decades, to plant sleeper agents in advantageous positions. Where is that going to be accounted for in the MCU, where superheroes have only been recognized and identified for a couple of years? Making them a sneaky version of the Chiaturi defeats the entire purpose of the story arc.
How do you ante up after erasing half of the universe's population? Infinity War is an amazing success but it sets the bar so high that anything below its scope threatens to be a letdown. This can be solved by limiting crossover events to Earth or magical threats, but the Skrulls are neither.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: The issue is never that a villain's rationale makes sense, it's that he can convince you it makes sense to him. If the villain's rationale was watertight they wouldn't be a villain, they'd actually be a hero.
I'm not a fan of The Last Jedi, but I can see why it won over the critics. They were blown away with how 'surprising' it was, by going in all kinds of unexpected directions. I can see that, especially since they're all going in there with 'okay, another Star Wars movie' on their minds. Never mind that the reason some of the decisions in TLJ were surprising is because they were exceptionally dumb ideas (see: Holdo plot, entire Finn storyline)...
To a degree yes, but I think there's lines to be drawn between material that is itself good that only a bad actor could ruin, and material that's good but won't work without an excellent actor to deliver it. I think Infinity War Thanos is the second category. I would say Dark Knight Joker is the first category, material so good that it would have taken a bad actor to screw it up. And then of course there's bad material that only good actors can save, which the Star Wars movies have often specialized in.
What distinguishes good from evil has little to do with logical validity more than the prevailing sentiment and morals of their time. Comic books are notorious for rendering heroes ineffective in the long run or failing to use their powers to promote greater flourishing in society, both being a combination of plot convenience and lack of imagination. A villain's logic should be either unassailable if we assume his premises are correct or eminently relatable; gut instinct makes us side with the hero by design.
What I don't buy is that Thanos' rationale is compelling enough to either:
A) justify him as more than a brick with a decent game plan B) act as anything other than a mildly interesting driving force for a villain, contrary to the praise surrounding it as some sort of philosophical revelation.
I'm not so convinced The Dark Knight is that type of material. Nolan's scripts are notorious for being on-the-nose, and most performances rarely rise above serviceable as subtext is forced into the open. In that movie Heath is on another level compared to the rest of the cast (except for Oldman).
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: I wouldn't say they were 'nothing'. In fact there were years of good to excellent storylines in the post-X post-Mags world. It's more that Professor X and Magneto filled such important, specific roles in the ideological spectrum of the X Men mythos that if you don't have them, you pretty much have to create them, as they eventually did with Schism, when Cyclops became ersatz Magneto, and Wolverine ersatz Professor X. As you say, in the end they became the mirror.
The X Men dynamic simply works better with Professor X around. Which is a pain because they clearly don't want to bring him back, but he was on page for like three panels in a recent X Men Blue storyline and it was immediately better for him being there. Watching the X Men bumble around being clueless is thrown into sharp relief when put up against the rock of moral/intellectual clarity, and it actually cuts through some of the annoying BS they indulge in. I never really thought I'd want him back, as I felt when they killed him it was absolutely time, with the X-verse having outgrown him completely and so many storylines having assassinated his character metaphorically, but they really are missing something without him there.
Do you mean after New X-Men #150, where Cyclops and Emma take over the school?
By the X-Men, I meant the original lineup. They, unfortunately, lived in the shadow of Xavier and company throughout their shared history and the foreseeable future. Most of the post-2004 storylines I enjoyed e.g. Supernovas arc by Mike Carey, Peter David's X-Factor, largely ignored the authority figures and focused on the newer generations. Even major players like Rogue never really transcended their original roles. Perhaps the exception is Emma Frost pre-Dark Reign.
On May 14 2018 19:30 iamthedave wrote: They need to get the dynamic between Doom and Richards correct. It's that simple. It's also such a simple dynamic that I don't understand why all the others completely fuck it up. Both men are geniuses. One is selfish and egotistical. One is altruistic and humble (YMMV). One both fears, and is disgusted at the thought of, being inferior to the other. The other is willing to admit the other might be his better. There you go. It's the basis of everything else.
Of course, the Doctor Doom we all deserve does require a lot of work to get just right, and I hope Marvel gives it to us (after Thanos, I'm relatively certain that they will). Not least because if they get him right they could use him in multiple movies across different parts of the franchise, just like in the comics, where I think he's faced every single marvel hero at some point or other. Even Squirrel Girl. ESPECIALLY Squirrel Girl.
They attempted that in the first two films and the subsequent relaunch. I don't think it works since it also parallels the basic divide between superheroes and supervillains. "Altruistic and humble" relative to the bad guy describes 90% of all setups. It's too broad for that relationship, which is specifically rooted in circumstance. The stark dichotomy is a decent basis for an origin story, but the dynamic doesn't really turn interesting until the 1990s.
Reed is an obsessive space cadet who's the best at diagnosing a particular problem and working out a solution. All his best creations do one specific thing: he builds the world's greatest scalpel. Doom can build the world's best OR by contrast.
However, he has a family that balances out his less agreeable traits. Johnny is the impulsive, emotional one; Thing is the down-to-earth everyman; Sue is level-headed and responsible. He relies on them and a mostly caring relationship within his father for guidance. Meanwhile Doom's father and mother died in his youth, and henceforth all his exploits were those of a self-made man. Naturally he's individualistic and confident in his abilities. His main counsel is a sycophantic heir and allies who can turn into enemies at any second.
Reed wants knowledge for its own sake. Doom desires knowledge for the sake of power, in order to bring about a better world (on his terms).
Reed is an optimistic adventurer who shies away from direct involvement - Doom is a pragmatic aristocrat that practices realpolitik.
Doom is jealous that Reed has a family who loves him despite his flaws; in almost every alternate universe story (Heroes Reborn, Secret Wars II, his dream during the Marquis of Death arc), he marries Sue and adopts the children as his own. Those become the only people to whom he confesses his fears and weaknesses. Reed is conversely jealous and apprehensive that his darling daughter connects with, and emulates, Doom more than himself. In general he struggles to connect with his children. Even Franklin gravitates more towards Sue in temperament and trust.
So for me Marvel Studios should not introduce Doom as a villain in the first movie, unless they are willing to ditch the origin story as a starting point for a possible franchise. Otherwise he should be a secondary character that sets up the primary conflict in later movies. The most intriguing points of contention between Reed and Doom developed over time.
On May 18 2018 17:36 17Sphynx17 wrote: I assume the Dark Phoenix movie is still going to happen since it was in situ before the buy-out, so I support we'll see, as that will be the first x-men movie without even a hint of Hugh Jackman shenanigans in it. If there's a significant drop off from Apocalypse, we can probably assume Hugh Jackman is very important in some form, and they'll recast the role. But there's been no hint of it so far.
At this point in X-Men history, Wolverine isn't truly integral to the team. He's a peripatetic character that comes and goes without being fully affiliated with the Xavier School. I'd consider him tertiary to the Dark Phoenix arc, but he's familiar enough at this point that Marvel Studios won't want to replace him with another character. He's one of those comic book characters that exists in the mainstream consciousness like Hulk or Iron Man.
On May 18 2018 17:36 17Sphynx17 wrote: Do they, though? I thought the deal itself could be annulled on Monopoly laws? If that happened wouldn't the rights revert to Fox?
Acquisitions and mergers are quite common in film studio history, and this would have to be especially egregious to violate the Clayton Act. But since 21st Century Fox is one of the six biggest studios I expect regulators to at least try and challenge it. I don't know enough about the fine details to know if Disney can acquire the rights piecemeal in case they can't get the whole package.
I think that super hero movies and Game of thrones have a very similar arc to them. Once the original content runs out then things are going to nosedive really fast. Marvel has been burning through major storylines really really fast and one day they're going to get to a point where they're going to have to consider doing totally original stories.
I mean at the end of the day its Disney money and infrastructure so its not going to have a hard landing as they'll always have the funding to do a good movie. Pirates 5 was affectingly bad but it was well made.
I don't think the government is ever going to threaten Disney with monopoly talk until they go anticompetative. They exist in the same space as everyone else and DC is always going to be out there.
I recommend Deadpool 2 The clips during the credits, the cameos, the references, and the fourth-wall breaks are great! Personally, I liked Deadpool 1 a bit more than Deadpool 2, possibly because I didn't have any particular expectations but was happily surprised (which is similar to my experiences with Guardians of the Galaxy 1 vs. 2).
Marvel theorycraft but spoiler alert if you haven't watched Deadpool 2 yet: + Show Spoiler +
With Cable's timejumping tool fixed, and Deadpool's clear willingness to use it to save his girlfriend in the credits (which is confirmed to be canon by the writers/ directors, so she's alive), it would be amazing if Deadpool and Cable used it again to undo Thanos's universe-snap in Avengers 4. Imagine if, after Deadpool's girlfriend was saved, she disintegrated seconds later due to the finger snap and Deadpool is like "wtf okay let's do this again!" If Marvel could actually pull off Deadpool's fourth wall breaks and find an ideal compromise for his potty mouth that fits him into a PG-13 Avengers film, that would be insane. I'm not sure if Deadpool/ Cable + Captain Marvel would be "too much" though, although Marvel did an excellent job at mashing up plenty of heroes in Infinity War. Would be odd to have Deadpool and no X-Men though, considering how closely Deadpool 2 tied them together.
On May 21 2018 01:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I recommend Deadpool 2 The clips during the credits, the cameos, the references, and the fourth-wall breaks are great! Personally, I liked Deadpool 1 a bit more than Deadpool 2, possibly because I didn't have any particular expectations but was happily surprised (which is similar to my experiences with Guardians of the Galaxy 1 vs. 2).
Marvel theorycraft but spoiler alert if you haven't watched Deadpool 2 yet: + Show Spoiler +
With Cable's timejumping tool fixed, and Deadpool's clear willingness to use it to save his girlfriend in the credits (which is confirmed to be canon by the writers/ directors, so she's alive), it would be amazing if Deadpool and Cable used it again to undo Thanos's universe-snap in Avengers 4. Imagine if, after Deadpool's girlfriend was saved, she disintegrated seconds later due to the finger snap and Deadpool is like "wtf okay let's do this again!" If Marvel could actually pull off Deadpool's fourth wall breaks and find an ideal compromise for his potty mouth that fits him into a PG-13 Avengers film, that would be insane. I'm not sure if Deadpool/ Cable + Captain Marvel would be "too much" though, although Marvel did an excellent job at mashing up plenty of heroes in Infinity War. Would be odd to have Deadpool and no X-Men though, considering how closely Deadpool 2 tied them together.
Well, if I were to hazard a guess. I would say they could do something like this after Avengers 4 comes out (assuming for a Deadpool 3 coming out after Avengers 4 here).
Wade and Cable of course live after Thanos is defeated in Avengers 4. But since Wade didn't get any name recognition from the Avengers, he would want them to notice him. So instead of who ever "last hits" Thanos, they will do the superimposition thing with Deadpool and Cable to make them appear in the Scene.
Then Thanos turns to look at Cable and says, "You... What are you doing here?!" Before he is "shot" by the two of them.
Then deadpool teleports to Stark/Avengers Towers and leaves his application form for the Avengers along with a selfie with how "they" defeated Thanos in the final fight.
On May 21 2018 16:58 iamthedave wrote: Remember that Deadpool isn't a 'Marvel' movie; it's a Fox movie. It's non-canon as far as the MCU is concerned, and has no bearing on its universe.
On May 22 2018 11:20 Emnjay808 wrote: Deadpool was an okay watch. Less is more in terms of breaking the 4th wall, although I did enjoy all of them.
The music was GotG level and the CGI was definitly top notch. They had the disney machine behind it so it carried a lot of the same issues and benifits that goes with it.
On May 21 2018 16:58 iamthedave wrote: Remember that Deadpool isn't a 'Marvel' movie; it's a Fox movie. It's non-canon as far as the MCU is concerned, and has no bearing on its universe.
Actually, as long as there is no issue with disney fox merger, this makes it more possible to deadpool to pull this off as an after credit scene gag. He just did something for WB right? That doesnt make it canon so it wont affect MCU if they really have no plans for a crossover.
It is just in good fun anyway, so being non canon is something deadpool can do.ü as well as cable and thanos meeting.
That is the idea for the gag which is why it needs to come after avengers 4 to pull off. Doing anything now is premature as they dont have footage to reference/alter/superimpose on to like what they did for the after credits.
As a gag, it can be done. Will it? I dont know. But I can imagine it as a possiblity now. Where they will do it? Either DP3 or maybe xforce. I dont know. Im not an investor.ü
On May 22 2018 11:20 Emnjay808 wrote: Deadpool was an okay watch. Less is more in terms of breaking the 4th wall, although I did enjoy all of them.
The music was GotG level and the CGI was definitly top notch. They had the disney machine behind it so it carried a lot of the same issues and benifits that goes with it.
On May 21 2018 16:58 iamthedave wrote: Remember that Deadpool isn't a 'Marvel' movie; it's a Fox movie. It's non-canon as far as the MCU is concerned, and has no bearing on its universe.
Actually, as long as there is no issue with disney fox merger, this makes it more possible to deadpool to pull this off as an after credit scene gag. He just did something for WB right? That doesnt make it canon so it wont affect MCU if they really have no plans for a crossover.
It is just in good fun anyway, so being non canon is something deadpool can do.ü as well as cable and thanos meeting.
That is the idea for the gag which is why it needs to come after avengers 4 to pull off. Doing anything now is premature as they dont have footage to reference/alter/superimpose on to like what they did for the after credits.
As a gag, it can be done. Will it? I dont know. But I can imagine it as a possiblity now. Where they will do it? Either DP3 or maybe xforce. I dont know. Im not an investor.ü
They haven't actually completed the merger yet. It's not expected to close until this Summer.
I'm actually kinda wondering if we should worry if Disney would axe Deadpool since they're not too keen on R rated movies nowdays.
On May 22 2018 11:20 Emnjay808 wrote: Deadpool was an okay watch. Less is more in terms of breaking the 4th wall, although I did enjoy all of them.
The music was GotG level and the CGI was definitly top notch. They had the disney machine behind it so it carried a lot of the same issues and benifits that goes with it.
On May 21 2018 16:58 iamthedave wrote: Remember that Deadpool isn't a 'Marvel' movie; it's a Fox movie. It's non-canon as far as the MCU is concerned, and has no bearing on its universe.
Actually, as long as there is no issue with disney fox merger, this makes it more possible to deadpool to pull this off as an after credit scene gag. He just did something for WB right? That doesnt make it canon so it wont affect MCU if they really have no plans for a crossover.
It is just in good fun anyway, so being non canon is something deadpool can do.ü as well as cable and thanos meeting.
That is the idea for the gag which is why it needs to come after avengers 4 to pull off. Doing anything now is premature as they dont have footage to reference/alter/superimpose on to like what they did for the after credits.
As a gag, it can be done. Will it? I dont know. But I can imagine it as a possiblity now. Where they will do it? Either DP3 or maybe xforce. I dont know. Im not an investor.ü
They haven't actually completed the merger yet. It's not expected to close until this Summer.
I'm actually kinda wondering if we should worry if Disney would axe Deadpool since they're not too keen on R rated movies nowdays.
I know it is not a final thing yet. The gag skit I thought of was for after Avengers 4 as an end credits for DP3 or Xforce movie to use Cable and Deadpool for the skit.
As for when Disney completely gobbles up Fox, doesn't Disney have subsidiary studios that handle less "mainstream" films? Don't know who they are though but I think Disney has those types of studios under their wing.
Anyway, it was a fun exercise that I would like them to do. But as for which DP related movie they would do it in, I don't know. DP3 might be difficult for them to pull off right now, they need new stockpile of movies to reference/mock first before doing another one. =)
On May 22 2018 11:20 Emnjay808 wrote: Deadpool was an okay watch. Less is more in terms of breaking the 4th wall, although I did enjoy all of them.
The music was GotG level and the CGI was definitly top notch. They had the disney machine behind it so it carried a lot of the same issues and benifits that goes with it.
On May 21 2018 16:58 iamthedave wrote: Remember that Deadpool isn't a 'Marvel' movie; it's a Fox movie. It's non-canon as far as the MCU is concerned, and has no bearing on its universe.
Actually, as long as there is no issue with disney fox merger, this makes it more possible to deadpool to pull this off as an after credit scene gag. He just did something for WB right? That doesnt make it canon so it wont affect MCU if they really have no plans for a crossover.
It is just in good fun anyway, so being non canon is something deadpool can do.ü as well as cable and thanos meeting.
That is the idea for the gag which is why it needs to come after avengers 4 to pull off. Doing anything now is premature as they dont have footage to reference/alter/superimpose on to like what they did for the after credits.
As a gag, it can be done. Will it? I dont know. But I can imagine it as a possiblity now. Where they will do it? Either DP3 or maybe xforce. I dont know. Im not an investor.ü
They haven't actually completed the merger yet. It's not expected to close until this Summer.
I'm actually kinda wondering if we should worry if Disney would axe Deadpool since they're not too keen on R rated movies nowdays.
Anything is possible, but I read a comment from a Disney executive about Deadpool more or less saying that they aren't paying all this money for Fox to come in and change things that work.
On May 22 2018 11:20 Emnjay808 wrote: Deadpool was an okay watch. Less is more in terms of breaking the 4th wall, although I did enjoy all of them.
The music was GotG level and the CGI was definitly top notch. They had the disney machine behind it so it carried a lot of the same issues and benifits that goes with it.
On May 21 2018 16:58 iamthedave wrote: Remember that Deadpool isn't a 'Marvel' movie; it's a Fox movie. It's non-canon as far as the MCU is concerned, and has no bearing on its universe.
Actually, as long as there is no issue with disney fox merger, this makes it more possible to deadpool to pull this off as an after credit scene gag. He just did something for WB right? That doesnt make it canon so it wont affect MCU if they really have no plans for a crossover.
It is just in good fun anyway, so being non canon is something deadpool can do.ü as well as cable and thanos meeting.
That is the idea for the gag which is why it needs to come after avengers 4 to pull off. Doing anything now is premature as they dont have footage to reference/alter/superimpose on to like what they did for the after credits.
As a gag, it can be done. Will it? I dont know. But I can imagine it as a possiblity now. Where they will do it? Either DP3 or maybe xforce. I dont know. Im not an investor.ü
They haven't actually completed the merger yet. It's not expected to close until this Summer.
I'm actually kinda wondering if we should worry if Disney would axe Deadpool since they're not too keen on R rated movies nowdays.
Disney are very keen on making money.
Note that people were terrified they'd 'disney'fy the Star Wars universe, and regardless of opinions on the Last Jedi, it's pretty much the darkest main Star Wars film ever. Also, Disney aren't the ones piloting the MCU, they're just ponying up the cash. Kevin Feige, a Marvel guy, is the one handling all the movie stuff. As far as we can tell they've been really hands off and let him do what he wants.
I think Deadpool's pretty safe. And with that under the banner it opens up the realm for the MCU to maybe put out another R-rated movie if an appropriate property comes up.
On May 22 2018 11:20 Emnjay808 wrote: Deadpool was an okay watch. Less is more in terms of breaking the 4th wall, although I did enjoy all of them.
The music was GotG level and the CGI was definitly top notch. They had the disney machine behind it so it carried a lot of the same issues and benifits that goes with it.
On May 22 2018 13:30 17Sphynx17 wrote:
On May 21 2018 16:58 iamthedave wrote: Remember that Deadpool isn't a 'Marvel' movie; it's a Fox movie. It's non-canon as far as the MCU is concerned, and has no bearing on its universe.
Actually, as long as there is no issue with disney fox merger, this makes it more possible to deadpool to pull this off as an after credit scene gag. He just did something for WB right? That doesnt make it canon so it wont affect MCU if they really have no plans for a crossover.
It is just in good fun anyway, so being non canon is something deadpool can do.ü as well as cable and thanos meeting.
That is the idea for the gag which is why it needs to come after avengers 4 to pull off. Doing anything now is premature as they dont have footage to reference/alter/superimpose on to like what they did for the after credits.
As a gag, it can be done. Will it? I dont know. But I can imagine it as a possiblity now. Where they will do it? Either DP3 or maybe xforce. I dont know. Im not an investor.ü
They haven't actually completed the merger yet. It's not expected to close until this Summer.
I'm actually kinda wondering if we should worry if Disney would axe Deadpool since they're not too keen on R rated movies nowdays.
Disney are very keen on making money.
Note that people were terrified they'd 'disney'fy the Star Wars universe, and regardless of opinions on the Last Jedi, it's pretty much the darkest main Star Wars film ever. Also, Disney aren't the ones piloting the MCU, they're just ponying up the cash. Kevin Feige, a Marvel guy, is the one handling all the movie stuff. As far as we can tell they've been really hands off and let him do what he wants.
I think Deadpool's pretty safe. And with that under the banner it opens up the realm for the MCU to maybe put out another R-rated movie if an appropriate property comes up.
Last Jedi hardly holds a candle to Revenge of the Sith, thematically. RotS is just unintentionally campier.
Disney's actually quite gun-shy when it comes to taking risks with their plots and characters, or straying from their formula. But they do know how to stay hands-off when it comes to proven successes.
On May 16 2018 01:20 Salteador Neo wrote: I personally believe Age of Ultron, Iron Man 3, Spiderman Homecoming and X-men; Days of Future Past also belong in the "decent-good marvel movies list".
Ragnarok is bad but kinda fun if you are nerdy enough. Black Panther is just bad period, even Transformers was better. Ant-man and Logan are fine, but nothing special.
Age of Ultron was horrible. Iron Man 3 was also horrible. Homecoming was fine.