|
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.
|
United States15275 Posts
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.
|
United States15275 Posts
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.
|
Norway28267 Posts
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 14 2018 05:34 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +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 14 2018 05:34 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +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 14 2018 05:34 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +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 14 2018 05:34 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +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 05:34 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Anthony Mackie (Falcon) has stated in the past that he's not interested in a solo movie though.
|
I haven't seen any of these movies past the first Avengers movie. Are any worth watching?
|
Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2, for sure.
|
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...
|
Skip antman and the list is good. Thor ragnarok will have no context without seeing age of ultron but otherwise it’s fantastic
|
On May 15 2018 23:04 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Thor: Ragnarok was absolutely great. Somehow they took all of the worst things about Thor and amplified them x1000 and the result was amazing.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Never watched it because "the worst things about Thor" seemed like its MO. Might have to reconsider.
|
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.
|
|
|
|