Marvel Universe (Film) Discussion Thread - Page 10
Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51335 Posts
| ||
saocyn
United States937 Posts
On May 10 2018 00:23 LegalLord wrote: 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. + Show Spoiler + 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. 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. | ||
Sbrubbles
Brazil5763 Posts
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. | ||
saocyn
United States937 Posts
On May 12 2018 00:00 Sbrubbles wrote: 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" | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51335 Posts
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 12 2018 00:04 saocyn wrote: 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 | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42223 Posts
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. 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 | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51335 Posts
On May 12 2018 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: 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 | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28267 Posts
| ||
saocyn
United States937 Posts
On May 12 2018 00:09 Pandemona wrote: 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. | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42223 Posts
On May 12 2018 00:23 saocyn wrote: 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). | ||
Acrofales
Spain17190 Posts
On May 12 2018 00:23 saocyn wrote: 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. | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42223 Posts
On May 12 2018 00:52 Acrofales wrote: 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. Definitely agree. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
| ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42223 Posts
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. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
saocyn
United States937 Posts
On May 12 2018 00:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: 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). Long Explanation + Show Spoiler + 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. | ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On May 12 2018 00:23 saocyn wrote: 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. | ||
saocyn
United States937 Posts
On May 12 2018 02:32 WolfintheSheep wrote: 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. Further Elaboration and Theories: + Show Spoiler + 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. | ||
Sentenal
United States12398 Posts
| ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51335 Posts
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 12 2018 00:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: 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. | ||
| ||