Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No, I'm refusing to bend over backwards for people who insist on reading a discussion thread that they know will contain spoilers after the movie has been released.
Again, I will use Spoiler tags when the Mods institute a clear and consistent policy dictating how long after release we must use Spoiler tags. Until then, you're making a vague open ended demand. How long after release do we draw the line? One week? Two weeks? A month? Six months? How long must I use Spoiler tags for? There'll be people two or three months from now who still won't have seen the movie. Must we continue using spoiler tags in July or August?
I want clear instruction from the Mods, not a vague and open ended demand from other members of Dakka Dakka. Draw a line, and I will respect it.
Reported so maybe they can help clarify it for you.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: It has been noted that the actor who plays Loki is currently signed for one more film.
This makes it unlikely he's perma dead.
Leaked set pictures from the next movie show several characters in older costumes, suggesting flashbacks or time travel, so being signed for one more film doesn't really mean much.
I'd imagine there's a blanket ban on any discussion of contracts that may reveal if a star is or isn't locked in for any more movies that aren't already announced.
Bendydock Comfypatch did an interview recently where he basically very obviously danced around the prospect of a Strange 2, because of course any discussion of that would indicate if Strange makes it out of Av 4 or not.
Azreal13 wrote: I'd imagine there's a blanket ban on any discussion of contracts that may reveal if a star is or isn't locked in for any more movies that aren't already announced.
Bendydock Comfypatch did an interview recently where he basically very obviously danced around the prospect of a Strange 2, because of course any discussion of that would indicate if Strange makes it out of Av 4 or not.
Though the end credits scene setting Mordo up as the next villain does strongly indicate a Doctor Strange 2.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No, I'm refusing to bend over backwards for people who insist on reading a discussion thread that they know will contain spoilers after the movie has been released.
Again, I will use Spoiler tags when the Mods institute a clear and consistent policy dictating how long after release we must use Spoiler tags. Until then, you're making a vague open ended demand. How long after release do we draw the line? One week? Two weeks? A month? Six months? How long must I use Spoiler tags for? There'll be people two or three months from now who still won't have seen the movie. Must we continue using spoiler tags in July or August?
I want clear instruction from the Mods, not a vague and open ended demand from other members of Dakka Dakka. Draw a line, and I will respect it.
If nothing else, I've got to admire your persistence and passion on this issue.
Spoiler:
Bending over backwards to s-tag this took me 3 seconds. Maybe you should practice with the forum software a bit more?
AdmiralHalsey wrote: It has been noted that the actor who plays Loki is currently signed for one more film.
This makes it unlikely he's perma dead.
Leaked set pictures from the next movie show several characters in older costumes, suggesting flashbacks or time travel, so being signed for one more film doesn't really mean much.
I'm guessing some gauntlet related 'fixing' will result in a timey-wimey recasting or two plus rejig the world with whatever characters the deal with Sony allows
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No, I'm refusing to bend over backwards for people who insist on reading a discussion thread that they know will contain spoilers after the movie has been released.
Again, I will use Spoiler tags when the Mods institute a clear and consistent policy dictating how long after release we must use Spoiler tags. Until then, you're making a vague open ended demand. How long after release do we draw the line? One week? Two weeks? A month? Six months? How long must I use Spoiler tags for? There'll be people two or three months from now who still won't have seen the movie. Must we continue using spoiler tags in July or August?
I want clear instruction from the Mods, not a vague and open ended demand from other members of Dakka Dakka. Draw a line, and I will respect it.
If nothing else, I've got to admire your persistence and passion on this issue.
Spoiler:
Bending over backwards to s-tag this took me 3 seconds. Maybe you should practice with the forum software a bit more?
I didn't see the movie until Tuesday. I didn't even know I was going to see it then until Monday. Do you know what I didn't do once the movie had opened in order to avoid spoilers?
I didn't look at anything online where the movie was being discussed.
Seriously, it would be so easy for someone to accidentally spoil something without even realizing it. You can't control other people's behavior, just your reaction to it. If you decided your reaction to avoiding spoilers is to go places where there might be spoilers and yell at people for spoilering stuff, rather than simply avoid the problem for a day or two, you have not selected the correct reaction, IMO.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No, I'm refusing to bend over backwards for people who insist on reading a discussion thread that they know will contain spoilers after the movie has been released.
Again, I will use Spoiler tags when the Mods institute a clear and consistent policy dictating how long after release we must use Spoiler tags. Until then, you're making a vague open ended demand. How long after release do we draw the line? One week? Two weeks? A month? Six months? How long must I use Spoiler tags for? There'll be people two or three months from now who still won't have seen the movie. Must we continue using spoiler tags in July or August?
I want clear instruction from the Mods, not a vague and open ended demand from other members of Dakka Dakka. Draw a line, and I will respect it.
If nothing else, I've got to admire your persistence and passion on this issue.
Spoiler:
Bending over backwards to s-tag this took me 3 seconds. Maybe you should practice with the forum software a bit more?
I didn't see the movie until Tuesday. I didn't even know I was going to see it then until Monday. Do you know what I didn't do once the movie had opened in order to avoid spoilers?
I didn't look at anything online where the movie was being discussed.
Seriously, it would be so easy for someone to accidentally spoil something without even realizing it. You can't control other people's behavior, just your reaction to it. If you decided your reaction to avoiding spoilers is to go places where there might be spoilers and yell at people for spoilering stuff, rather than simply avoid the problem for a day or two, you have not selected the correct reaction, IMO.
Day or two? That is a strong assumption.
Also, this isn't an accidental thing. This is acknowledging there is a way to get around this and then flat out refusing to use it. You can't even argue this is an accident because we had just talked about this a few pages before. An accident is fine. I can live with somebody slipping up or talking about it without knowing I am around or that I haven't seen it, because using spoiler tags IRL isn't really a thing. But this is the internet. You can use the spoiler tags. Not doing so just because an adult is not holding your hand and telling you to is just rude and spiteful, for whatever reason there is to be spiteful over this issue.
A day or two isn't an assumption, it's a colloquialism for an indeterminate period of time.
Irrespective of a literal or figurative length of time, expecting people to "just use spoilers" is no different than expecting people who don't want spoilers to not enter the thread, it's an assumption based on someone else's behavior that you have no control over.
Much better to avoid going places where spoilers might be, IMO, because that's something that is in your control.
Dreadwinter wrote: Not doing so just because an adult is not holding your hand and telling you to is just rude and spiteful, for whatever reason there is to be spiteful over this issue.
I was gonna say something like this, but nicer, earlier in the thread, but a Mod has already noted to shut this down. My take is that if you are unsure about doing a thing that might be wrong/rude/spoilery and there is a way to avoid it....you should just do that thing that avoids it.
Dude is being called out on specifically avoiding the commonly accepted way of being polite. It may be the viewer's responsibility to avoid spoilers (totally agree with that), but that doesn't give anyone permission to be flippant about how they conduct their actions.
Azreal13 wrote: A day or two isn't an assumption, it's a colloquialism for an indeterminate period of time.
Irrespective of a literal or figurative length of time, expecting people to "just use spoilers" is no different than expecting people who don't want spoilers to not enter the thread, it's an assumption based on someone else's behavior that you have no control over.
Much better to avoid going places where spoilers might be, IMO, because that's something that is in your control.
I agree actually. People who want to avoid spoilers can do so easily. People who have seen the movie can also avoid spoiling the movie just as easily. There is no sense in getting upset for either situation. Adults have control over their own actions and reactions, but poor behavior should always be discouraged
Anyway, back to the topic at hand: I heard Tom Holland ad-libbed his scene at the end. Truly great performance, really put it over the top
Since the thread now has an explicit warning in the title(and seriously, that's all that's required to tell one way or another who's "at fault" - does the thread title have a spoiler warning? If yes, it's the reader's responsibility if they get spoiled, if no, anyone not using spoiler tags is the one being unreasonable - simple, unambiguous, fair):
I'm torn over Loki. On the one hand, it was kind of the perfect way for his character to go out - sort of redeemed-ish, on behalf of his brother, but still a tricky son of a B - and bringing him back runs the risk of making that sacrifice less impactful and that his eventual future end whatever it is wouldn't be as good.
But. It seems like such a waste to put the character through the whole redemption-ish arc just to kill him off as a stakes-raiser. They'd literally just had Thanos beat Hulk to a pulp and kill Heimdall, the audience already grasps that he's super powerful and a total dick, offing Loki as well seems unnecessary. I'd probably have preferred if the whole "fealty feint" bit was a hologram, and actual-Loki did one of his smirky half-apology things to Thor and portaled away or something like that.
It does occur to me that discussion of even the title of any Marvel film between now and Avengers 4 will be a spoiler.
Anyway, I enjoyed this film. I wasn't so keen on the way the different characters were split up - it jumped around a little too much for me - but that's only a niggle. I'm not going to bother worrying about who will stay dead and who won't - I don't really mind one way or the other, as long as the next film is decent.
I like how this film is about Thanos; if you flip it around, it's basically a standard Marvel movie with Thanos as the protagonist; we're just watching it from the point of view of the antagonists, so we think it doesn't have a happy ending.
Spoiler:
Did Nebula escape? or did Thanos or Gamora let her go?
She escaped from Thanos’ ship and joined the fight with Tony on Titan, not that she was much help. The opposite really. Iirc she crashed her ship into Thanos so she’s lacking one currently.
We did see her escape the ship. While Gamora and Thanos were off on Vormir she was being reassembled and then she escaped, sent a distress signal to mantis, and presumably stole a ship.
Took the family to see it yesterday, man what a good movie that was! Right in the middle of it the camera died and so everyone sat around for almost 10 minutes while they got it up and running. I really didnt want to leave that far into the movie. Friggin Thanos baby!
I think the hints are already there that the current outcome they are on, is the only way they could win.
Spoiler:
Doctor Strange messed with the Time stone and saw the only outcome. In the end when he is erased, he told Tony "This was the only way" So I think it's all according to plan right now. Overall, fantastic movie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers_Forever Quite enjoyed it back in the day Its a shame that the MCU hasn't the roster of established villains to put the Thunderbolts on the big screen.
Sasori wrote: I think the hints are already there that the current outcome they are on, is the only way they could win.
Spoiler:
Doctor Strange messed with the Time stone and saw the only outcome. In the end when he is erased, he told Tony "This was the only way" So I think it's all according to plan right now. Overall, fantastic movie.
Agreed. Seeing how spoiler tags aren’t needed anymore...I’m going with the musings that all the outcomes they failed (or at least most of them) had a dead Iron Man. The single outcome where they won required Iron Man to be alive.
I think this was my favorite over-all. They made Thanos an incredible character; he’s not just a crazy guy obsessed with getting in Death’s pants anymore. He’s a mass murderer, but he truly believes that what he is doing is for the good of the entire universe. And given how troubling over-population is, he isn’t entirely wrong. The universe needed a man to make a hard choice. He did it, and also sacrificed the ONLY a thing he ever loved in order to do it. This movie did Thanos more justice than any other Marvel media. Thoroughly amazing. My only beef was the lack of Hawkeye.
Sasori wrote: I think the hints are already there that the current outcome they are on, is the only way they could win.
Spoiler:
Doctor Strange messed with the Time stone and saw the only outcome. In the end when he is erased, he told Tony "This was the only way" So I think it's all according to plan right now. Overall, fantastic movie.
Agreed. Seeing how spoiler tags aren’t needed anymore...I’m going with the musings that all the outcomes they failed (or at least most of them) had a dead Iron Man. The single outcome where they won required Iron Man to be alive.
I think this was my favorite over-all. They made Thanos an incredible character; he’s not just a crazy guy obsessed with getting in Death’s pants anymore. He’s a mass murderer, but he truly believes that what he is doing is for the good of the entire universe. And given how troubling over-population is, he isn’t entirely wrong. The universe needed a man to make a hard choice. He did it, and also sacrificed the ONLY a thing he ever loved in order to do it. This movie did Thanos more justice than any other Marvel media. Thoroughly amazing. My only beef was the lack of Hawkeye.
I agree that they did a great job with Thanos. They avoided the pitfalls with Ultron, where they made a character with great personality, but took away his menace, and provided a character you can sympathize with.
Watching the movie, while fun, I was perplexed by several issues, these may be oveboars but they stick out to me
Spoiler:
First, what is with Thanos and this "half of life must die" thing? I get his thing was originally for Death, but as is in the movie, it makes no sense. Killing off half of all life for "balance" is a stupid idea. It assumes theres imbalance everywhere in the first place, which is almost certainly not true, and killing half of everything randomly isnt going to return to any sort of balance (especially in outliers that are more negatively or positively hit by the randomness), and well...life reproduces fast...he's gonna have to keep flicking his fingers every few years. None of that makes any sense.
Three times an infinity stone is given up in like 60 seconds or less with the most cursory of torture by Thanos of people's friends/family. Loki, Strange and Gamora all do this. People who know exactly what Thanos will do, how powerful these items are, etc, and they roll over rather disturbingly quickly.
With Dr.Strange...he has the Infinity stone for time...he can control and command causality, as Thanos clearly displays at the end...and never uses it for much of...anything? One would think that would be an ultimate trump card when the fundamental nature of cause and effect are bound to your whim.
The Wakanda battle made little sense also. It was cool to see all the hand to hand fighting, but a modern military would have just blasted all those gribblies with automatic weapons, artillery, mortars, armor, etc, why would an even more technologically advanced civilization array for battle in preindustrial ranks to fight in melee combat like that?
Actually, more to the point with the Wakanda battle, for all their prattle about "not trading lives", the all sure seemed to be ok with trading lots of Wakandan lives to save Vision...
Finally, why does the Infinity Stones abilities with Thanos seem to mostly manifest in the ability to just punch harder?
I suspect Thanos will come to learn that life doesn't become more fair just because there's less of it. I do kind of find it funny that Thanos presumably disintegrated half the Asguardians, after having his men kill half of them on the ship that consisted of the half that survived Hela. Hopefully the remaining eighth are doing alright.
First, what is with Thanos and this "half of life must die" thing? I get his thing was originally for Death, but as is in the movie, it makes no sense. Killing off half of all life for "balance" is a stupid idea. It assumes theres imbalance everywhere in the first place, which is almost certainly not true, and killing half of everything randomly isnt going to return to any sort of balance (especially in outliers that are more negatively or positively hit by the randomness), and well...life reproduces fast...he's gonna have to keep flicking his fingers every few years. None of that makes any sense.
Thanos can't see that there could be other solutions. It's a limitation of his own mind and his own pride and his own megalomania. He saw what was happening to his own people. He came up with a solution. They called him mad, and then they met the end he predicted they would. To him this was justification. So he expanded his now justified solution to a universal scale but refused to have the universe face the same "inevitable" end that his people did.
Once Thanos has the gauntlet he could do anything. He could double the size of the universe and all it's resources. But he can't see that. All he can see is that he was right before and he won't let anything stop him from being right now.
Three times an infinity stone is given up in like 60 seconds or less with the most cursory of torture by Thanos of people's friends/family. Loki, Strange and Gamora all do this. People who know exactly what Thanos will do, how powerful these items are, etc, and they roll over rather disturbingly quickly.
With Dr.Strange...he has the Infinity stone for time...he can control and command causality, as Thanos clearly displays at the end...and never uses it for much of...anything? One would think that would be an ultimate trump card when the fundamental nature of cause and effect are bound to your whim.
Gamora knew she would be too weak and give it up. This is foreshadowed VERY well when she asks starlord to do her a favor.
Loki legitimately cares about Thor at this point and he thought he could take out Thanos and tried. He was wrong.
Dr. Strange tells Tony... "This was the only way" for a reason. The path they are on now is the only path where they win.
The Wakanda battle made little sense also. It was cool to see all the hand to hand fighting, but a modern military would have just blasted all those gribblies with automatic weapons, artillery, mortars, armor, etc, why would an even more technologically advanced civilization array for battle in preindustrial ranks to fight in melee combat like that?
A more technologically advanced people who do not and have not participated in a war since preindustrial times.
Actually, more to the point with the Wakanda battle, for all their prattle about "not trading lives", the all sure seemed to be ok with trading lots of Wakandan lives to save Vision...
They are not trying to trade lives. Their intent to to hold the barrier. And killing vision to get rid of the stone wouldn't stop Thanos's army. It would just get Thanos doing it the old hard way again. That battle was happening regardless. So you either kill your friend to stop the gauntlet from being completed and then fight for your lives in the war for half your species or you fight the war for half your species while trying to save your friend and eliminate the potential for the gauntlet.
Finally, why does the Infinity Stones abilities with Thanos seem to mostly manifest in the ability to just punch harder?
A limitation of Thanos himself. I suspect that he mostly doesn't WANT to be in fights and be flashy and showy with it. Every time he gets really creative with the gems is either when he first gets it (the reality stone) or when hes facing someone/s who are giving him a real run (the titan fight particularly vs Strange).
I’m curious how they’re going to resolve the snap in Agents of Shield. They’ve directly referenced that the events of the movie are currently unfolding on the show, stating that Thanos’ forces were attacking the planet elsewhere at this very moment.
Finally, why does the Infinity Stones abilities with Thanos seem to mostly manifest in the ability to just punch harder?
A limitation of Thanos himself. I suspect that he mostly doesn't WANT to be in fights and be flashy and showy with it. Every time he gets really creative with the gems is either when he first gets it (the reality stone) or when hes facing someone/s who are giving him a real run (the titan fight particularly vs Strange).
It's more or less established immediately that Thanos is relishing the opportunity to get flex his muscles again and legitimately enjoys the fight. He fights the way he does because he doesn't really believe any of his opponents stand a chance. The only time that almost proves untrue is when he faces team of highly coordinated opponents essentially controlling time.
With Dr.Strange...he has the Infinity stone for time...he can control and command causality, as Thanos clearly displays at the end...and never uses it for much of...anything? One would think that would be an ultimate trump card when the fundamental nature of cause and effect are bound to your whim.
He actually does this. He checks through millions of causality scenarios, rewinds time and tries different things over and over until he finds something that results in a "win". It's just explained to us that all of these time alterations have already happened and then we get to see the best possible scenario play out.
Finally, why does the Infinity Stones abilities with Thanos seem to mostly manifest in the ability to just punch harder?
A limitation of Thanos himself. I suspect that he mostly doesn't WANT to be in fights and be flashy and showy with it. Every time he gets really creative with the gems is either when he first gets it (the reality stone) or when hes facing someone/s who are giving him a real run (the titan fight particularly vs Strange).
It's more or less established immediately that Thanos is relishing the opportunity to get flex his muscles again and legitimately enjoys the fight. He fights the way he does because he doesn't really believe any of his opponents stand a chance. The only time that almost proves untrue is when he faces team of highly coordinated opponents essentially controlling time.
There's also the possibility he may not know how to fully make use of the stones' power. Gaining godlike powers doesn't necessarily grant the godlike knowledge/experience required to make full use of them. You may know how to drive, and drive fairly well, but could you suddenly win a NASCAR race tomorrow even if I gave you the best car? In general, you stick to what you know.
Dr. Strange tells Tony... "This was the only way" for a reason. The path they are on now is the only path where they win.
I have a suspicion that Strange saved Stark on Titan because "the only way" requires him to die later, making the "sacrifice play" for real, maybe even specifically to save Cap because everyone expects him to be the main "big name" real-casualty after Avengers 4. The fact Downey now apparently has a spot free in 2019/2020 to film Sherlock Holmes 3 after seven years of putting it off makes me a bit more certain of the idea than I was previously.
Dr. Strange tells Tony... "This was the only way" for a reason. The path they are on now is the only path where they win.
I have a suspicion that Strange saved Stark on Titan because "the only way" requires him to die later, making the "sacrifice play" for real, maybe even specifically to save Cap because everyone expects him to be the main "big name" real-casualty after Avengers 4. The fact Downey now apparently has a spot free in 2019/2020 to film Sherlock Holmes 3 after seven years of putting it off makes me a bit more certain of the idea than I was previously.
I dunno.
In the comics Nebula ends up with the Gauntlet. And Nebula is still around.
I could see Nebula getting it and trading a soul for a soul to restore Gamora as she undoes everything Thanos did but becoming the soul inside the gem herself. Then Nebula kind of takes on the Death role from the comics, with Thanos having the soul stone but being unable to use it for anything as Nebula silently refuses to acknowledge him.
The Empire Film Podcast spoiler special advanced the theory that the people you should worry about are the ones who didn't turn to dust - they're quite likely to be brought back by wibbly magic, while the ones left standing at the end of this film could well be the ones to die in the process.
Dr. Strange tells Tony... "This was the only way" for a reason. The path they are on now is the only path where they win.
I have a suspicion that Strange saved Stark on Titan because "the only way" requires him to die later, making the "sacrifice play" for real, maybe even specifically to save Cap because everyone expects him to be the main "big name" real-casualty after Avengers 4. The fact Downey now apparently has a spot free in 2019/2020 to film Sherlock Holmes 3 after seven years of putting it off makes me a bit more certain of the idea than I was previously.
I dunno.
In the comics Nebula ends up with the Gauntlet. And Nebula is still around.
I could see Nebula getting it and trading a soul for a soul to restore Gamora as she undoes everything Thanos did but becoming the soul inside the gem herself. Then Nebula kind of takes on the Death role from the comics, with Thanos having the soul stone but being unable to use it for anything as Nebula silently refuses to acknowledge him.
Oh I wasn't suggesting Stark would wield the gauntlet or anything, just that whatever the one good outcome turns out to be, it requires him to die. I also think that's why they really laboured over Peter's death scene, to make sure Stark is 1000% in the mindset of "I will do anything to fix this".
I read theories that everyone who turned to dust is inside the soul stone. So when he’s defeated, they’ll all hop out. And agree that given her role in the comics, Nebula has a big part to play in the next movie. I expect Tony and Cap to both die, Banner and Hulk to separate completely, Black Widow and Banner retire while Hulk joins Thor as his right hand in a rebuilt Asgard. And the second coming of the Avengers take center stage.
I kinda wonder why any of the major heros have to die. So what if contracts are up. They've thrown money at RDJ to appear in additional parts, and who says it's not worth having these guys show up from time to time down the road? I don't think there will be as many deaths as people are expecting in A4. I think it will close some chapters maybe, but regardless of who they introduce into the MCU, kids are still going to like and want to see most of these heros as they are portrayed. Bucky might be a Captain America, but he is no Steve Rogers, as evidence in the comics.
KTG17 wrote: I kinda wonder why any of the major heros have to die. So what if contracts are up. They've thrown money at RDJ to appear in additional parts, and who says it's not worth having these guys show up from time to time down the road? I don't think there will be as many deaths as people are expecting in A4. I think it will close some chapters maybe, but regardless of who they introduce into the MCU, kids are still going to like and want to see most of these heros as they are portrayed. Bucky might be a Captain America, but he is no Steve Rogers, as evidence in the comics.
It might be more about the actors themselves wanting out. Hemsworth has actually developed a fairly high profile career outside of Marvel and may want that chapter "ended" so people don't keep asking for him back (see Harrison Ford and Star Wars). If Loki stays down assume it's cause Hiddleston wanted to. Same with Chris Evans who hasn't really had a solo movie since his first one. The Cap movies have basically already been mini-avengers movies anyway and maybe he's kinda done too. RDJ is one of the glues of the MCU but he doesn't have to get into the same shape as the Chris's to play his part so it's definitely easier on him. Plus they back up loads of money for him. He had to help fight to get the other original avengers more cash.
I think we'll see Cap go down as it makes the most sense. Stark won't simply because he is a glue and the potential for future banter with him and Strange given they both live in NYC plus Parker is huge. Thor will become Odin and maybe someone else from Asgard will step into an avenger role in the future. It would be interesting to see Stark after Cap goes down. Since day one of the Avengers Cap has kinda been Tony's counter weight with the group and a bit of a rock for him personally to hold onto in a storm.
It is also more satisfying to "close out" the characters on screen somehow while the actors are still willing, rather than just have them not be around for "reasons"
AndrewGPaul wrote: The Empire Film Podcast spoiler special advanced the theory that the people you should worry about are the ones who didn't turn to dust - they're quite likely to be brought back by wibbly magic, while the ones left standing at the end of this film could well be the ones to die in the process.
I'm personally trying to get away from using the "in the comics" reference for speculation. Marvel has been shockingly good at staying true to the spirit of the comics, but never telling the story in a way that knowledge of the comics really acts as any sort of insider knowledge as to what happens. I'm not expecting the movies to adapt the comic stories in any specific way anymore. They are very much doing their own thing.
Chris Evans has said that outside of being Cap he doesn't want to act anymore. He wants to direct.
If after the close of A4 Disney gives him the chance to direct I wouldn't be surprised if we got little Captain America cameos here or there while the universe moves forward. I don't think the character will die but I could see the character take a back seat. I also think it's only a matter of time before a lot of these characters are just recast.
I’d rather see some torch passing rather than recasting. Leaves it open for a surprise team up of both versions of the character as well.
Pass the Captain America mantle to Bucky (which might have been the original plan with his 9 picture contract) or Falcon rather than recast Steve Rogers.
KTG17 wrote: I kinda wonder why any of the major heros have to die. So what if contracts are up. They've thrown money at RDJ to appear in additional parts, and who says it's not worth having these guys show up from time to time down the road? I don't think there will be as many deaths as people are expecting in A4. I think it will close some chapters maybe, but regardless of who they introduce into the MCU, kids are still going to like and want to see most of these heros as they are portrayed. Bucky might be a Captain America, but he is no Steve Rogers, as evidence in the comics.
It might be more about the actors themselves wanting out. Hemsworth has actually developed a fairly high profile career outside of Marvel and may want that chapter "ended" so people don't keep asking for him back (see Harrison Ford and Star Wars). If Loki stays down assume it's cause Hiddleston wanted to. Same with Chris Evans who hasn't really had a solo movie since his first one. The Cap movies have basically already been mini-avengers movies anyway and maybe he's kinda done too. RDJ is one of the glues of the MCU but he doesn't have to get into the same shape as the Chris's to play his part so it's definitely easier on him. Plus they back up loads of money for him. He had to help fight to get the other original avengers more cash.
I though Hemsworth was back on board with Thor post-Ragnarok, now the character is more a cosmic comedy-drama affair than the more po-faced version of the first two?
I think we'll see Cap go down as it makes the most sense. Stark won't simply because he is a glue and the potential for future banter with him and Strange given they both live in NYC plus Parker is huge. Thor will become Odin and maybe someone else from Asgard will step into an avenger role in the future. It would be interesting to see Stark after Cap goes down. Since day one of the Avengers Cap has kinda been Tony's counter weight with the group and a bit of a rock for him personally to hold onto in a storm.
Hmm, you could be right. It just seems like they did an awful lot of work to set Stark up for self-sacrifice, but that could be another fakeout.
When I read about it the whole "Lady Thor" thing in the comics it sounded just really, really dumb, but if it's an Asgardian who takes on the mantle rather than just a rando human who happens to be Thor's girlfriend...I could totally get behind a Tessa Thompson/Valkyrie version of Thor with Miek and Korg as sidekicks and Hemsworth doing smaller parts as nuOdin.
I also agree that torch-passing beats recasting. I mean seriously, RDJ is Stark, Evans is Cap, in the sense that they've embodied such definitive versions of those characters on screen that I don't think you could get away with recasting them until the generation of fans who saw their runs in the roles are crusty old folk who'll grumble that the new version isn't as good regardless of who they cast(ie, people the new generation of viewers are likely to ignore). Casting is another part of the formula that Marvel have just nailed, right to the fething wall - the downside of that being once an actor wants to leave or ages out of a part, you really do have to retire the version of the hero they're playing as well.
It's not entirely true. Just as an example, The Tony Stark in the comics is NOT the original tony stark. The original tony stark ended up being a mind controlled plant for Kang the Conqueror and the avengers went back in time and bought forward a teenaged tony to help defeat his older self.
Then Onslaught happened and thus heroes reborn, where cap, hulk, thor, ironman, and the fantastic 4 all got put into pocket dimensions and effectively made into entirely new different people. The heroes we got out of heroes reborn are not the people who went in.
Events can happen in the movies to justify recasts.
I am not saying it would be easy. Just that it's possible. They would need to be REAL careful with who they cast.
Anyone else heard the rumor that in Avengers 4 Nebula, the Purple Man and Malekith will try to use the Time Gem to fix things, only to discover it's a 'fixed point' and cannot be altered?
Lance845 wrote: It's not entirely true. Just as an example, The Tony Stark in the comics is NOT the original tony stark. The original tony stark ended up being a mind controlled plant for Kang the Conqueror and the avengers went back in time and bought forward a teenaged tony to help defeat his older self.
Then Onslaught happened and thus heroes reborn, where cap, hulk, thor, ironman, and the fantastic 4 all got put into pocket dimensions and effectively made into entirely new different people. The heroes we got out of heroes reborn are not the people who went in.
Events can happen in the movies to justify recasts.
I am not saying it would be easy. Just that it's possible. They would need to be REAL careful with who they cast.
That would be really, really bad IMO. What's made the MCU so successful, apart from being just generally decent quality action films that are fun to watch, is that it gives audiences all the good bits of comics without all the bad bits, like pointlessly convoluted timey-wimey dimensional backflipping used pretty much entirely to "reset" characters so they can keep them as almost the same people regardless of how much time passes IRL. When they start pulling nonsense like that is when I peace out.
They've done some trivial recasting, Rodney/War Machine being the only one any sane person would notice. I liked how they did it too, 'It's me just roll with it' or something like that.
Oh and Hulk I suppose but no one wants to remember either Hulk movie.
I'd be interested in seeing what happens if one fine day Thor shows up and it's Dwane Johnson or whoever.
Which makes a certain amount of sense. They've already shown an audience appetite for a wide range of tones within the MCU - the classic comparison of course being GotG and Winter Soldier. One is a space based laff-a-thon, the other a surprisingly gritty thriller. And both made big money for the studio.
Now exactly where they go with that? Well, who knows! But it does suggest they're looking to get new talent aboard (can you imagine the money the current stars would command when renegotiating their contracts?)
However, Iger did throw in something we didn’t know: “I’m guessing we will try our hand at what I’ll call a new franchise beyond Avengers, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t see more Avengers down the road. We just haven’t made any announcements about that”.
Marvel has been doing the baton-passing thing since at least the 80s, when Rhodes became Iron Man (later spun off as Warmachine). Not hard to see Falcon or Winter Soldier become Captain America (both have had the role in comics) or even luring Natalie Portman back to be Thor.
And if the rumor about getting Fox comes true... well that's X-men and their infinite spin offs right there.
I think Sony still has the Fantastic Four and Spider-spin-offs, is there anyone else Marvel/Disney would be missing?
I don’t think the Falcon Cap thing went over super well in the comics, I think they’d go the Bucky route in the movies. I also don’t think they’ve laid enough character groundwork to do a Jane Foster Thor either.
One thing to keep in mind with torch passing is that several of the actors who have talked about maybe wanting to be done with the roles is because of how physically demanding they can be how they’re getting older. Most all the obvious torch recievers have been around just as long and ain’t really any younger.
And we are entering the 11th year of the MCU in 2019. That's a long old time to be in Thor Shape, for instance.
But hey, no need for another Thor - there's literally hundreds of other Avengers to choose from. Provided we retain a couple of 'anchor' characters, and get the odd cameo, anyone can be dropped in, no?
Fox has F4 rights, not Sony. That abomination of a film with MBJ as Torch was for Fox to hang onto the rights. They threw gak at a wall to keep it. Nothing more. However, with talks from a few months ago, it sounds like they’re ready to hand stuff back to Marvel. Fingers crossed.
And it's the spinning money out of relative straw that's Marvel's biggest strength here.
Never mind 2nd and 3rd Tier characters - who'd actually heard of GotG before their film? Seriously? Hands up.
That gives them a certain creative freedom. So Starlord isn't quite the Starlord in the comics. Outside of a handful of the hardest of hardcore nerds, nobody is going to know or care about the difference. Superman? Well, you can't have him suddenly become a wisecracking surf bum, to pick an incongruous example for literary effect.
Marvel have hundreds of characters that can be nothing like their comic book counterparts on the big screen, and nobody will really give a flip provided the movie itself is good, and the screen character is compelling.
DC can do this of course. But seem to lack the nerve, preferring to rely on well trodden characters.
-Loki- wrote: I’d rather see some torch passing rather than recasting. Leaves it open for a surprise team up of both versions of the character as well.
Pass the Captain America mantle to Bucky (which might have been the original plan with his 9 picture contract) or Falcon rather than recast Steve Rogers.
Well, I like Sebastian Stan, I think he makes an awesome Winter Soldier, but as a brooding Captain America? I think he lacks the harisma. And what do you do with him? Put him in Captain America 4? Its not that I wouldn't watch it, but the bar has been set so high at this point I am not sure what it will really add to the universe. Are you only going to use him in group movies? Knock down Captain America from an A-List hero to a B-List? So I am ok with Steve Rogers taking a break and then showing back up at some point. As a matter of fact, if he were to come back 5 years from now for some support role, people would go nuts.
And while Disney no doubt would like to explore other hero groups and stories, I don't see them walking away from the Avengers. These movies are pulling in a billion dollars each. Disney has stockholders to answer to. Unless they are able to plow ahead with X-Men and maybe FF, I don't see another super hero team pulling in worldwide audiences.
Then again, I had no clue about Guardians of the Galaxy prior to the movie, and reading up on them I thought they were slowed. Halfway through the movie I discovered I had a giant grin on my face and it remained for the rest of the movie. And they are my favorite team. So I am sure Marvel will still succeed, but just not sure they should cut off the very thing that got them their success to begin with. So I think they should leave the door open.
** 'slowed'. . . really? For the record that isn't what I posted.
That's because using the word 'r e t a are d e d' in that way is really something you should stop doing?
Anyway, Disney acquired the rights to all (most?) of Fox's TV/Movie properties a while back, and I think most of the I's are now being dotted, and the T's are being crossed.
Fingers crossed that we FINALLY get a good FF movie too...
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Anyone else heard the rumor that in Avengers 4 Nebula, the Purple Man and Malekith will try to use the Time Gem to fix things, only to discover it's a 'fixed point' and cannot be altered?
Never mind 2nd and 3rd Tier characters - who'd actually heard of GotG before their film? Seriously? Hands up.
Ooo ooo me! But that's largely the coincidence of getting back into comics just as Annihilation/Sinestro Corps War was making all things cosmic all things awesome and just sort of floundering into the book because that's where the story went.
I do think overall focusing on new characters and letting the greats remain great as background/cameo roles is the way forward. They did a great job of this in Homecoming.
I don't think they've done any work to make a mantle passing make sense. Buckey, Jane, and Rhodney's stories have largely moved them down paths away from the sidekick role and none of them have been put in a place to replace anybody. Really, what's going to matter is where they decide to take things post Thanos. They've shown the ability to organically form "Avengers" teams out of whatever characters are lying around, so its really just a question of what overarching plot they decide to push once the gems have had their films.
Compel wrote: Considering Dan Abnett, we're probably in a better place than elsewhere to recognise the Guardians pre films anyway.
Weirdly, I'd not heard of the guy pre-Annihilation, but that's more to do with my interest in table top gaming resurfacing about the same time my interest in comics did.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Anyone else heard the rumor that in Avengers 4 Nebula, the Purple Man and Malekith will try to use the Time Gem to fix things, only to discover it's a 'fixed point' and cannot be altered?
Just me then...
With the rumor of time travel based on set pictures leaked from Avengers 4, I suspect that any attempts to change things won't work out too well. My personal theory here is that as long as Thanos has the time stone (or perhaps even any of the stones), he will be immune to any changes to the timeline. Even if they go back and kill a baby Thanos, for example, Infinity-Gauntlet-Wielding-Thanos will be "buffered" from the new timeline, he'll know that things were changed, and he can just snap his fingers again or use the time stone to undo the changes. That's why I think any time travel shenanigans may involve somehow sabotaging the stones before Thanos gets them, or changing the rules by which the things work so that the "snap" can be undone after it's happened.
I knew of rocket groot and gamora. But not in any way where I knew anything about the character. Just I knew there was a green lady bad ass from space, a talking racoon with large guns and a tree.
Shrugged it all off as "Comics are often dumb' and went about my business.
Lance845 wrote: I knew of rocket groot and gamora. But not in any way where I knew anything about the character. Just I knew there was a green lady bad ass from space, a talking racoon with large guns and a tree.
Shrugged it all off as "Comics are often dumb' and went about my business.
Avengers 4 is going to close the book on the current arc of the team set up in Infinity War and pave the way for a new superhero franchise in the Marvel universe, according to Disney CEO Bob Iger. But that doesn't mean we won't see more Avengers movies at some point.
"We meet on a regular basis with our Marvel team, and we've plotted out Marvel movies that will take us well into the next decade," Iger said in an investment call, reports THR. "I'm guessing we will try our hand at what I'll call a new franchise beyond Avengers, but that doesn't necessarily mean you won't see more Avengers down the road. We just haven't made any announcements about that." He went on to say that "given the popularity of the characters and given the popularity of the franchise, I don't think people should conclude there will never be another Avengers movie."
Even if your interactions are more recent they are dumb.
Aunt May gets shot by a regular gun with a regular bullet. Peter Parker goes to Reed Richards for help and he can't clone her a new liver, or perform a surgery, or do anything to keep her alive. Instead he cuts a deal with Mephisto, the actual devil, to save her life.
Are you kidding me?
Comics are often dumb.
Are you aware of Draxx the destroyers history? He was originally a failed Jazz musician from earth.
Dumb.
Do you know how professor X originally lost the use of his legs? The Devil dropped a boulder on him.
The MCU has done a great job of pulling the really good story out of the core of the comic book stories and refining it into something real great 95% of the time. But if you actually go to the source material it's more often than not either rushed to pack the story into a certain number of issues, or spread across so many different series that the story is near impossible to follow or just includes such dumb characters and plots and it's mostly nonsense.
I love comics. But every time i hear about another "That time the Punisher was black" or "Frankencastle" I am reminded of just what a small % of the comics are actually good.
LunarSol wrote: The funny parts are when ideas as bad as Frankencastle actually work (admittedly, Frankencastle did... not)
On that note, is Jubilee still a vampire?
Lol... yes. Also dumb.
However, when the x-men were getting ready to defend Utopia against Dracula's army of vampires (that whole sentence is dumb) it WAS really great when Nightcrawler (an ordained priest) blessed Iceman so he was made of holy water to fight them. That bit was amazing and genius.
Really, there are very very few X-Men stories that you can describe to someone without sounding like a complete lunatic. As much as people love the characters and love their theme of being an oppressed minority, their actual adventures and lore are some of the hardest things to take seriously in all of comics.
LunarSol wrote: Really, there are very very few X-Men stories that you can describe to someone without sounding like a complete lunatic. As much as people love the characters and love their theme of being an oppressed minority, their actual adventures and lore are some of the hardest things to take seriously in all of comics.
Yeah... I am actually dreading their introduction into the MCU...
The X Men have no small conflicts. It's all time travel, and opening portals into hell in the middle of NYC, and apocalypse and Magneto being global terrorist threats that are stopped by a team of 5 teenagers. A magical giant space firebird coming to earth and causing all kinds of problems. Or the government funding a project to build 4 story tall robots to hunt 15% of the population.
What sense does any of that make in a world where the avengers and/or just Captain America exists and for some reason they are all absent? Bobby Drake and Kitty Pride are 2 of my favorite Marvel characters but hell.... their major and key storylines are so insane...
Also, is anyone else aware that Psylocke is a British teenager and Captain Brittan's little sister who had her mind transferred into the body of an Asian mutant and then they just decided to leave her that way? YUP!
Remember that time they had to go stop alien death star from blowing up the Earth to unblock their view of Venus, but then they found out the whole planet was a starkiller gun that blew itself up to fire a giant illudium pu-36 space modulator bullet that Kitty had to phase through the planet faster than any ship could catch nd spent eternity flying through space until we found out that Magneto spent his days off subtly altering its orbit until it got close enough to Earth to pull her out so she could rescue some monks that he'd locked in the closet to find her?
Or that time the first mutant ever came back and raised the dead of every mutant that ever died from the legacy virus (thousands upon thousands of mutants) into a giant army of undead mutants going on a rampage and the rest of the world just didn't notice?
Good times. It was nice seeing pyro again for a moment though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh yeah, and if you wanted another example of comics being dumb. Black Bolts actual name is Blackagar Boltagon.
LunarSol wrote: The funny parts are when ideas as bad as Frankencastle actually work (admittedly, Frankencastle did... not)
On that note, is Jubilee still a vampire?
Lol... yes. Also dumb.
However, when the x-men were getting ready to defend Utopia against Dracula's army of vampires (that whole sentence is dumb) it WAS really great when Nightcrawler (an ordained priest) blessed Iceman so he was made of holy water to fight them. That bit was amazing and genius.
Was that before or after the revelation that he wasn't actually a priest, that had actually been hypnotic programming by the mutant-hating Church of Humanity who wanted him to become the Pope and then expose his devil-like true form in public so that it would cause massive panic, turn the faithful against mutants, and let the CoH bring about a fake Rapture with exploding communion wafers, so they could take over the world?
(Yes, I know the Rapture isn't part of Catholic dogma. Chuck Austen didn't.)
Right. Which is why i said im kind of dreading disney aquiring the xmen. Im unsure how you stay fairhful to their stories without everything going bananas.
The best thing to ever happen to the mcu was to not have access to the mutants when they got started.
Not sure how they'd fit in characters like Professor X and Magneto since both of them are old AND powerful and have somehow not intervened in anything so far.
Unless they take it from the angle that they chose not to but the Infinity War was the last straw.
trexmeyer wrote: Not sure how they'd fit in characters like Professor X and Magneto since both of them are old AND powerful and have somehow not intervened in anything so far.
Unless they take it from the angle that they chose not to but the Infinity War was the last straw.
Super easy actually. The same way they would have to address how no mutants have intervened in any events in the MCU thus far:
Alternate dimensions.
With Dr Strange in the mix and the Multiverse a possibility, the MCU could easily introduce all X-men as existing in a parallel Earth that doesn't have the Avengers.
They could even do this as early as the conclusion of Infinity War. Somehow using the stones to reverse Thanos' snap and merge the 2 universes
Maybe everyone who disappeared went to the X-men universe?
I really hope they merge universes rather than start them fresh for the X-men at least. That would allow them to use the already established actors from the X-men franchise. Hugh Jackman has already stated that he would be down with portraying Wolverine again as long as it was in the MCU.
Can you imagine seeing RDJ and HJ on screen at the same time as their respective long running characters? Pure awesome.
LunarSol wrote: The funny parts are when ideas as bad as Frankencastle actually work (admittedly, Frankencastle did... not)
On that note, is Jubilee still a vampire?
Lol... yes. Also dumb.
However, when the x-men were getting ready to defend Utopia against Dracula's army of vampires (that whole sentence is dumb) it WAS really great when Nightcrawler (an ordained priest) blessed Iceman so he was made of holy water to fight them. That bit was amazing and genius.
That is beyond fething awesome, and brilliant. Nightcrawler is one of the best characters to come out of X-Men. He and Colossus are really what sold me on X-Men back when I was a kid. They both embodied they idea that there was more to them than what was seen on the surface, and remained some of my favorite characters. Of course, it turns out Colossus became a bit of an ass-hat later, which was a disappointment. But Nightcrawler has remained epic.
Original flavor Jean Grey died back with the dark pheonix and was never resurrected. Every time people thought she came back to life she didn't. It was a clone or some other bull crap.
However, Cyclops went off the deep end and became kind of a new Magneto. Becoming more and more extreme in his protection of mutants. Beast went back in time and grabbed the original teenager team (beast pre blue hair, iceman as a snowman, angle, marvel girl Jean and Cyclops) and bought them to the present because Iceman made a comment like "Man... if Cyclops when we got started could see himself now, he'd kick his own ass." and also because Beast was dying from a 3rd stage mutation that was unstable or some crap. He figured he would try to set his friend strait before he kicked the bucket.
So the time displaced teenagers showed up and decided to stick around. Teen Jean is kicking around with the others and teen beast worked with some other people to help stabilize Beast so he managed to pull through but went from cat-like beast to a now more ape-like beast.
Cat like Beast? Eugh. When did that happen? Also, how did the teen X-Mean deal with learning about Madeline Prior, Rachel Grey, Nathan Grey and Vulcan/Scott Summers?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Cat like Beast? Eugh. When did that happen? Also, how did the teen X-Mean deal with learning about Madeline Prior, Rachel Grey, Nathan Grey and Vulcan/Scott Summers?
He had been like this for quite a few year now.
And became this
A year or 2 (maybe 3?) ago
Teen Jean read peoples minds to find out what happened to them. She was shocked and pissed at how fethed most of them became. With all the gak that happened to Angle over the years (Warren Worthington was full dead at this point with his body having the metal archangle wings but normal skin/hair and being a whole new person), beast dieing, cyclops becoming a magneto (also cyclops as a dark pheonix killed professor x), and iceman being pretty much the only normal ish one out of the whole original lot.
They found out all the fethed up stuff professor x has done over the years including wiping their own memories repeatedly.
Again, mostly just really pissed. They decided to stay here and fix their future instead of return to a past where they knew professor x would just mind wipe them again. Now they are basically stuck here since their past no longer exists after some other crap.
There’s so many artistic variations on X-men characters I got over cat beast pretty quick. There have been way worse designs over the 90s I mean years.
Cyclops didn’t kill Xavier either. He killed a Shi’Ar clone of Xavier because Xavier died in the 80s when he was infested by a Brood Queen. The Xavier that had existed for almost 30 years was a clone.
Apparently this is true. Just read the wikis on it. must be stories from within the last yearish.
Nobody stays dead in comics except Uncle Ben. Always remember that.
It wasn't so long ago that was "nobody except Uncle Ben and Bucky".
Uncle Ben Bucky and Jason Todd.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is what I am hoping for.
Reverse finger snap. The stones bring back everyone.
Since it was one of the stones that awoke the powers in Scarlett witch and quicksilver I could see the finger snap being the trigger that awakens the x gene in those returned.
Obviously not all 50%. But maybe 10% of the 50%? So 5% of the earths population suddenly has their x gene activated and powers start popping up all over the place.
Have the government respond by trying to seal them all up. Cause fear of what you don't understand. Have Magneto be one of the people who is placed in the internment camps or whatever. Have them get mistreated, have him break out and start the homo superior movement.
Have Prof X try to get the teens and hide them and teach them.
You can update the characters to take place in the modern day without them being 100 years old. It sucks kind of to get rid of Magnetos WWII history but it's needed if your going to introduce them now.
It's the best possible way to kick off the x men in the current MCU and start them off right. Younger with long contracts and good casting. The next 10 years of marvel movies can be a big build up of the anti mutant crap.
As for the fantastic 4. Set their movie in the 60s. Have the accident mimic the ultimate one. It's a dimensional portal. Doom is there as a teen with the others. Doom does not go with them. They get their powers, they fight their way through the negative zone with Annihilus being the bad guy (set up for the Annihilation Wave later). When they get out time is different in the neg zone from the normal world. They step out into the modern day. Dr. Doom can be adult, fully formed, owns latveria doom in the armor with the magic while also getting fun teen FF who can become friends with spider man. They can be saying groovy and other 60s gak and it will be fun. Post credits a shot of Doom watching the news of the FF coming back "Kids missing since the 60s reemerge in NYC!" he shakes his gauntleted fist at the screen "Richards!"
Isn't it sad that the closest any movie has come to getting Dr. Doom "right" was that unreleased FF movie from the 90's? I mean, how hard is it to get Doom right?
I quite like Whedon and I'm not sure what he did to sour the internet against him so as of late, but he is sort of the Bendis of film. Both finding a lot of success in their character dynamics and both getting flack when existing characters get stretched to fill roles that don't quite fit them.
The trouble with Whedon is that he made one great film that no one thought could be done, in Avengers Assemble....
Then he made the same film again, but slightly worse, in Age of Ultron...
Then he took the leftovers from both of those, sellotaped them together, changed the names and called it a day in Justice League.
Basically, he's made the same thing three times, each iteration being slightly worse than the one that came before it. The MCU owes him a great debt for establishing its tone and style, but I'd be equally happy if he never wrote a comic book movie again.
Well the reason the internet in general hates him is because he got called out for abusing his actors on set. LIke, if someone made suggestions about their character that he didn't like or female actresses didn't do him "favors" he would reduce their part to a single scene an episode for a season. That demon chick towards the end of Buffy for example.
But me, Ive disliked him for years. His writing STAFF can help bring out good characters, but Whedon himself turns every person into a 2 dimensional single personality trait. Look at the difference between Firefly the show and Serentiy the movie. The character depth goes WAY down. And he talks a big game about strong female leads, but they have all been experimented on, or have super powers, or whatever. In his head strong means they can beat up the rest of the cast, not having any actual character too them.
Want another good example of Whedons writing talent? He's the writer of Alien Resurrection. It's super obvious once you know it.
THIS guys in a wheel chair, and THIS guys the black one, and THIS guy is the mean one, and Ripley has super powers and everyone has a super special weapon thats just theirs because if their 1 personality trait wasn't enough to make them stand out then a signature weapon just might do it! Character depth went all to gak in that movie. I wonder why?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: The trouble with Whedon is that he made one great film that no one thought could be done, in Avengers Assemble....
Then he made the same film again, but slightly worse, in Age of Ultron...
Then he took the leftovers from both of those, sellotaped them together, changed the names and called it a day in Justice League.
Basically, he's made the same thing three times, each iteration being slightly worse than the one that came before it. The MCU owes him a great debt for establishing its tone and style, but I'd be equally happy if he never wrote a comic book movie again.
Disagree!
Also he didn't write Justice League. That hot pile of garbage was Zack Snyders fault.
Also he didn't write Justice League. That hot pile of garbage was Zack Snyders fault.
Yeah, I barely associate JL with Whedon. I actually keep forgetting he had anything to do with it given its status as probably the most high profile salvage operation in recent memory.
I have to agree- and look at the progression of his television. Buffy, female gets turned into sex robot.
Angel, every female character dies, gets impregnated by demons, or possessed.
Dollhouse- every female character STARTS as mindwiped sexbots.
Firefly- we have mindwiped experiment, mostly personalityless soldier, the prostitute, and the cheerful mechanic.
Some of his stuff is great, but he really doesn't deserve his reputation for strong female characters- that was just Buffy, who he killed more times than a Winchester.
Buffy is one of those shows that really felt like it outlived its premise. It felt like they decided to go out on the heroic sacrifice and when the show was too popular to end there, really struggled to come up with interesting storylines. Double whammy for being a show that had a high school cast that tried to continue beyond graduation. Still waiting for the show that figures that one out.
Gitzbitah wrote: I have to agree- and look at the progression of his television. Buffy, female gets turned into sex robot.
Angel, every female character dies, gets impregnated by demons, or possessed.
Dollhouse- every female character STARTS as mindwiped sexbots.
Firefly- we have mindwiped experiment, mostly personalityless soldier, the prostitute, and the cheerful mechanic.
Some of his stuff is great, but he really doesn't deserve his reputation for strong female characters- that was just Buffy, who he killed more times than a Winchester.
And when the characters ARE good its only key episodes in a collaborative writing process on tv series. So you can attribute that to the other writers. Whedon on his own produces pure garbage. He can write snappy dialogue, and he can lay the foundation for an interesting world/setting, but his characters are like a 13 year old making dnd characters. You talk more about their class, equipment, and abilities then you do the actual person because there isnt really a person there to talk about.
Wait. What did Whedon get up to with the cast of Buffy? Is that confirmed or just hearsay? I kind of don't want to hate him, but I will if there's evidence.
Lance845 wrote: Also he didn't write Justice League. That hot pile of garbage was Zack Snyders fault.
IIRC, Whedon has a writing credit on JL, which means he's responsible for at least 1/3 of it. The film that made it to theaters *definitely* wasn't 100% Snyder. Whedon shot a bunch of new stuff.
I finally saw Infinity War. It was okay. It was fun seeing all those characters on screen together, and there was certainly tons of spectacle. Sure seemed light on story though, and it's definitely a film that needs you not to think too hard. It was a far cry from Winter Soldier and Black Panther, but I guess the point was the *event* of it all. The score certainly wanted to constantly remind you of how big and epic everything was.
A writing credit can mean a lot of things. There are lots of examples of people getting a writing credit for doing small and trivial things. Sometimes people get a writing credit simply for changing some punctuation and cutting a deal. I am sure Joss changed some dialog and whatever. while negotiating the writing credit as part of being the director so that he could add both to his resume.
But JL did not play out, in any way, like a Whedon enterprise. That was a Snyder flick beginning to end.
Lance845 wrote: A writing credit can mean a lot of things. There are lots of examples of people getting a writing credit for doing small and trivial things. Sometimes people get a writing credit simply for changing some punctuation and cutting a deal. I am sure Joss changed some dialog and whatever. while negotiating the writing credit as part of being the director so that he could add both to his resume.
But JL did not play out, in any way, like a Whedon enterprise. That was a Snyder flick beginning to end.
No. There are rules and a process for this stuff, it's not something that just gets made up. Whedon had a "screenplay by" credit with Chris Terrio. Here's a summary of the writer's guild criteria from Wikipedia:
In the case of an original screenplay, the first writer must contribute more than 33% of the screenplay to receive "screenplay by" credit. Subsequent writers must contribute 50% of the screenplay to receive "screenplay by" credit, unless the subsequent writer is a "production executive" (a producer or director), who must contribute more than 50% of the screenplay to receive "screenplay by" credit. A "non-original screenplay" is a screenplay that is "based upon source material and all other screenplays" that do not qualify as original screenplays, such as sequels.[9] In the case of a non-original screenplay, any writer who contributes more than 33% of the screenplay is entitled to "screenplay by" credit. There is no heightened percentage for production executives.
Screenplay" - for theatrical motion pictures - and "Teleplay" - for television and new media motion pictures - is generally defined as "the final script (as represented on the screen) with individual scenes and full dialogue, together with such prior treatment, basic adaptation, continuity, scenario and dialogue as shall be used in, and represent substantial contributions to, the final script."
JL was a Frankenstein monster of a film, but large chunks of it were absolutely Whedon's.
Lance845 wrote: A writing credit can mean a lot of things. There are lots of examples of people getting a writing credit for doing small and trivial things. Sometimes people get a writing credit simply for changing some punctuation and cutting a deal. I am sure Joss changed some dialog and whatever. while negotiating the writing credit as part of being the director so that he could add both to his resume.
But JL did not play out, in any way, like a Whedon enterprise. That was a Snyder flick beginning to end.
No. There are rules and a process for this stuff, it's not something that just gets made up. Whedon had a "screenplay by" credit with Chris Terrio. Here's a summary of the writer's guild criteria from Wikipedia:
In the case of an original screenplay, the first writer must contribute more than 33% of the screenplay to receive "screenplay by" credit. Subsequent writers must contribute 50% of the screenplay to receive "screenplay by" credit, unless the subsequent writer is a "production executive" (a producer or director), who must contribute more than 50% of the screenplay to receive "screenplay by" credit. A "non-original screenplay" is a screenplay that is "based upon source material and all other screenplays" that do not qualify as original screenplays, such as sequels.[9] In the case of a non-original screenplay, any writer who contributes more than 33% of the screenplay is entitled to "screenplay by" credit. There is no heightened percentage for production executives.
Screenplay" - for theatrical motion pictures - and "Teleplay" - for television and new media motion pictures - is generally defined as "the final script (as represented on the screen) with individual scenes and full dialogue, together with such prior treatment, basic adaptation, continuity, scenario and dialogue as shall be used in, and represent substantial contributions to, the final script."
JL was a Frankenstein monster of a film, but large chunks of it were absolutely Whedon's.
Yeah, except people actually have to complain to the writers guild to have anything done about it.
As an example of a time it failed and the long fight to set things right.
But if all parties involved are happy to give the writing credit to somebody who comes on board late in the game to do reshoots and act as director then there is nobody to raise a flag and no issues to be taken. It's not like Whedon is some bastion of goodness. It's not like WB or DC are either. I get that the writers guild has rules. But if everyone involved doesn't give a gak then it doesn't matter what rules the writers guild has. There are specific payouts for having your name in different parts of the movie. Because it's unions, as standard, Whedon gets paid x for being director + y for a writing credit.
You have to be willingly blind to it if you think people are not tossing around "writing credits" and any other nonsense as parts of deals to act as part of their monetary compensation. Just because it's a rules doesn't mean it isn't bent and or broken.
What do I think Whedon put into JL? I think he did the happy superman boy scout end stuff (it was a little too light for synder). I think he did the pointless cell phone video at the beginning. I think he did some of the dialog exchanges between flash and batman.
Lance845 wrote: Also he didn't write Justice League. That hot pile of garbage was Zack Snyders fault.
IIRC, Whedon has a writing credit on JL, which means he's responsible for at least 1/3 of it. The film that made it to theaters *definitely* wasn't 100% Snyder. Whedon shot a bunch of new stuff.
JL is nothing like what Snyder intended. None of the plot points follow from the previous 2 films. The break from Snyder to Whedon is harsh, like switching from Lars Von Trier to Merchant Ivory. I'm kinda surprised Snyder didn't "Alan Smithee" JL.
Lance845 wrote: What do I think Whedon put into JL? I think he did the happy superman boy scout end stuff (it was a little too light for synder). I think he did the pointless cell phone video at the beginning. I think he did some of the dialog exchanges between flash and batman.
You can believe what you want, or what seems obvious and widely reported. Of course there's plenty of Snyder in the film...principal photography had long wrapped by the time Whedon came on board. He couldn't reshoot as much as Howard did in the Solo situation, and he certainly couldn't reconceptualize everything. But Whedon wrote and reshot plenty. To your list, add the opening on the rooftop (confirmed by the actor), Lois and Martha, parts of Superman's resurrection, etc. Gone after Whedon was Flash and Iris, Aquaman in Atlantis with Vulko, more stuff at the farmhouse, a bunch of Cyborg's arc, etc.
To be clear, I'm not defending or blaming anyone in particular. The film was a Frankenstein monster with plenty of blame to go around. But Whedon's fingerprints were on it.
Yeah, the opening Batman scene on the rooftop was designed to be a comedy esque, pretty much a classic Whedon scene.
Then people went, "eff no, that's just insane and doesn't fit with anything else" so did a lot of work trying to massage it into something. - It's why so much of it is just awkward to see.
Frankenstein's monster of a film is exactly right. Snyder tone originally, then all the Whedon-ing, then people jumping back, trying to find a mid-ground.
To be honest, I'm actually alright with the JL film. I mean, sure I really wish it didn't have all the problems it did, but I'd quite happily sit back and watch it as essentially a live action "Justice League cartoon" episode. Sure, it won't be a particularly great one, but still enjoyable enough.
Personally, I think the film would have been bad if it was either full Snyder, or full Whedon.
I can definitly see that batman scene where he quips with a man with a gun who just tried to murder him and then lets him go scott free being a whedon thing. Its exactly his kind of poor characterization and writing.
Lance845 wrote: What do I think Whedon put into JL? I think he did the happy superman boy scout end stuff (it was a little too light for synder). I think he did the pointless cell phone video at the beginning. I think he did some of the dialog exchanges between flash and batman.
You can believe what you want, or what seems obvious and widely reported. Of course there's plenty of Snyder in the film...principal photography had long wrapped by the time Whedon came on board. He couldn't reshoot as much as Howard did in the Solo situation, and he certainly couldn't reconceptualize everything. But Whedon wrote and reshot plenty. To your list, add the opening on the rooftop (confirmed by the actor), Lois and Martha, parts of Superman's resurrection, etc. Gone after Whedon was Flash and Iris, Aquaman in Atlantis with Vulko, more stuff at the farmhouse, a bunch of Cyborg's arc, etc.
To be clear, I'm not defending or blaming anyone in particular. The film was a Frankenstein monster with plenty of blame to go around. But Whedon's fingerprints were on it.
Man, I'd REALLY love to get ahold of a pure Snyder version of the film. Some of the differences I think would work out better.
Lance845 wrote: What do I think Whedon put into JL? I think he did the happy superman boy scout end stuff (it was a little too light for synder). I think he did the pointless cell phone video at the beginning. I think he did some of the dialog exchanges between flash and batman.
You can believe what you want, or what seems obvious and widely reported. Of course there's plenty of Snyder in the film...principal photography had long wrapped by the time Whedon came on board. He couldn't reshoot as much as Howard did in the Solo situation, and he certainly couldn't reconceptualize everything. But Whedon wrote and reshot plenty. To your list, add the opening on the rooftop (confirmed by the actor), Lois and Martha, parts of Superman's resurrection, etc. Gone after Whedon was Flash and Iris, Aquaman in Atlantis with Vulko, more stuff at the farmhouse, a bunch of Cyborg's arc, etc.
To be clear, I'm not defending or blaming anyone in particular. The film was a Frankenstein monster with plenty of blame to go around. But Whedon's fingerprints were on it.
Man, I'd REALLY love to get ahold of a pure Snyder version of the film. Some of the differences I think would work out better.
I picture Batman telling Flash to just kill one person.
Lance845 wrote: What do I think Whedon put into JL? I think he did the happy superman boy scout end stuff (it was a little too light for synder). I think he did the pointless cell phone video at the beginning. I think he did some of the dialog exchanges between flash and batman.
You can believe what you want, or what seems obvious and widely reported. Of course there's plenty of Snyder in the film...principal photography had long wrapped by the time Whedon came on board. He couldn't reshoot as much as Howard did in the Solo situation, and he certainly couldn't reconceptualize everything. But Whedon wrote and reshot plenty. To your list, add the opening on the rooftop (confirmed by the actor), Lois and Martha, parts of Superman's resurrection, etc. Gone after Whedon was Flash and Iris, Aquaman in Atlantis with Vulko, more stuff at the farmhouse, a bunch of Cyborg's arc, etc.
To be clear, I'm not defending or blaming anyone in particular. The film was a Frankenstein monster with plenty of blame to go around. But Whedon's fingerprints were on it.
Man, I'd REALLY love to get ahold of a pure Snyder version of the film. Some of the differences I think would work out better.
I picture Batman telling Flash to just kill one person.
I really like Man of Steel, and I don't need lots of forced, jokey lightness or corniness in my superhero films. But I'm not sure that Snyder was on the right path with JL. If you want to have Batman lurk around underground, fine. I don't know that a big fight in the sewers is a good choice visually or thematically for characters like Flash and WW. The big battle in Russia was also originally supposed to be a night battle (or at least have very dark clouds), as you can see from the early trailers. The red skies (which is a long-running DC 'Crisis' thing) were added by Whedon. At times it's like Snyder's instinct is to double down on darkness whenever he's criticized for it (and at times unfairly!).
There was some buzz that in one of the Snyder iterations of the movie (remember that there purportedly was the original script, and then the one that Snyder shot after WB demanded changes), Cyborg was torn to pieces and killed by Steppenwolf. I dunno if it's true, but it's certainly believable that he'd just snuff a liked character and also eliminate its future possibilities fairly pointlessly.
As I've said before, WB wasn't wrong to step in. Their mistake was not stepping in right after BvS like some execs supposedly wanted, instead of hoping for the best and then trying to slap Band-Aids everywhere. Lucasfilm and Disney would have. *shrug*
I read a theory that supports all the vanished characters not being truly gone (other than most of them having announced sequels).
In Doctor Strange, the Sorcerer Supreme could not see any futures beyond her own death. Yet Doctor Strange was able to see 14 million futures beyond his own "death".
So either that is an overlooked inconsistency, or Strange knows 100% that he isn't gonna be gone for long.
Maybe the snap had to occur in a specific way to leave specific characters alive to reverse the snap?
Galef wrote: I read a theory that supports all the vanished characters not being truly gone (other than most of them having announced sequels).
In Doctor Strange, the Sorcerer Supreme could not see any futures beyond her own death. Yet Doctor Strange was able to see 14 million futures beyond his own "death".
So either that is an overlooked inconsistency, or Strange knows 100% that he isn't gonna be gone for long.
Maybe the snap had to occur in a specific way to leave specific characters alive to reverse the snap?
-
I'm sure strange did something with the time stone before he handed it over, and that was leading down the 1 path that lead to a victory. A path that needed Tony Stark in order to succeed. Then with some bill & teds shenanagins, I'm sure the end of the next avengers movie will undo the snap.
Or they'll just have deadpool wake up at the start of the new averngers movie, or the credits sceen from captain marvel and say 'what a dream, thanos just killed 1/2 the universe. That's what happens when I go out for burritos after I killing thanos last week.'
I finally saw Infinity War. It was basicaly a Marvel origin story for Thanos, and everyone else just happened to be in it. Thanos is the character that followed the "Hero's Journey".
Edit: Also, I am unsure how I feel about how all the stories flowed together. Nothing really gel-ed and if these characters hadnot had movies before, this would not have worked at all.
Also, anyone know what happened to Wong? He left to protect the Sanctum after the battle in New York.
Easy E wrote: I finally saw Infinity War. It was basicaly a Marvel origin story for Thanos, and everyone else just happened to be in it. Thanos is the character that followed the "Hero's Journey".
Edit: Also, I am unsure how I feel about how all the stories flowed together. Nothing really gel-ed and if these characters hadnot had movies before, this would not have worked at all.
Also, anyone know what happened to Wong? He left to protect the Sanctum after the battle in New York.
I think he will be in the next one with all the "not appearing in this film" and some of the others - apparently Pepper still has powers
I thought Thanos was done well - his goal made zero sense other than to someone who had gone mad - somehow doesn't think populations will increase again.
Yes, zero sense, but his power and charisma still attracted crazy fanatics to follow him. This is just another in a long line of 20Teens movies about nihilism.
Finally, after watching the post-credits bit, I was wondering how many people thought it was the Rapture.
Easy E wrote: I finally saw Infinity War. It was basicaly a Marvel origin story for Thanos, and everyone else just happened to be in it. Thanos is the character that followed the "Hero's Journey".
Edit: Also, I am unsure how I feel about how all the stories flowed together. Nothing really gel-ed and if these characters hadnot had movies before, this would not have worked at all.
Also, anyone know what happened to Wong? He left to protect the Sanctum after the battle in New York.
I think he will be in the next one with all the "not appearing in this film" and some of the others - apparently Pepper still has powers
I thought Thanos was done well - his goal made zero sense other than to someone who had gone mad - somehow doesn't think populations will increase again.
I liked his minons
Could be an ongoing effect. I’m curious if the whole Megan thing is setting up something along those lines.
Easy E wrote: I finally saw Infinity War. It was basicaly a Marvel origin story for Thanos, and everyone else just happened to be in it. Thanos is the character that followed the "Hero's Journey".
Edit: Also, I am unsure how I feel about how all the stories flowed together. Nothing really gel-ed and if these characters hadnot had movies before, this would not have worked at all.
Also, anyone know what happened to Wong? He left to protect the Sanctum after the battle in New York.
I think he will be in the next one with all the "not appearing in this film" and some of the others - apparently Pepper still has powers
I thought Thanos was done well - his goal made zero sense other than to someone who had gone mad - somehow doesn't think populations will increase again.
I liked his minons
Could be an ongoing effect. I’m curious if the whole Megan thing is setting up something along those lines.
Easy E wrote: I finally saw Infinity War. It was basicaly a Marvel origin story for Thanos, and everyone else just happened to be in it. Thanos is the character that followed the "Hero's Journey".
Edit: Also, I am unsure how I feel about how all the stories flowed together. Nothing really gel-ed and if these characters hadnot had movies before, this would not have worked at all.
Also, anyone know what happened to Wong? He left to protect the Sanctum after the battle in New York.
I think he will be in the next one with all the "not appearing in this film" and some of the others - apparently Pepper still has powers
I thought Thanos was done well - his goal made zero sense other than to someone who had gone mad - somehow doesn't think populations will increase again.
I liked his minons
Could be an ongoing effect. I’m curious if the whole Megan thing is setting up something along those lines.
On a completely unrelated note, the Marvel Universe has been forming for about a decade now. However, how much time has gone by in the Avenger's world? A year or two? All the movies seem to tie their timelines pretty tightly together.
Easy E wrote: On a completely unrelated note, the Marvel Universe has been forming for about a decade now. However, how much time has gone by in the Avenger's world? A year or two? All the movies seem to tie their timelines pretty tightly together.
They are treated as basically following real time. That's why it was problematic when Spiderman: Homecoming forgot how many years it had actually been since the Avengers film.
Easy E wrote: On a completely unrelated note, the Marvel Universe has been forming for about a decade now. However, how much time has gone by in the Avenger's world? A year or two? All the movies seem to tie their timelines pretty tightly together.
Well they specifically call out that Spiderman: Homecoming is 8 years after the Battle of New York, so presumably the flow of time has been roughly the same cinematically as it has been in the real world.
Easy E wrote: I ask, because, at the beginning of Black Panther, he is watching the death of his dad on the BBC as if it only happened a few days ago.
In addition, in Dr. Starnge, the good doctor has the chance to work ont eh test pilot of a Hammer suit in Iron Man 2.
Things like that.
Dr. Strange specifically happens over a pretty significant length of time. The end mostly happens when the movie was released, but the years of searching for a way to fix his hands happened, well, years earlier.
Black Panther can probably happen earlier than when the movie was released, but its also just kind of narrative device. They're not super strict with the timeline, but Infinity War is supposed to take place 6 years after the attack on New York in Avengers, so its roughly running in real time.
Spiderman's 8 years later has been called out as a mistake.
Easy E wrote: I ask, because, at the beginning of Black Panther, he is watching the death of his dad on the BBC as if it only happened a few days ago.
In addition, in Dr. Starnge, the good doctor has the chance to work ont eh test pilot of a Hammer suit in Iron Man 2.
Things like that.
I thought that the person with the spinal injury was Falcon after the events of Captain America Civil War?
Well, Warmachine was injured in Civil War, not Falcon. And I agree it was likely the Hammer suit from Ironman 2 as it would have been several years ago.
Easy E wrote: I ask, because, at the beginning of Black Panther, he is watching the death of his dad on the BBC as if it only happened a few days ago.
In addition, in Dr. Starnge, the good doctor has the chance to work ont eh test pilot of a Hammer suit in Iron Man 2.
Things like that.
I thought that the person with the spinal injury was Falcon after the events of Captain America Civil War?
Lots of people seem to think that, but it was called out to be one of the hammer suit pilots (the one from the senate inquiry video in IM2 - the one where Hammer says "He lived".) due to the timing of the movie. Dr Strange takes place over several years (you don't magically get better at magic instantly. Although with the time stone it could seem that way) "real time".
Easy E wrote: I ask, because, at the beginning of Black Panther, he is watching the death of his dad on the BBC as if it only happened a few days ago.
In addition, in Dr. Starnge, the good doctor has the chance to work ont eh test pilot of a Hammer suit in Iron Man 2.
Things like that.
That was not dr strange gettingva call about that test pilot. They confirmed its unrelated.
Phase 1 besides iron man 1 all have their major events take place within about a week. There is a tie in comic called furys big week where he keeps bouncing around. They found cap in the ice. On monday. Hulk smashed that block in ny on tuesday.
Outside of that the movie all pretty much end their narrative in real time. Dr strange obviously takes place over the course of a years. But it ends at the year of its release. There are a few minor exceptions to this (guardians of the galaxy) but mostly it holds up.
Easy E wrote: I finally saw Infinity War. It was basicaly a Marvel origin story for Thanos, and everyone else just happened to be in it. Thanos is the character that followed the "Hero's Journey".
Edit: Also, I am unsure how I feel about how all the stories flowed together. Nothing really gel-ed and if these characters hadnot had movies before, this would not have worked at all.
Also, anyone know what happened to Wong? He left to protect the Sanctum after the battle in New York.
In comics they almost never 'beat Thanos' that is they don't punch him till he falls down. Instead he gains ultimate cosmic power then learns he's not worthy and loses it all.
So the solution might be for the Avengers to somehow teach that lesson and Thanos himself to undo everything.
I really like the end of Infinity Guantlet with Thanos' suit used as a scarecrow and Thanos tending a farm.
(alas that plot twist got old after six or seven sequels, ah commerce...)
Saw it last night. It was okay, Thanos being the highlight, and the Guardians having the best lines, etc. Didn't blow me away, but I wasn't expecting it to.
Yeah I think Gamora is going to be the lynch pin. Thanos will be taught that it wasn't worth it. The recurring theme they were taking about with Vision coming up again.
Its a shame that the MCU hasn't the roster of established villains to put the Thunderbolts on the big screen.
Who knew? 
