The audience just isn't showing up like it used to. Of all the sequels released since Covid, only SM: No Way Home and Doctor Strange 2 had an increase in number of tickets sold. The rest did not retain the audience that their previous installments had.
There are Mitigating circumstances for these ones. COVID productions being a big part of it (remember that when M:I shut down, they kept paying everyone despite no work being done, and that was expensive). Plus M:I had the unfortunate slot of opening a week before Barbenheimer took over. As for Pixar, that's Disney's fault for training everyone into knowing that a Pixar film will hit streaming pretty soon after going to theatres (assuming it even gets to a theatre), so why go the hassle and cost of bringing children to the movies when they can stay home?
And Star Wars is not on life support. Star Wars is dead.
AduroT wrote: Everyone I know who saw Marvels thought it was a good, fun movie.
And I'm sure that makes the 18 and a half people who saw it very happy. Didn't help its box office any.
I don’t buy the mitigating circumstances story. In 2018 or 2019, even mediocre F&F or M:I movies would have had big opening weekends, even if another big film was dropping a week later. The idea that audiences save their ticket money for the one big movie they would see that summer is a new one, at least on this scale.
I’d also say Disney trained the MCU fans the same way to wait for streaming. (Although I agree they also lost a chunk of their audience due to the phase 5 blahs of mediocrity.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: On a somewhat related note, there were more people in our showing of the Marvels (week 2) than in our showing of Aquaman (opening weekend), a lot more. However, Aquaman seems to be doing better overall due to the nature of the holiday box office.
I’d also say Disney trained the MCU fans the same way to wait for streaming.
I wonder how much of it is 'training' and how much of it is just practicality and a limited budget.
Before streaming, I had the option to go see a movie at the cinema or wait and buy or hire the DVD. With streaming subscriptions, I'm already effectively paying for the second option anyway, so there is little incentive to go to the cinema unless it's something that I really want to see on the big screen. The vast majority of movies that aren't Star Wars, I'll happily wait.
They tend to bring the movies to streaming very quickly compared to the days when you have to wait for a DVD. So beyond economic incentives, they have also made streaming more convenient and waiting less of a hassle. Perhaps conditioned would have been a better word than trained.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don’t buy the mitigating circumstances story. In 2018 or 2019, even mediocre F&F or M:I movies would have had big opening weekends, even if another big film was dropping a week later. The idea that audiences save their ticket money for the one big movie they would see that summer is a new one, at least on this scale.
I'm not sure how you got the idea that movies don't compete with each other. Sure you have counter promotion such as when a popular family film is opening then you release a horror film because not everyone wants the family film. The problem is that when you have big event picture vs big event picture they can, and often do, compete for each others audience.
As far as M:I goes it wasn't up against a single film it was up was against two and those two were a weird cultural moment: it was big event vs big event vs big event with the two other pictures having a tied together momentum. Of course it was going to have an impact on ticket sales.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don’t buy the mitigating circumstances story. In 2018 or 2019, even mediocre F&F or M:I movies would have had big opening weekends, even if another big film was dropping a week later. The idea that audiences save their ticket money for the one big movie they would see that summer is a new one, at least on this scale.
You can not buy it all you like: Facts are facts. Barbie and Oppenheimer opening the week after M:I is significant as it cut the legs out from under that film, meaning it never had any chance to grow.
Compare that to, say, Godzilla -1, a film that came out in a virtual dead zone of release (Aquaman 2!), and thus had time to build and audience over time, turning it into the huge success that it is. If Barbie and Oppenheimer had come out the week after G-1, things would be different for that film.
A successful film can hamper other films because money is not infinite. People do pick and choose.
Pleasantly surprised to see they’ve released all episodes at once. And there’s a just five of them.
First one is scene setting and recapping. But not in a “last time on the MCU”.
Spoiler:
And we get more Daredevil in a really well done fight scene. Not as crunchy “not in the liver!” fighty as the Netflix, but still brutal enough. And some excellent use of the environment which really sells DD’s style to me
Having by necessity of a deaf lead character, there’s a lot of subtitles, so will need to come back to this after work as my usual watch just isn’t gonna cut it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Halfway through Episode 3, and I’m impressed.
Good deal more violent than most MCU, but not at Daredevil/Punisher levels.
Also a new ident. “Marvel Spotlight” without the usual intro.
Native American stuff is also pleasing unto me. It’s not a culture I know a great deal about, so these odd snippets here and there show me new. And I quite like new.
AduroT wrote: Everyone I know who saw Marvels thought it was a good, fun movie.
Same here. I still don't understand why it bombed.
For one, a night at the movies has become ridiculously expensive, along with everything else, much moreso than wages have increased.
So naturally, for a lot of people their budget for leisure activities has decreased.
Just being a fun movie simply isn't good enough for a lot of people to spend that much of one's budget on anymore.
For another, most people myself included, just don't have the same engagement with the past Infinity War characters. They haven't earned the goodwill that Iron Man and Captain America built up, so people are simply less willing to take a chance and go just because it's Marvel.
I don't speak for anyone else, of course, but I didn't see The Marvels because I just don't care about the MCU at this point. I like the people in it but that really isn't enough to make me want to go sit in a theater, and I enjoy going to the movies. It looked like perfectly fine streaming material but not must see theater experience.
Godzilla Minus One is a must see theater experience.
I quite enjoyed The Marvels, but its also not the movie that is going to rekindle interest in the MCU. It's very much another Marvel movie and not the NEXT Marvel movie if that makes sense.
Overall, I really enjoyed it. Not at all what I was expecting, and it may be marmite because of that. But it moves along nicely, doesn’t outstay its welcome and remains decent fun throughout.
Is there a story for how that got there? From Hawkeye, I assumed this would be about the title character violently trying to escape her criminal background and not do crime, after standard inner city childhood.
Finally getting around to What If? and quite enjoying it so far. Quite a bit more than season 1 to be honest. Voice casts have been a solid step up from season 1 and put in some great line reads (is this an AI thing? There's names I wouldn't expect being up for this and some of them sound... off....). It does make the episode where not RDJ and not Jeff Goldblum try to out ego one another stand out though.
I've got the back half to go. Hydra Stomper episode was legitimately great and the Christmas episode was full of great comedic timing and really highlights what the supporting cast can do. Looking forward to the rest.
I was not a superfan of S1. A lot of people really liked it, but I was more Meh on the whole thing. However, S2 was great, and makes S1 even better upon reflection.
It's being reported that the Serpent Society scenes in Captain America: Brave New World have been cut. That would include Seth Rollins' part in the film . It's been mentioned that the action scene at the beginning of the film didn't match the flow of the earlier Captain America films and a bunch of villains dressed up as snakes didn't fit the tone that Marvel wanted for the film.
I've seen reporting that they're borderline reshooting the entire thing, so definitely curious how this turns out in the end. I can definitely see wanting to focus on the political thriller style that made the other Cap films stand out over the MCU's current interest in campier elements of the characters.
Ghaz wrote: It's being reported that the Serpent Society scenes in Captain America: Brave New World have been cut. That would include Seth Rollins' part in the film . It's been mentioned that the action scene at the beginning of the film didn't match the flow of the earlier Captain America films and a bunch of villains dressed up as snakes didn't fit the tone that Marvel wanted for the film.
I feel like that was a solved problem years ago (with the early Xmen films). Just... don't make a big deal about campy names and don't put them in comic book costumes.
They don't seem to have problems adjusting powers to fit the medium, so why bother with goofy aesthetics that don't fit?
No. I think you DO put people in comic book costumes. Tweaked and updated yes. But put them in them. Marvel has done a great job putting them in the costumes so far.
Lance845 wrote: No. I think you DO put people in comic book costumes. Tweaked and updated yes. But put them in them. Marvel has done a great job putting them in the costumes so far.
I think it depends on the film.
If you're holding up Winter Soldier as 'the best' MCU film and want a successor to that, you put people in tactical gear, not brightly colored spandex.
Lance845 wrote: No. I think you DO put people in comic book costumes. Tweaked and updated yes. But put them in them. Marvel has done a great job putting them in the costumes so far.
I think it depends on the film.
If you're holding up Winter Soldier as 'the best' MCU film and want a successor to that, you put people in tactical gear, not brightly colored spandex.
Winter Soldier is one of the best MCU movies because of the way they handled the characters. Winter Soldier's costume is taken straight off the page including a robot arm that looks like muscles with horizontal lines going through it. End Game is caps best costume and it even incorporates his scale mail. Iron Man 1 is just straight up his original and extremis era armor with his old underwear style coloring. The only characters they were shy about were Hawkeye until the end of his show when he got his Life As A Weapon suit and Wanda until she became the Scarlet Witch.
It doesn't need to be spandex to be the comic suit. I don't want to see Scott Summers running around in bright yellow underwear on the outside. But I do want to see him in actual blue and yellow.
Agreed. The reluctance in so many super hero shows to put the heroes (and the villains, for that matter) in costume is a continual frustration. It was my one major gripe with the Netflix Defenders shows*.
Campier costumes can be updated where the original doesn't fit the tone of the show, but at least make some effort.
bbb wrote: Spider-Man: Homecoming was great because it was about a teen trying to balance high school stuff with learning to be responsible with great power.
It also managed to avoid the more trainwrecky aspects of secret identity issues that made parts of the previous Spiderman movies (and quite a few other superhero shows) so painful.
*See also Bayformers, with its hordes of unrecognisable, generic Decepticons.
It was better than it had any right to be. It was way better than the Hawkeye series that it was spun off of. This series seemed to actually have a story to tell and an arc for both the antagonist and protagonist. The finale was also interesting in that it focused more on closing those character arcs than on the action. There is also a lot of Native American themes and story beats going on, which was fun!
There are some action scenes, with the DD cameo being really fun, and the Dragula action scene being pretty brutal. However, action is not the main focus of the series.
At 5 episodes, the first is mostly recap; the series does not wear out its welcome.
Yeah, I really enjoyed Echo. Some really nice character building, a likeable cast, and an interesting 'resolution' to the whole mess that ties in nicely to Daredevil and presumably sets things up for future shenanigans.
I have a dimmer view on Echo than you guys, but I do respect the lead actress for having the courage to audition for and accept the lead role, having come right "off the street" so to speak.
Echo? Better than Hawkeye? That's a hot take. I thought Echo was pretty bad. The mysticism was very unnecessary, I definitely would have preferred if the show stayed grounded and just told a story about Maya untangling herself from Kingpin. If you've only got 5 episodes to work with, you have to keep the storytelling pretty tight.
I think echo was... Fine. Not as good as the better disney plus shows. Much better than the worst. At times it felt kind of flat. Her power change from he comics is good/fine. Good to set her apart from taskmaster.
I think it suffers from her being a bad guy who is the protagnist so they don't let her be a bad guy. Don't sell her trying to take down/over kingpins operation if you won't let her be truely bad.
Sounds like the same issue that Book of Boba Fett ran into, Disney can't really sell or write bonafide villain protagonists. The best they can do is an "anti-hero" like Loki, who hasn't really been a villain since the first Avengers.
Grimskul wrote: Sounds like the same issue that Book of Boba Fett ran into, Disney can't really sell or write bonafide villain protagonists. The best they can do is an "anti-hero" like Loki, who hasn't really been a villain since the first Avengers.
Mmm... similar issue. But I would say Bobba Fett is WAY worse.
With Echo she isn't in charge. She's just on a revenge quest kind of thing with the people around her asking her to step back from the edge or questioning the collateral damage to the community. She DOES have ties to that community so it makes sense for her to care. But she spends some part of each episode deciding the risk is worth it because the other option is letting her mission go.
With Bobba Fett, he IS the kingpin. But then doesn't do any of the crime and stops others from doing the crime and just sort of does nothing while being a total fething idiot.
I don't think Maya in Echo suffers from constant mass stupidity. She just struggles with her drive to tear it all down and watching others get hurt for it.
That echos my thoughts (see what I did there? ), but to each their own.
I don't think there's much point in comparing both shows. Hawkeye is a comedy. Half of Echo is ethnic exposition and consequently has to be all serious a lot of the time. The shows don't have a lot in common other than Maya and Kingpin featuring in both of them.
I wanted to see this at the piccies but life got in the way, but it hit free streaming in the UK the other day so we were able to give it a watch.
And it was fun. Kamala was cute, the constant switching added an extra layer to the fight scenes (although Ms Marvel seems to have had plenty of experience and/or training) and the big bad had a reason for her trail of destruction. And of course, cats! (And Cats*).
*Although, I would have preferred the Elaine Paige version.
My only complaint was the actress playing the big bad. Something about her delivery reminded me of some of the really awful non-acting in the Disney movies. Like I was having flashbacks to Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior.
Just Tony wrote: My only complaint was the actress playing the big bad. Something about her delivery reminded me of some of the really awful non-acting in the Disney movies. Like I was having flashbacks to Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior.
Definitely a massive step down from the delivery of Lee Pace as Ronan the Accuser.
Which is consistent at least, a massive step down is the best description for Marvel post-Infinity War.
Just Tony wrote: My only complaint was the actress playing the big bad. Something about her delivery reminded me of some of the really awful non-acting in the Disney movies. Like I was having flashbacks to Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior.
You do raise the issue that she actually didn't have that much screen time. If the movie was longer or her 'threat build up' was over a couple of films (which you could argue her backstory would warrant) then we might have had a bigger name. But then the main role of the film was probably to bring Kamala and Monica to the big screen, bring Carol back and
and the big bad had a reason for her trail of destruction.
I liked that it was flawed in that comic book villain way - execution.
On its own she HAD a decent plan.
She has a specific problem (needs new atmospher, needs new water, & needs new solar power). And she has a perfectly functional way of solving her problem.
Had she just siphoned what she needed from uninhabited planets/systems? She'd have succeeded!
But no.... She decides to siphon these resources from places dear to Cpt. Marvel for some vengence..
That is a terrible terrible flaw in the plan.
Because she's got to know that Cpt Marvel is going to react poorly, come over, and beat her /maybe even kill her (she does refer to Carol as the destroyer) - and possibly put a stop to the plan. If that happens her people are screwed.
And had Carol not had friends handy to suggest her trying to re-energize the star? That's exactly what would've happened.
Dar-Benn’s plan is dumb - but I guess understandable if we see her as more concerned with revenge than helping her people.
(I’m deliberately ignoring the idea of refugees and resources in a galaxy with FTL.)
But her plan isn’t just going to antagonise The Annihilator, but also folks like the New Asfardians, the GotG.
And it leads me to wonder why Carol feels guilty about what these dipsticks did to their own planet. Unless she had set herself up as a benevolent dictator, they were just going to carry on being galactic imperialist wallies.
It also had some oddities as a film. The beginning moon sequence seemed so low budget that I was expecting an Eagle from Space 1999 to come over the horizon to see what the noise was about.
It also looks as if certain bits had been reshot quite a time apart.
The musical bit was poor - I Can Do This All Day! was way better and that was a mickey take of musicals.
I did like the training montage - it was kinda fun.
I wish I’d braved the rain and gone to see Argyle. (Although I suspect that by breaking my rule of not watching trailers, I’ve blown the two biggest reveals of that film.)
From Danvers’ perspective, the problem was the Supreme Intelligence giving awful orders, rather than the people. Take out the Supreme Intelligence, let the Kree find their own way.
Massive pros and cons even in that though. The closest crap, hopefully inoffensive analogy I can think of is when the child of a Helicopter Parent has to stand on their own two feet.
On one hand, it is good for them to establish their independence and learn how to Hooman.
On the other? If you’ve lived your life with someone else micromanaging everything? You start off with near negative life skills. You may not know how to do your laundry, cook, wash your pots, potentially even wash yourself.
Well thats just it. Carol at this point has more memories of living on Hala then she does living on Earth.
It isn't the billions of kree citizens going about their lives that she got on trains and traveled around with and witnessed who are at fault. It's the supreme intelligence and their military.
Carol's issue isn't with the Kree people. It's with their governmental structure. What she didn't realize was that the supreme intelligence had taken over so much of their infrastructure and planning that by removing it and throwing their society into chaos it would cause rapid destabilization.
She didn't WANT to cause a civil war. She also didn't think far enough ahead to realize one would be inevitable.
Kind of like the US killing Saddam and then wishing -Iraq- the best of luck. Except it wasn't one country. It was a galactic empire with a home world that relied on that galactic empire for stability.
Saddam -> Iraq not Afganistan but you hit the nail on the head with the results.
It also fits with her personality - shes a hard headed, goal oriented, direct action focused individual, who is not great with people. Not unfriendly just expects everyone to be as self reliant and self contained as she is. It just doesnt occur to her that people might not cope with her results like she wants.
Also - who would think taking out the Supream Intelligence would lead to messing up a star? Its a big jump, unless the SI was micromanaging the star for some reason...
Kale wrote: Saddam -> Iraq not Afganistan but you hit the nail on the head with the results.
It also fits with her personality - shes a hard headed, goal oriented, direct action focused individual, who is not great with people. Not unfriendly just expects everyone to be as self reliant and self contained as she is. It just doesnt occur to her that people might not cope with her results like she wants.
Also - who would think taking out the Supream Intelligence would lead to messing up a star? Its a big jump, unless the SI was micromanaging the star for some reason...
Thanks, corrected.
But yes, I think it WAS micromanaging the star in some capacity. The Kree are a large enough and advanced enough society that I wouldn't doubt that Hala was using their star in some capacity as a power source. Kree society was entirely dictated by the commands of the Supreme Intelligence. These jobs were getting done by these people for the good of the Kree. That includes waste management. It includes regulating x resources to y ends.
With the Intelligence gone some upstart military leader in the civil war dictates that these resources are reallocated for their ends without considering broader implications because broader implications haven't been something any Kree has had to consider for thousands of years. And suddenly they are not drawing a sustainable amount of energy from their star. Suddenly they are killing it. Suddenly an attack on x infrastructure destroys waste management. And what was a carefully regulated and balanced system of industries is poisoning the water and filling the air with toxic byproducts.
The reliance on the Supreme Intelligence left the Kree people as ignorant children playing with things they didn't really understand.
It’s likely a similar situation as the Age of Strife.
Untold generations entirely reliant on STCs to do the technical thinking for them, even to the point of the production.
Take that away? And you’re left with a populace unable to maintain its infrastructure.
And the villain does what the Kree did best. Seize resources from other planets. Not necessarily out of laziness, but because they saw no other option. Taking them specifically from Danvers’ friends was the malicious bit of that decision.
The important thing to remember about the civil war is that it wasn't just Hala. The Kree had an empire that took up a third(?) of the galaxy. Hundreds of worlds minimum all under the rule of the Supreme Intelligence.
The Hollywood Reporter: "It is an airless and stilted endeavor driven by a mechanical screenplay … Its lack of imagination would be astounding if it wasn't so expected … The film operates on a need-to-know basis, forcing people to explain themselves through inelegantly breathless exposition."
Related video: Madame Web's Surprising Origin Story! (Dailymotion)
The Daily Beast: "…. a torturous saga that haplessly spins about in circles trying to fashion a competent tone or coherent action sequence. No matter its heroine's clairvoyant super-powers, it's a debacle incapable of seeing-and thus avoiding-its every subsequent misstep … director S.J. Clarkson stages it with all the grace of a runaway train, her snap zooms, whiplash cinematography, canted angles, and overly theatrical lighting turning this prologue embarrassingly comical … full of bad dialogue delivered badly by talented men and women stuck with crummy material and equally lousy stewardship…Sony's Spider-Man Universe is now completely lifeless-and in no need of resuscitation."
Rolling Stone: "Madame Web isn't as bad as its somewhat botched promotional campaign might suggest. It is, in fact, way worse. A genuine Chernobyl-level disaster that seems to get exponentially more radioactive as it goes along, this detour to one of the dustier corners of Marvel's content farm is a dead-end from start to finish. It is the Cats: The Movie of superhero movies. Not a single decision seems of sound mind. Not a single performance feels in sync with the material. Not a single line reading feels as if it hasn't somehow been magically auto-tuned to subtract emotion and/or inflection. The sole amazing factor of this Spider-spinoff is that someone, somewhere signed off on actually releasing it…a Showgirls of comic-book cinema."
UPI: "A new low for superhero debacles… At least Catwoman and Batman & Robin believed in what they were doing. They were wrong, but Madame Web just feels like a cynical copy of the bare minimum to qualify as a comic book movie."
Collider: "Madame Web's writing strains to emulate teenage girls cracking wise with each other or any other kind of positive human emotion. This is a screenplay that speaks in backstory and surface-level comic book references (like Sims always being barefoot). It doesn't understand how people actually interact with one another…. Beyond even those staggeringly amateurish filmmaking flourishes, Madame Web has none of the laughs or thrills that general audiences come to superhero movies for. Much like Morbius from two years ago, it's a pale imitation of comic book motion pictures from the past."
IndieWire: "From its lack of stakes to its absence of style, and from its laughable CGI to its palpable discomfort with the rhythms and tropes of its genre, Madame Web is a superhero movie that feels like it was made by and for people who have never seen a modern superhero movie … Johnson has a rare gift for weaponizing social discomfort into sandpaper-dry comedy, and Madame Web threatens to become a real movie whenever it allows its star to revel in the fact that she doesn't really want to be in it… The characters just stand around and trade perfunctory dialogue in bland locations - sometimes while watching much better movies than the one they're trapped in."
IGN: "Madame Web tries to connect many plots and people together to a confusing, yet ultimately bland result. It tries to balance the comedic tone of a modern superhero movie with what could be a more interesting psychological thriller if it invested more time on developing its hero and villain, rather than spreading itself thin trying to connect all these new versions of characters together. It fails as a one-off and a franchise starter, not telling a fulfilling origin story for Cassie nor giving a compelling argument for the future Spider-Women. The weak dialogue unfortunately stands out, but the few action set pieces harken to the older Spider-Man movies of the early 2000s."
USA Today: "Worst superhero movie since Morbius."
3C Films: "an embarrassing mess. Talented stars wasted on probably the worst comic book movie I have ever seen. Filled with atrocious dialogue, awkward editing, & all around laughable structure. I sat there baffled scene by scene someone approved this. The memes will redeem it."
Slashfilm: "I hesitate to describe it as a superhero film. It's more like a pre-origin story, a tale of who various Spider-Women were before they got their powers. Audiences are treated to several flashes-forward to the time when they'll be in costume, but Madame Web isn't about how they got their powers or stitched together their outfits. It's merely about the assurance that they will indeed be heroes someday…This may be one of the final films of the superhero renaissance. Enjoy it before it topples over entirely."
Maybe social media can kick up a madame webbing time meme and they can convince sony to rerelease it in theaters a second time to lose even more money.
Those reviews made me want to see it. Not pay for it mind you, but at least see it.
I saw and enjoyed Catwoman at the theatre immensely, once the wife and I realized what it was and really leaned into it. We laughed and had a great time hooting it up.
The superhero quartet — the first characters created for Marvel Comics by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby — will be played by Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards (aka Mr. Fantastic), Vanessa Kirby as Sue Storm (aka the Invisible Woman), Joseph Quinn as Johnny Storm (aka the Human Torch) and Ebon Moss-Bachrach as Ben Grimm (aka the Thing).
This will also be a period piece (1963) based on the magazine that Ben Grimm is seen reading below
Disappointed that the rumours for Pedro Pascal being Mister Fantastic were true, doesn't seem like a good casting choice in my opinion, seems like he was casted more because he's the flavour of the month actor for Hollywood right now rather than him looking/matching what Reed Richards is like.
Though the better question is that given the pretty meh track record of the previous 2 FF movies, if this is really going to change that trend at all given how bad MCU offerings have been in general.
I have to say I’m pretty underwhelmed by this casting. I can’t really see any of them as the characters, and they are all pretty old for the roles too. I suppose that must be a conscious choice to age them up, so I expect this won’t be an origin story.
Looking at the age of the four leads in the last two fantastic four films this cast is significantly older:
2005 Reed (Ioan Grufford) was 32
2015 Reed (Miles Teller) was 28
2025 Reed (Pedro Pascal) will be 50
2005 Sue (Jessica Alba) was 24
2015 Sue (Kate Mara) was 32
2025 Sue (Vanessa Kirby) will be 37
2005 Johhny (Chris Evans) was 24
2015 Johnny (Michael B. Jordan) was 28
2025 Johnny (Joseph Quinn) will be 31
2005 Ben (Michael Chiklis) was 42
2015 Ben (Jamie Bell) was 29
2025 Ben (Ebon Moss-Bachrach) will be 48
Aash wrote: I have to say I’m pretty underwhelmed by this casting. I can’t really see any of them as the characters, and they are all pretty old for the roles too. I suppose that must be a conscious choice to age them up, so I expect this won’t be an origin story.
Looking at the age of the four leads in the last two fantastic four films this cast is significantly older:
Young hasn't worked and honestly for good reason. Even on their debut, the FF while not being old were pretty always more grown up than other characters. They may have been young, but culturally they were all out of school, had careers and were pretty secure in life. Johnny being the exception is effectively what defines his character. The rest are very much "old people" compared to Spider-Man or the original X-Men that followed. The team has always worked in the greater Marvel U as the grown ups and trying to make them young doesn't really work because they've never really identified as young.
I doubt they'd do it, but it would be hilarious to have Chris Evans and Michael B Jordan reprise their roles as Johnny in one of the multiverse storylines.
Olthannon wrote: God almighty not another remake of the Fantastic Four. It's worse than Spiderman.
I would love to see an Uncle Ben movie, where the whole movie he’s always just about to bump into a fleeing criminal or some gunman, like a doomed Mr Magoo, or the guy missing an arm in Hot Tub Time Machine.
Grimskul wrote: Disappointed that the rumours for Pedro Pascal being Mister Fantastic were true, doesn't seem like a good casting choice in my opinion,
You know, once upon a time Michael Keaton was announced as being cast as Batman.
My response was whaaat?
Then I saw pics.
Then I saw the trailers
And then I saw the movie.
Turns out that I loved Keaton's Batman & his is my favorite live-action version.
Since then whenever someone's announced as being cast in one of these roles? I shrug & look forward to seeing them in action.
Maybe Pedro will be a miss. Maybe he'll be just the most recent guy to play the part. But maybe, just maybe, he'll be a great Mr. Fantastic....
I mean, every Batman casting announcement, with the exception of Kevin Conroy in the Arrowverse Crisis crossover, has been met with doubt and/or screams of outrage, and for the most part they've all been surprisingly good, with the possible exceptions of Kilmer and Clooner... it's difficult to tell how those two would have gone in better movies.
But even outside of Batman there are plenty of examples of actors turning out to be excellent in a role that they didn't immediately look suited for.
At 1:24 in this video. Who is that on the left most of the screen?
Morph?
Looks like Darwin
I guess the algorithm was listening as I just randomly saw on Twitter.
Shows the character in question and this blurb:
"Morph's Characterization in X-Men '97 : "This is a lighter take on the character, who is nonbinary and has an interesting buddy relationship with Wolverine. The character's past with Mister Sinister, the show's villian, could also come into play." via@empiremagazine
The Marvels An entertaining movie, but NOT a good one. The script is super weak, there is no connective tissue, and the movie can not really stand-alone. These are all criticisms that could be applied to all recent Marvel films, and part of why they are struggling.
However, it was nice to see some fun character moments, clever fight scenes with the switching, good power stunts, actual (shallow, but there) character arcs, and Captain Marvel having to actually solve issues by thinking about them with empathy rather than just hitting them.
Fun script that needed to be baked a lot more before going to filming. I would say it is better than Love and Thunder, and Multiverse of Madness, but worse than No Way Home (Is that the most recent Spider-man?), Eternals, and Shang-Chi. Controversial, I know.
Edit: Also, that X-men animated trailer is total Nostalgia bait.
Easy E wrote: The Marvels Fun script that needed to be baked a lot more before going to filming. I would say it is better than Love and Thunder, and Multiverse of Madness, but worse than No Way Home (Is that the most recent Spider-man?), Eternals, and Shang-Chi. Controversial, I know.
I liked Multiverse better, but I'm a sucker for Rami's Raminess and was really only let down by Wanda's lacking heel turn. Overall though I agree with your take.
Earlier this month, Beau DeMayo was in the midst of a particularly busy time at Marvel Studios. The writer-producer was preparing for the launch of X-Men ’97, the Disney+ series he created as a continuation of the beloved ‘90s Fox Kids show.
DeMayo, a Marvel regular who previously wrote on live-action series Moon Knight as well as early drafts of the company’s delayed-but-still-upcoming vampire thriller Blade, had completed writing duties on season two of X-Men ’97, was lining up press, and making plans to attend the show’s Hollywood premiere on March 13. He was even discussing loose ideas for a third season with members of his team.
But early last week, Marvel and DeMayo suddenly parted ways. His company email was deactivated and cast and crew were informed he was no longer on the project. DeMayo’s Instagram account, once a source for X-Men updates, was deleted. No reason for the firing was given.
Marvel had no comment. DeMayo’s representatives did not return calls for comment and emails to the showrunner yielded no response.
The third installment of the “Venom” franchise finally has a title, “Venom: The Last Dance.” Sony has also moved up the film’s release date to Oct. 25, 2024, from the previously-announced Nov. 8 date.
Plot details are still under wraps, but Tom Hardy will return as the lethal protector Eddie Brock/Venom in the film, also starring Juno Temple, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Clark Backo.
So, I've just watched the first 2 episodes of X-men'97.
Episode one...decent, if a bit straightforward dialogue wise, but I suppose that is to be expected from an episode clearly meant to refamiliarize the audience with the series.
Episode 2 on the other hand is an absolute tour de force for 1 particular character, and I'm really surprised that a certain thing happens so early in the series (I was expecting a more drawn out approach to this event). If the rest of the series is as good as this episode then i think it will be very popular.
The thing the original cartoon understood and this does as well is that to make Cyclops work as a character, the team has to fight as a team using their powers together in interesting ways that Cyclops coordinates. There's a reason the quintessential X-Men fight is "getting off Juggernaut's helmet so he can be shut down telepathically".
Show is definitely a stunner. My one gripe is that in replicating the 90's show its replicated a era before voice acting was taken seriously and the dialog here is too good for some of the delivery. They do manage to rise above that limitation though and the second episode is real stunner, particularly with Magneto.
And it’s another solid one. Briskly plotted, which makes a pleasing change to drawing it out. There are merits to both of course, but a change is refreshing.
They kind of bulldozed through that plot for sure. Never been a huge fan of this bit of the X-Men canon so I'm not sad to rush through it, but they did a solid job telling the story near verbatim.
Animation though, was excellent. I often paint through stuff like this but it had my attention the full runtime.
With the four actors set to play the iconic members of the super team, Marvel Studios‘ The Fantastic Four now has its sights set on who will play Silver Surfer, and it looks like they are going with one of the towns biggest rising stars.
Sources tell Deadline that Emmy winner Julia Garner is set to play the iconic comic book character in Marvel Studios’ The Fantastic Four. Pedro Pascal will play Reed Richards (aka Mr. Fantastic), Vanessa Kirby is Sue Storm (aka the Invisible Woman), Joseph Quinn is Johnny Storm (aka the Human Torch) and Ebon Moss-Bachrach is Ben Grimm (aka the Thing).
I wonder how many people are going to be complaining more about the specific actress and not a female Silver Surfer, yet will be lumped in as "argleblargle misogynist" because of this...
Weird choice. I’m only passingly familiar with Silver Surfer and was unaware of any female versions. I would have figured you’d want a solid foundation for the fans after the previous poor showings of FF. Then again it’s also the MCU who’s had some surprising successes when it comes to digging deep into their lore.
I hate now that the news about the movie is going to be dominated by reactions to female silver surfer and giving voice to the worst people on the internet.
AduroT wrote: I’m only passingly familiar with Silver Surfer and was unaware of any female versions.
Same boat. I don't know enough about the character to have any idea what going with her instead of the OG Silver Surfer means, if anything. I know Galactus has had other heralds but I couldn't talk about any of them off the top of my head. The best thing about the Fantastic Four is, and always has been, Doom.
Shala Bal is Norrin Rad's (the silver surfer) love interest/wife.
He becomes the surfer to save her as much as his planet (zen la). She honestly isn't much of a character of her own generally. More a plot device for Norrins motivations.
AduroT wrote: Weird choice. I’m only passingly familiar with Silver Surfer and was unaware of any female versions. I would have figured you’d want a solid foundation for the fans after the previous poor showings of FF. Then again it’s also the MCU who’s had some surprising successes when it comes to digging deep into their lore.
I hate now that the news about the movie is going to be dominated by reactions to female silver surfer and giving voice to the worst people on the internet.
I can't believe they are casting a human in the role. Aliens need these acting gigs too!
They did introduce a time traveler the second before things get real. I suspect that will resolve it, but it doesn't really change the fact that that was a stunning bit of storytelling.
I don't think it's going to get undone. This is just straight up a major event from the comics. What I kind of suspect. is the season finale might be Professor X showing up with his Krakoa era look and a resurrected [insert characters] offering mutants their new home on Krakoa.
AduroT wrote: Weird choice. I’m only passingly familiar with Silver Surfer and was unaware of any female versions. I would have figured you’d want a solid foundation for the fans after the previous poor showings of FF. Then again it’s also the MCU who’s had some surprising successes when it comes to digging deep into their lore.
I know nothing about the character, but it honestly seems like a solid move to avoid just having this movie be a remake of the previous one. We've already seen the original Silver Surfer on the screen. I'd rather see something new.
Anywhere they can avoid having to rehash the same character stories is worthwhile, for mine.
AduroT wrote: Weird choice. I’m only passingly familiar with Silver Surfer and was unaware of any female versions. I would have figured you’d want a solid foundation for the fans after the previous poor showings of FF. Then again it’s also the MCU who’s had some surprising successes when it comes to digging deep into their lore.
I know nothing about the character, but it honestly seems like a solid move to avoid just having this movie be a remake of the previous one. We've already seen the original Silver Surfer on the screen. I'd rather see something new.
Anywhere they can avoid having to rehash the same character stories is worthwhile, for mine.
By that logic we should never have a sequel again involving the exact same actors. Flush the characters at the end of every movie and start over from scratch having something totally unrelated but with a name slap. I mean, I personally love to replace every Iron Man movie.After iron man one with a triathlon athletes who are taking down illegal oslot's muggling operations.
Or we could accept that we're watching movies based on specific characters that we need to actually explore what those characters are regardless of whether they've been done before. They're still making Sherlock Holmes movies and television shows, correct? Haven't we seen that before? Wouldn't you rather see something new? I mean, any time that they can avoid rehashing something, it's worth it. Right?
Same argument applied elsewhere kind of falls flat. I'm not the biggest fan of change just to change things, but I'm willing to give anything the benefit of the doubt if it leads to a solid story. Female marvel work just fine and didn't have any issues other than we really didn't get to explore that character more. Swapping Shallah Bal for Norrin Radd and keeping the exact same origin story, which I really hope they don't do, is just lazy writing and smacks of trying to meet quotas instead of actually doing something worthwhile.
By all accounts the Fantastic 4 movie we are getting does not take place in the normal MCU universe. It sounds like it's going to end up crossing over into the main MCU timeline by the end of it. The answer to the question "Where has the FF been this whole time?" is going to be nowhere. They don't exist on the sacred timeline.
Which honestly makes sense. If Kang is a descendant of the Richards and he wants to isolate a timeline to prevent the constant creation of his own variants then that time line is built to prevent the creation of that entire family line.
Also, if this is just Galactus and the SS again, this isn't a sequel with Norrin Rad having new adventures. It's just the same story again. If thats the case you might as well mix it up.
So, episode 6 of X-men 97
was yet another great showing.
I'm not sure if I'm enjoying this because of nostalgia, or because it's written so much better than recent Marvel cinema offerings, but I am enjoying it greatly. Turns out you can revive an old series and do it well. Who'dve thought!
By that logic we should never have a sequel again involving the exact same actors. .
No, that's not the same logic at all. My point was merely that reboots rehashing the same origin stories is boring, and I would rather see a different character in that situation. I have no problem with sequels expanding on existing characters.
Given the last three Fantastic Four movies were kind of bad, I'd prefer if they made writing a good story for the upcoming one their top priority and only worry about one character's shiny metal boobs once that's sorted out.
Geifer wrote: Given the last three Fantastic Four movies were kind of bad, I'd prefer if they made writing a good story for the upcoming one their top priority and only worry about one character's shiny metal boobs once that's sorted out.
The fact that writing a good story isn't the primary concern kind of speaks volumes about how films are approached nowadays.
Geifer wrote: Given the last three Fantastic Four movies were kind of bad, I'd prefer if they made writing a good story for the upcoming one their top priority and only worry about one character's shiny metal boobs once that's sorted out.
The fact that writing a good story isn't the primary concern kind of speaks volumes about how films are approached nowadays.
The cynic in me (especially after Ghostbusters 2016), is that by putting "diverse" leads and cast, it acts as the shield behind which they can use to basically discount any legitimate criticism about the film being poorly made and they can carte blanche claim that any negative reception is based on whatever "ism" they want to use for that movie. Which is funny when some of these flop at the box office because they often take the stance of "if you don't like the movie, don't watch it" and then when they fail, they're like "damn you for not giving us your money you bigots!" as if they were planning on relying on them all along. You never see them try to shame women for not supporting movies like The Marvels even though the vast majority of people who did even end up showing to watch it were men.
Following the positive reception to the Werewolf By Night special from a few years ago, Marvel is giving the werewolf story its own series as an ongoing comic. The live-action special gave the relatively obscure title some name recognition and it’s exciting news for comic horror fans to see it come back.
Geifer wrote: Given the last three Fantastic Four movies were kind of bad, I'd prefer if they made writing a good story for the upcoming one their top priority and only worry about one character's shiny metal boobs once that's sorted out.
The fact that writing a good story isn't the primary concern kind of speaks volumes about how films are approached nowadays.
The cynic in me (especially after Ghostbusters 2016), is that by putting "diverse" leads and cast, it acts as the shield behind which they can use to basically discount any legitimate criticism about the film being poorly made and they can carte blanche claim that any negative reception is based on whatever "ism" they want to use for that movie. Which is funny when some of these flop at the box office because they often take the stance of "if you don't like the movie, don't watch it" and then when they fail, they're like "damn you for not giving us your money you bigots!" as if they were planning on relying on them all along. You never see them try to shame women for not supporting movies like The Marvels even though the vast majority of people who did even end up showing to watch it were men.
This is an issue of the carefully manufactured Culture War.
See, unfortunately bad faith actors on one side decided, long before it opened in theatres, the movie must suck because female cast. And they got all out of their prams about it, including at least an attempt at review bombing it.
Then, bad faith actors on the other side decided that anyone criticising it must, therefore, be part of or aligned with the first set of bad faith actors. And so they got out their prams in turn, and between them any kind of subtlety of opinion was drowned out.
As for me? GB16 is a perfectly fine comedy, but not a very good Ghostbusters movie. The originals aren’t knock-about, laugh riot comedies. The comedy arises from the situation and mostly Venkman. GB16 is a comedy movie with ghosts in it. And honestly? In my opinion whilst not that great a comedy, it’s still head and shoulders over the dreck many “comedians” put out. It’s also a tonal mess. We see Abi and Erin demonstrate real chemistry, and character progression. Patty brings some real world knowledge and outside observer stuff. Holtzman is just….wacky. Endearingly wacky, but just wacky all the same. Chris Hemsworth shows his decent comedic chops, but is put to poor use.
The story, acting and that are…pretty much fine. But it’s cobbled together. Like they filmed it three times, and then tried to stitch different scenes from different shoots.
Totally random thought to insert here, but it's the only place that really gives with the subject material.
If they ever get around to putting accurate Ultraverse characters into the MCU, then I would absolutely adore it if they would make Molly Kuns play Topaz.
Now it’s been forever since I saw the original series all the way through, and my memory of it is sketchy at best. But I don’t recall much in the way of other non-mutant characters dropping in to say hi?
Now it’s been forever since I saw the original series all the way through, and my memory of it is sketchy at best. But I don’t recall much in the way of other non-mutant characters dropping in to say hi?
I imagine they didn’t have the rights. But yeah, name dropped one and cameo from another.
Pretty great. They are swapping one villain in the comics for another, but it fits really well and this is pretty great.
Spoiler:
They have Bastion (a human looking version of Nimrod) doing both his own story (operation: zero tolerance) and filling the role of Sublime (a sentient fungus that takes humans as hosts and is behind a ton of stuff including working with cassandra nova for the genoshan genocide). Pretty smooth. Really great.
I don’t read X-men so I don’t know much of their stories or all their villains. I don’t know who
Spoiler:
Bastion is, rather I thought that guy we saw was Feilong, a purple dude who I’ve gathered hates the X-men and has been antagonizing Iron Man in the comics lately.
AduroT wrote: I don’t read X-men so I don’t know much of their stories or all their villains. I don’t know who
Spoiler:
Bastion is, rather I thought that guy we saw was Feilong, a purple dude who I’ve gathered hates the X-men and has been antagonizing Iron Man in the comics lately.
Spoiler:
Found out recently that it is Nimrod merged with a Mastermold and given the cybernetic body.
I watched The Marvels on a plane this weekend. I quite enjoyed it. The bad guys motives were a little thin but it was really fun. Sad it got bashed so bad.
I think its mildly funny whenver they introduce things that appeared in the comics in the mid 00's but enjoying the series overall.
It's all steeped DEEP in comic tropes I don't really care for but definitely excited to see more.
My son is really into the comics, but even despite his best efforts he still can’t get into the X-Men stuff from the late 90’s through to the beginning of the House of X storyline, and even that is a little too weird for him.
Reading up on some ranking and review sites, it sounds like the X-Men lost their way after the Claremont-Lee era, losing the potency of the MLK-Malcom X dynamic as the civil rights era seemed farther and farther away and struggling to find something else that worked. It didn’t help that the movie rights drama resulted in the X-Men becoming the mutant-headed stepchild of the Marvelverse. I can’t imagine there are many classic stories from that period that resonate with the fans…
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: I watched The Marvels on a plane this weekend. I quite enjoyed it. The bad guys motives were a little thin but it was really fun. Sad it got bashed so bad.
I don’t get the hate either. It was a fun time, but I guess that isn’t what movie goers are looking for from the MCU?
The Marvels is a solid Marvel movie but we have lots of those. People are waiting for the "next" Marvel movie and The Marvels definitely isn't it. Granted, that's not where the vitriol comes from, just the lack of excitement.
As for X-Men weirdness... there's really no era free of it. Claremont had all the Sinister/Cable time travel, genetic engineering stuff you see in the show. Even Kirby/Lee had Krakoa and what have you. Morrisons run pretends to be fairly grounded but one of the best arcs is stopping a giant space bullet. The House of X era has all the characters dying and being cloned every issue along with time hopping madness. It's just core to the brand.
That said, post 90s my favorite era is the House of M endangered species run. Just a lot of great moments in that like Cyclops and Wolverine becoming the new gen Xavier and Magneto and the whole X-Force question of proactive defense. Easily some of my favorite stuff, though even that gets tied up in Age of Apocalypse crossovers.
I think part of what carried the up-to-Endgame set was the whole build up to Endgame (which also allowed them to keep the Superhero/genre movie feel going until nearer the end). I feel Marvel made an error in not having the next Big Thing at least loosely mapped out.
They were hamstrung by the Thanos plot being so big. Where do you go after half the universe was wiped out? Kang? Lets introduce him as a Douche at the End of Time in a tv show. Or utterly fail to build up some ominous dread in a green-screen-hell of an Ant-Man movie. (liked the Ant-Man movie? The comedy heist? Well don't see Ant-Man 3).
The multi-verse/TVA thing is great for bringing together all the separate strands of movies previously held under different licenses, but risks drowning under its own weight. In the Deadpool 3 trailer we've already had to be told that 'this' Wolverine is a different one from the others. Where do new viewers start?
Baragash wrote: I think part of what carried the up-to-Endgame set was the whole build up to Endgame (which also allowed them to keep the Superhero/genre movie feel going until nearer the end). I feel Marvel made an error in not having the next Big Thing at least loosely mapped out.
Post Endgame, and whilst I’ve enjoyed all the films, they’ve felt like Age of Ultron.
At the time, Age of Ultron felt like treading water. A team up film made because the slate called for one.
But, in hindsight (which we’re yet to get to for post Endgame fare)? That movie brought a lot of foreshadowing and laid some serious groundwork which the later films brought to prominence. Watched with that knowledge, you see how much was going on just under the surface.
So, apparently there is some legal trouble regarding the actress that played She Hulk. She was supposed to have some cameo scenes in the Deadpool and Wolverine movie, but they were cut. She's blaming Ryan Reynolds for it.
cuda1179 wrote: So, apparently there is some legal trouble regarding the actress that played She Hulk. She was supposed to have some cameo scenes in the Deadpool and Wolverine movie, but they were cut. She's blaming Ryan Reynolds for it.
Please share a link?
I tried googling and all that came up were Mike Zeroh videos and some Reddit types saying Mike Zeroh made it up.
cuda1179 wrote: So, apparently there is some legal trouble regarding the actress that played She Hulk. She was supposed to have some cameo scenes in the Deadpool and Wolverine movie, but they were cut. She's blaming Ryan Reynolds for it.
Please share a link?
I tried googling and all that came up were Mike Zeroh videos and some Reddit types saying Mike Zeroh made it up.
I've spent an hour today trying to find any actual source for any of this and it looks like it really is just the normal youtube channels slinging made up bs especially if it involves a female cast member. Nothing to see here.
Mm, fairly mediocre episode X-men. Jean expositions the bad guys entire backstory with psychic residue from his childhood home. They never meet him once. He talks big and super confident and then completely loses. More Marvel cameos was cute though.
Tangentially, I can’t take Nimrod seriously. Like I know he’s a big bad, but he looks kind of silly and Bugs Bunny has ruined the name for me for all time.
AduroT wrote: Mm, fairly mediocre episode X-men. Jean expositions the bad guys entire backstory with psychic residue from his childhood home. They never meet him once. He talks big and super confident and then completely loses. More Marvel cameos was cute though.
Tangentially, I can’t take Nimrod seriously. Like I know he’s a big bad, but he looks kind of silly and Bugs Bunny has ruined the name for me for all time.
Hilarious that the name is ruined by people's inability to understand sarcasm. Never been a fan of this arc myself, but its being done well here.
Mostly just an action episode and it had some really good bits of action. The perspective shot of Kurt's teleport was great, even if the nein pun carried some heavy Sorcellation energy:
Some of the action was indeed great. Logan and Kurt going to town on those guys was cool. Summers family was the weak point in the episode. All exposition and much less cool action scenes.
Nimrod has becomes infinitely cooler when he got a personality in the lat 5 years of the comics. It helps seeing things like him cave in Juggernauts helmet/skull and/or him completely overwhelm and crush Apocalypse in a fight.
AduroT wrote: Mm, fairly mediocre episode X-men. Jean expositions the bad guys entire backstory with psychic residue from his childhood home. They never meet him once. He talks big and super confident and then completely loses. More Marvel cameos was cute though.
Tangentially, I can’t take Nimrod seriously. Like I know he’s a big bad, but he looks kind of silly and Bugs Bunny has ruined the name for me for all time.
Hilarious that the name is ruined by people's inability to understand sarcasm.
I would say it’s less not understanding sarcasm and more not knowing the reference he was making.
EXCLUSIVE: Paul Walter Hauser is having quite a week. After being tapped for the role of Ed, Frank Drebin’s partner, in the untitled Naked Gun reboot from Paramount Pictures, as we were also first to report, we now hear the actor has come aboard Marvel Studios‘ The Fantastic Four.
For now, Hauser’s role in the superhero flick is under wraps, as is its plot. As previously reported, pic’s core cast includes Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards (aka Mr. Fantastic), Vanessa Kirby as Sue Storm (aka the Invisible Woman), Joseph Quinn as Johnny Storm (aka the Human Torch) and Ebon Moss-Bachrach as Ben Grimm (aka the Thing). Most recently, Julia Garner came aboard to play Shalla-Bal, a version of Silver Surfer.
Some rumors are saying he'll voice H.E.R.B.I.E. while others are saying that since he wasn't announced with the rest of the FF he will be playing a villian (possibly their first villian, Mole Man).
cuda1179 wrote: So, apparently there is some legal trouble regarding the actress that played She Hulk. She was supposed to have some cameo scenes in the Deadpool and Wolverine movie, but they were cut. She's blaming Ryan Reynolds for it.
Please share a link?
I tried googling and all that came up were Mike Zeroh videos and some Reddit types saying Mike Zeroh made it up.
I've spent an hour today trying to find any actual source for any of this and it looks like it really is just the normal youtube channels slinging made up bs especially if it involves a female cast member. Nothing to see here.
Actually, I got that from a yahoo news article. Can't find it now, but I'll look harder later.
I went back in my computer's history, found the link, but now the story is no longer available.
Sounds like Yahoo ran with it before verifying it.
Certified mainstream media moment.
Given Cuda1179 reported, and now claims the link no longer works, but hasn’t presented said link? There’s evidence missing before we can draw any kind of conclusion.
British actor Ralph Ineson (“The First Omen,” “The Witch”) is the latest addition to the cast of Marvel’s “The Fantastic Four,” as the world-devouring cosmic villain Galactus.
So who had Ralph Ineson as Galactus on their MCU Casting bingo card?...
Marvel Studios‘ X-Men movie is gaining momentum as the project lands a writer.
Michael Lesslie, who is known for his work on the series The Little Drummer Girl and the recent prequel feature The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes, is in talks to pen the new film focused on Marvel Comics’ iconic mutant team, The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed. The feature does not currently have a release date or a director attached.
Hopefully they won't have to go through as many re-writes as the new Blade movie has gone through...
Marvel has tapped “Star Trek: Picard” executive producer Terry Matalas to resurrect Vision, the synthezoid played by Paul Bettany, for a new, untitled Disney+ series set for 2026, Variety has learned exclusively. Bettany will return to the role and Matalas will serve as showrunner.
With Matalas coming on board, this will be Marvel’s first new live-action series pickup in almost two years, representing a significant shift in how the company produces television for Disney+.
I am excited for Vision Quest. Vision is an incredibly interesting character and I suspect they are going to try to do his family and introduce Viv Vision.
Seeing this version of the vision go through something like that is going to be wild.
My family and I saw Despicable me 4. Plenty of laughs, a few good subplots, and a truly baffling number of cockroaches. It does feel like it was written as a series of short sketches, and pasted together more or less at random. If you need a silly movie to see with the kids, it'll do the job. As long as they're okay with bugs. Seriously, a lot of cockroaches.
So, normally I’m dead against trailers explaining the plot, but they appear to have done it without any significant spoilers and it makes me more interested in this series.
It looks like the entire thing is going to be this fantastical journey to get her powers back and that’s a really good idea for a neat, self-contained series, rather than mucking around with loads of MCU continuity.
James Spader is returning to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
The Emmy-winning actor is set to reprise his role as the voice of robotic villain Ultron in Marvel Studios’ untitled Vision series, the follow-up series to its acclaimed WandaVision show. He first played the role in 2015’s Avengers: Age of Ultron.
Paul Bettany is reprising his role as Vision, the android who fell in love with the Scarlett Witch and then was destroyed by Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War. In WandaVision, he returned via magic and the power of grief but also as a rebuilt android, now ghostly white.
The series is meant to be the third part of a trilogy that started with WandaVision and continues in Agatha All Along, which debuts in September on Disney+. The new show is eying a shoot in England in early 2025.
I fear the dramatisation and potential side taking of such an effort, not to mention ‘artistic license’ to exaggerate.
Dunno if both or either did an autobiography, but if such things exist? That would be the only source or sources I’d rely on. Their own views and thoughts and recollections.
Watched Quantumania for the first time recently. Thought it had pretty cool scenes, like with all the Scott variants piling up. And I was real surprised to see Bill Murray in a minor role in this. Its a shame the oncoming attack of Kang the Conquerer got shafted due to Jonathan Majors being a woman beater.
But at least we still got "I am MODOK and I am not a dick".
Destin Daniel Cretton is doing whatever a spider can.
The filmmaker behind Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings is in talks to sign on to direct Spider-Man 4. The move brings an end to speculation of who would spin the web for one of the biggest franchises in Hollywood.
Watched the first 2 episodes of Agatha. Good so far. I like the weirdness with the boy
Spoiler:
Billy
.
Theory on Aubrey Plaza's character.
Spoiler:
"She" is Blackheart. As in Mephisto's son. "She" cannot kill Agatha not because of some witches code but because of some deal she (Agatha) cut with Mephisto.
Toys spoil everything... MAJOR SPOILERS on two characters from Agatha All Along and their Funko Pops (so avoid that section of any stores that you frequent as well }
Spoiler:
Please be kind. Remember to keep discussions spoilered as well...
The one reveal has been known for a very long time. The second is a big spoiler. I had my own theories about that characters true nature and this wasn't it.
Geifer wrote: To add the perspective of someone who doesn't have a clue about the comics, that spoiler doesn't mean anything to me. Ignorance is bliss.
I remember when Marvel got mad at I think it was Funko for spoiling Giant Man from Civil War. Toys also spoiled the alien’s appearance from Independence Day. They’re easily one of the hardest spoilers to guard against because on forums and such you’re ready for it, you expect it. But random toy appearances are just like, Hey.
AduroT wrote: I remember when Marvel got mad at I think it was Funko for spoiling Giant Man from Civil War. Toys also spoiled the alien’s appearance from Independence Day. They’re easily one of the hardest spoilers to guard against because on forums and such you’re ready for it, you expect it. But random toy appearances are just like, Hey.
I was working in a toy store when The Phantom Menace was released, which was awesome, but also... eurgh, spoilers. Although nothing in the toy range was as bad as picking up the soundtrack CD and seeing a track entitled 'Qui-Gon's Funeral'....
I caught Deadpool and Wolverine at last now that it's on digital.
And I gotta say, I fething love this movie. I won't call it a great movie. It's... not perfect, but just the kind of movie that it is? This is my fething movie. Just top to bottom meta references and humor that is at times insidiously clever. That is my jam. The movie sometimes puts the tail on the donkey way too hard. Sometimes its jumbled or just a collection of parts that don't entirely work, but honestly? I take a lot of those flaws as a reinforcement of what I love about the movie.
It's just one giant love letter to pre-MCU super hero films. Particularly the films of the 00s before Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America began building the MCU.
I lost my gak when I saw that Wesley Snipes was in this. And Electra. And just the epic references to the Tatum Gambit movie that never happened.
I don't really care about this movie's flaws. They're there. I see them. I just couldn't give a gak over how much this movie seems to have been made with me as its target audience and I am completely onboard.
For a normal person, this is maybe a 7 or 8 out of 10 movie.
For someone who grew up on the off-kilter, awkward, and flawed era of early super hero movies coming out of New Line or Fox studios before the MCU got rolling, this movie is like a thank you and a send off to an era of films that was itself fundamentally flawed but nonetheless part of my formative years. 10/10.
I’d argue it’s a well deserved swan song for that era.
Fox was kind of a careless owner, with a highly confusing and majorly uneven X-Men series, and more than a few lack lustre entries (oh hey, Daredevil)
D&W absolutely goes further than simply poking fun, but still in a respectful way, recognising that without all that came before? We likely wouldn’t have got the MCU as we know it today.
If Blade and X-Men hadn’t proven the appeal of Super Hero Movies, and that the genre can withstand more than 1:1 adaptations? I don’t think we’d have got Phase 1 at all.
I appreciate the very special care it takes to mock what was flawed in the films of yesteryear, but celebrating the passion of cast and crew in making them. That they brought in Snipes, Garner, and Tatum and even Evans back as Johnny Storm feels like it's just one giant 'thank you' to actors and actress' who starred in these movies and either gave them their charm, or couldn't have saved those films if they'd given all star performances. I saw Toad, Psylock and a bunch of other one-off characters in there too. I'll have to go through the credits to see how many of them were played by the OG actors and actress' who actually played them in past films.
That the entire plot is a reference to how Wolverine was the only thing in the X-Men films that consistently worked is both hilarious and a biting jab at the failure to actually succeed with the IPs they were sitting on.
LordofHats wrote: That they brought in Snipes, Garner, and Tatum and even Evans back as Johnny Storm feels like it's just one giant 'thank you' to actors and actress' who starred in these movies and either gave them their charm, or couldn't have saved those films if they'd given all star performances. I saw Toad, Psylock and a bunch of other one-off characters in there too. I'll have to go through the credits to see how many of them were played by the OG actors and actress' who actually played them in past films.
I'm pretty sure they're almost entirely the originals. Part of why the movie works so well is it really doesn't feel like anyone is there for the paycheck. Everyone seems legitimately excited to leave their mark on characters they played once upon a time.
I think it was Juggernaught that had a different actor? I recall a minor hubaloo about the original guy saying they never asked him to do this one, he’d have loved to do this one. So yeah, not all of them are the originals.
AduroT wrote: I think it was Juggernaught that had a different actor? I recall a minor hubaloo about the original guy saying they never asked him to do this one, he’d have loved to do this one. So yeah, not all of them are the originals.
There's been a few actors that have portrayed or been offered (and did not appear) in the role of Juggernaut in film. Vinnie Jones (who portrayed Juggernaut in X-Men: The Last Stand) was offered the role but turned it down with the role going to Aaron W. Reed.
I guess an upside is that we’re far enough along the superhero track these days that there’ll be a healthy crop of new viewers who haven’t really seen the early attempts.
I’d be surprised if, especially with D+ hosting most if not all of them now, those older films stand to find new converts as a result of D&W.
My understanding is Vinnie Jones didn't want to put back on the rubber arms they made him wear in The Last Stand. Had a generally bad time playing the character back then and not interested in reprising.
LunarSol wrote: They didn't get back Gambit's original actor either
Tatum as Gambit is a deep cut, and they reference it.
When Gambit in the movie jokingly says 'I might have been born here' he's referring to how Tatum was slotted to star in a Gambit movie, but the movie was never made. His role really feels like he's just there to play a character he wanted to play but never got the chance to.
It's so incredibly fitting that 'woo I'm bout to make a name for myself here' has become a meme XD Tatum seems to have really wanted to play Gambit from the bottom of his heart, and this movie gave him the chance to do so.
I still thing the first is the best Deadpool but this movie very much feels like a work of pure passion.
I think 3 was actually the best. I am sad that X-Force basically dissolved and that they did nothing with his lady but the actual story they told and the way it was done was just perfect. Especially for someone who grew up going to opening nights of those original hero movies in their teens.
LunarSol wrote: They didn't get back Gambit's original actor either
Tatum as Gambit is a deep cut, and they reference it.
When Gambit in the movie jokingly says 'I might have been born here' he's referring to how Tatum was slotted to star in a Gambit movie, but the movie was never made. His role really feels like he's just there to play a character he wanted to play but never got the chance to.
It's so incredibly fitting that 'woo I'm bout to make a name for myself here' has become a meme XD Tatum seems to have really wanted to play Gambit from the bottom of his heart, and this movie gave him the chance to do so.
I still thing the first is the best Deadpool but this movie very much feels like a work of pure passion.
Oh, for sure. I just like to remind people someone else played Gambit once upon a time.
I do think the first is the best with this a close second. My one main gripe with it is just that Deadpool's supporting cast doesn't get to do anything and in particular this is the third straight movie about getting Vanessa back. That is the most done dirty character I've seen in ages.
Agatha continues to kill it. This episode was mostly flashback to teens history. As a result there is basically no forward momentum for the main story but god damn was it good. Neat version of seeing the MCU version of this/these characters origins.
...the original interrogation scene wasn't something I watched four weeks ago. They probably put a bit of love into how both perspectives work with each other, but I can't say I remember the details enough to appreciate it.
Not a complaint about the show itself, mind. Just something I don't think works all that great with weekly releases.
Regardless of who's making them, I feel that all of these 6-8 episode shows that have become so common are a better experience all in one go. With 20-something episodes, spacing them out is fine, but with super-short runs, you're just getting into it when it finishes. It's like watching a movie broken up over half a dozen sessions... it doesn't add anything to the experience, just makes it disjointed.
It’s definitely a different discipline than writing for Movies or Syndication.
Even then, I’d call the Marvel stuff never goes lower than simply mediocre. With the possible exception of Secret Invasion, which managed to feel oddly disconnected from everything.
They are effectively unedited films, which means they're one cohesive story that's best watched in one go, but they're also not quite compelling enough to watch in one go either. I vastly prefer watching them weekly, but I'd also prefer if more of them had a little more structure to individual episodes like WandaVision and the Mandalorian.
LunarSol wrote: They are effectively unedited films, which means they're one cohesive story that's best watched in one go, but they're also not quite compelling enough to watch in one go either. I vastly prefer watching them weekly, but I'd also prefer if more of them had a little more structure to individual episodes like WandaVision and the Mandalorian.
I've found that for most of the D+ shows I like watching 2-3 episodes at a time.
So for alot of them I just wait until 2-3 episodes have dropped, watch them , wait another 2-3 weeks, repeat....
LunarSol wrote: They are effectively unedited films, which means they're one cohesive story that's best watched in one go, but they're also not quite compelling enough to watch in one go either. I vastly prefer watching them weekly, but I'd also prefer if more of them had a little more structure to individual episodes like WandaVision and the Mandalorian.
I've found that for most of the D+ shows I like watching 2-3 episodes at a time.
So for alot of them I just wait until 2-3 episodes have dropped, watch them , wait another 2-3 weeks, repeat....
Probably the best answer. Andor was clearly set up this way.
They've kept the momentum going really well in Agatha. Even the flashback last week was well done and interesting, unlike a certain other recent Disney show.
I really enjoyed Agatha too, considering I wasn't expecting it to be a mucher.
I did think it floundered a bit in the final episode though, it felt very tacked on.
Episode 7 is the standout. Centres around an older character who might have been just the wise old duck in something less well written. She wins by sacrifice and cunning rather than simply energy bolts.
Last episode did leave me wondering just what Agatha’s problem was, but I’m not a parent.
Spoiler:
They hyped the horror of her son’s death for eight episodes. And yet it turned out that she asked Death for more time (which she got) and his died peacefully in his sleep. Death didn’t stick Agatha into a situation where she had to kill her son to spare him unbearable pain.
Then she just carried on murdering witches
And then the last part felt more like a drawn out after credits scene. It just felt a bit washed out after the way Ep7 was so cool.
Although I assume Agatha is planning inevitable betrayal to
Spoiler:
get her son’s soul into a new body
I was hoping for a bit more variety in the musical numbers. I got a bit tired of DTWR by the end.
I do have one question to which I suspect the answer is ‘It’s magic, innit!’
Spoiler:
I thought the twins were an illusion created by Wanda. Yet they seem to be souls. What’s up with that?
Last episode did leave me wondering just what Agatha’s problem was, but I’m not a parent.
Spoiler:
They hyped the horror of her son’s death for eight episodes. And yet it turned out that she asked Death for more time (which she got) and his died peacefully in his sleep. Death didn’t stick Agatha into a situation where she had to kill her son to spare him unbearable pain.
Then she just carried on murdering witches
Spoiler:
Agatha does mention early on that her son's death was far more mundane than everyone thinks. His death was her reason for hating Rio, but not the cause of her being an awful person... that was all her from the beginning.
I do have one question to which I suspect the answer is ‘It’s magic, innit!’
Spoiler:
I thought the twins were an illusion created by Wanda. Yet they seem to be souls. What’s up with that?
Spoiler:
In the comics, Wanda has the power to literally rewrite reality (which she does, when she wipes most of mutant-kind from existence). What she did to Westview was illusion and mind control, but presumably she put enough effort into creating her sons that they kind of stuck even after the rest of the magic was shut down.
That, or she pulled their souls from another reality, and somewhere out there in the multiverse is another Wanda wondering why the hell her kids suddenly died...
Overall enjoyed the series but I didn't really buy the "imaginary kid that was manifested by a witch had his soul latched onto a real persons recently dead body" part of it. Considering all the other stuff we roll with in series I'm not sure why that sticks out but it did. The idea she ripped souls from another universe would have worked better, considering Wanda's narrative and use of the Dark Hold.
So is Death being The Green Witch in the comics or something just in the MCU? I mostly know Death in the comics from dealing with Thanos and Deadpool and I don't recall that ever being presented.
I don't think the green witch connection was in the comics. Rio is also different from Lady Death in that she seems more of a manifestation of Death, as opposed to the comic version with literal power to kill or resurrect at will.
Lance845 wrote: No spoilers needed for this, Wanda's kids were always real. Even in WandaVision when Monica comes out of the hex she says, no her kids are very real.
Even the stuff inside the hex. It wasn't illusions. The house wasn't built of smoke and mirrors. It was a real, physical, house.
The kids may have been made in and a part of the hex. But they were absolutely real kids.
Of course it was a real physical house as it was actually a real town with real buildings and real people but within the hex everything was distorted and manipulated. At the beginning of this series Agatha she is living in a real house but everything she is seeing isn't really how they are. She wasn't a detective, she didn't have a gun, and there wasn't an interrogation room. I also , even then, don't find Monica a reliable arbiter of reality and as well as finding much of that part of the series badly written. I took it not as Monica being literal but that the kids were absolutely real to Wanda, which wouldn't make them real outside of the hex, but would make the trauma of losing them real.
Maybe they did mean it literally but my reaction is still to say that is a stupid conceit, even within such a fantastical narrative. I can believe that she can manifest powerful illusions and mind control but I don't buy her literally creating souls and DNA out of nothing. Obviously not everyone will feel that way, and that is ok, but for me I find it a lesser part of the story that is nonsensical. Not enough to hate the whole of either, but enough to taint it somewhat.
Edit: Though throwing in magically creating babies does tie into Agatha giving birth and saying it wasn't "a spell or incantation". I wasn't 100% sure if she was referring to it being relatively quick and clean birth or if Disney was trying to imply some immaculate conception without actually saying it. I would be more likely to buy the idea that Wanda ripped two people out of another universe than just manifesting them whole cloth, and I wouldn't be any more inclined to buy Agatha being magically impregnated through sheer will either. It was probably Darth Sidious perfecting his Sith alchemy to make a Chosen One. I didn't really like that idea in The Acolyte that a bunch of witches used the Force to manifest twins either, but there is that connection now, isn't there?
I just recalled in the last episode that Agatha said “Unlike your mother—sorry, Wanda—you actually did something interesting with your power,” which makes it sound like, even if she manifested them or pulled them from elsewhere, Wanda of Wandavision isn't actually their mother. She could also be referencing him not actually having a mother, being something just conjured up.
I took that bit about his mother to be the fact that he has been living William’s life for several years and feels genuine affection for his “biological parents”. Plus the fact that Wanda effectively abandoned him and Tommy (although for good reason).
Jadenim wrote: I took that bit about his mother to be the fact that he has been living William’s life for several years and feels genuine affection for his “biological parents”. Plus the fact that Wanda effectively abandoned him and Tommy (although for good reason).
Yes that's how I interpreted it. He thinks of himself as both William and Billy, and he thinks of William's parents as mum and dad, rather than Wanda and Vision.
Jadenim wrote: I took that bit about his mother to be the fact that he has been living William’s life for several years and feels genuine affection for his “biological parents”. Plus the fact that Wanda effectively abandoned him and Tommy (although for good reason).
I agree that is the most likely possibility, but I could see Disney also using that as a hook for other seasons/story lines.
I enjoyed Agatha overall but I'm not sure the final episode works too well. There are some vital elements in there as far as the wider plot goes, but the whole thing felt a little bit laboured and very much like an afterthought. Maybe there was a way to weave the key parts of it into the last episode or two instead.
Lance845 wrote: No spoilers needed for this, Wanda's kids were always real. Even in WandaVision when Monica comes out of the hex she says, no her kids are very real.
Even the stuff inside the hex. It wasn't illusions. The house wasn't built of smoke and mirrors. It was a real, physical, house.
The kids may have been made in and a part of the hex. But they were absolutely real kids.
Of course it was a real physical house as it was actually a real town with real buildings and real people but within the hex everything was distorted and manipulated.
Wanda's house outside of the hex is just some foundation. The walls, the furniture, the stairs. All of that was created with her magic. Agatha says the Scarlet Witch is a being of spontaneous creation. Creation. Not illusion. She didn't just turn one thing into another thing. She also made things from nothing.
For example. The westview Vision. Built of actual vibranium (SWORD on the outside of the hex were tracking visions movements by following the vibraniums energy signature) the Vision we saw for most of the show was a construct built from no raw material. Made manifest by Wanda entirely.
Lance845 wrote: Wanda's house outside of the hex is just some foundation. The walls, the furniture, the stairs. All of that was created with her magic. Agatha says the Scarlet Witch is a being of spontaneous creation. Creation. Not illusion. She didn't just turn one thing into another thing. She also made things from nothing.
For example. The westview Vision. Built of actual vibranium (SWORD on the outside of the hex were tracking visions movements by following the vibraniums energy signature) the Vision we saw for most of the show was a construct built from no raw material. Made manifest by Wanda entirely.
But when it all went away wasn't it just the foundation again? Maybe I need to go back and watch the last few episodes again but on the other hand I'm not sure it is that important tbh. You could be right and she manifested actual plywood, drywall, and children's souls but that is just more nonsense I balk at. Lifelike "simulation" where people believe something is real because their mind says it is I can get behind but going a further step to them making real children out of nothing is just immersion breaking for me.
We don't know that they were created from 'nothing' though... Their MCU origin is fairly similar to their comics birth, where Wanda created them from magic. But then it later turned out that they were actually born from shards of the demon Mephisto's soul. When he decided he wanted his bits back, they were seemingly wiped from existence, only to reincarnate in new bodies.
It wouldn't be too surprising if that Mephisto link gets explored in the MCU later on. Or, they might just leave it as is. Either way, a reality-warping witch creating children from pure magic isn't really that out there compared to the rest of the MCU.
Lance845 wrote: Wanda's house outside of the hex is just some foundation. The walls, the furniture, the stairs. All of that was created with her magic. Agatha says the Scarlet Witch is a being of spontaneous creation. Creation. Not illusion. She didn't just turn one thing into another thing. She also made things from nothing.
For example. The westview Vision. Built of actual vibranium (SWORD on the outside of the hex were tracking visions movements by following the vibraniums energy signature) the Vision we saw for most of the show was a construct built from no raw material. Made manifest by Wanda entirely.
But when it all went away wasn't it just the foundation again? Maybe I need to go back and watch the last few episodes again but on the other hand I'm not sure it is that important tbh. You could be right and she manifested actual plywood, drywall, and children's souls but that is just more nonsense I balk at. Lifelike "simulation" where people believe something is real because their mind says it is I can get behind but going a further step to them making real children out of nothing is just immersion breaking for me.
Yes. It was back to foundation when the hex ended. The difference, I think, is in manifesting inanimate objects and manifesting living beings. Or more specifically... she didn't rewrite reality to spontaneously create 2 kids. She rewrote reality so that she was pregnant. She actually gave birth to 2 actual living things. The fact that their physicality was tied to the hex didn't change that they were living things born and alive. When their bodies were broken down by the hex breaking down their souls still existed.
What If seems like a thing they could be doing forever. But maybe it's best to focus resources elsewhere and the multiverse saga is going to wrap up at some point.
Lance845 wrote: What If seems like a thing they could be doing forever. But maybe it's best to focus resources elsewhere and the multiverse saga is going to wrap up at some point.
I think they made it something that was only ever going to work for so long when they made it an ongoing multiverse story rather than just a series of unconnected 'What if...?'s
Would have been nice to see what they could do with it as more of a 'Star Wars Visions' type approach, keeping the stories stand alone and throwing different directors and animators at each one... But it's been fun for what it is.
The two-time Oscar winner, currently on a press run for Ridley Scott’s Gladiator sequel, told The Today Show Australia that Ryan Coogler is writing an unspecified role for him in the next Black Panther movie.
Washington let the role slip during the interview when the show’s host asked him whether he still carried any anxieties around starring in flicks like Gladiator. Washington’s response was illuminating.
“At this point in my career, I’m only interested in working with the best. I don’t know how many more films I’m going to make, probably not that many. I want to do things that I haven’t done,” he said. “I played Othello at 22, I’m now going to play it at 70. After that, I’m playing Hannibal. After that, I’ve been talking with Steve McQueen about a film.”
Washington then added: “After that, Ryan Coogler is writing a part for me in the next Black Panther. After that, I’m going to do the film Othello. After that, I’m going to do King Lear. After that, I’m going to retire.”
I think they made it something that was only ever going to work for so long when they made it an ongoing multiverse story rather than just a series of unconnected 'What if...?'s
Would have been nice to see what they could do with it as more of a 'Star Wars Visions' type approach, keeping the stories stand alone and throwing different directors and animators at each one... But it's been fun for what it is.
No reason they can't do that afterwards or do a different connected arc with different takes on different and various characters.
You've fallen for one of Screen Culture's 'concept' (i.e., fan-made) trailers.
'Screen Culture' is the home of scintillating and extravagant 'Concept/Fan-Made' trailers from various cinematic universes like Marvel, DC, Star Wars and many more!
You've fallen for one of Screen Culture's 'concept' (i.e., fan-made) trailers.
'Screen Culture' is the home of scintillating and extravagant 'Concept/Fan-Made' trailers from various cinematic universes like Marvel, DC, Star Wars and many more!
My “favorite” thing with those is the manager who’s posted them to the flgs’ facebook page a couple times as first looks at upcoming movies. Dang it man, look at the account that posted it, if it ain’t being hosted by the studio then it ain’t legit!
Nothing says "quick, dig up anything back that made the MCU before Endgame work" and desperation than having yet another of the member of the original cast come back for Avengers: Doomsday. Looks like Chris Evans is making a return in that movie. I have a feeling they're going to make him Captain Hydra or at least another call back to that with his appearance to go along with RDJ being Dr. Doom now, but we'll see.
Curious how many buckets of money they shovelled to Chris Evans for him to come back, both him and Robert Downey Jr. must be like a quarter of the budget alone in whatever movie they're debuting together.
I mean... A lot of the Marvel actors go do other completely forgettable movies then circle back. What has Chris Hemsworth done? That Men In Black movie and Ghostbusters.
What has Chris Pratt done? Voice acting as Mario.
Tom Holland? Uncharted? Cherry?
Tom Hiddleston? Kong Skull Island.
I am not saying they are not picking up paychecks from those other movies. But like Wolverine made Hugh Jackmans career the MCU has made the careers of a bunch of these people.
Lance845 wrote: I mean... A lot of the Marvel actors go do other completely forgettable movies then circle back. What has Chris Hemsworth done? That Men In Black movie and Ghostbusters.
What has Chris Pratt done? Voice acting as Mario.
Tom Holland? Uncharted? Cherry?
Tom Hiddleston? Kong Skull Island.
I am not saying they are not picking up paychecks from those other movies. But like Wolverine made Hugh Jackmans career the MCU has made the careers of a bunch of these people.
Extraction is probably one of the best action movies I've seen in forever, and it stars Chris Hensworth. Extraction 2 is decent, but it under utilizes Idris Elba.
Looking at Wikipedia, Chris Evans has done 11 films (two were cameos) since Avengers: Endgame, with the most notable being Deadpool & Wolverine and Knives Out. He currently has two films in post-production and one filming. It doesn't sound like he's hurting for work IMHO.
Roughly a month after this article, its announced he's returning.
It goes into detail on how "Rotten" his streak of movies post MCU has been (only bright spots were support roles in Knives Out and Deadpool/Wolverine).
I don't think he's struggling to find work, I think he's struggling to find hits, which he's only really had in various superhero movies.
I am not saying any of these actors are out of work. I am saying the MCU elevated them and provided a decade of work that firmly made it so if they wanted none of them would ever need to work again.
Beside that Knives Out, The Greatest Showman, and Doolittle aren't more than foot notes in their careers.
And I guess after so many years of a positive work environment, it might (and I’m not claiming this is the case) make you forget other workplaces aren’t as enjoyable.
Mm, weak start to the new season of What If, too much exposition and explaining in the set up, and then the actual giant robot action was pretty slow and lack luster.
Second episode is much better. For never watching Indian movies, I really do love whenever one of their dance numbers cameos in something else I’m watching.
Episode five is back to serious, but without as much time spent on exposition we get more action. I was wondering how long until they pulled that particular development at the end of it. It’s where it always goes eventually.
I waited for the entire season of What If to go up before watching it. The Red Guardian episode was my favorite, followed by Howard and Darcy, The Agatha episode was good, too.
Weak second half, though. Really went downhill when Captain Punchalot showed up and the last episode was a complete waste of my time. I hadn't been that close to falling asleep since Rise of Skywalker.
. It's been mentioned that the action scene at the beginning of the film didn't match the flow of the earlier Captain America films and a bunch of villains dressed up as snakes didn't fit the tone that Marvel wanted for the film.
), but to each their own.
/maybe even kill her (she does refer to Carol as the destroyer) - and possibly put a stop to the plan. If that happens her people are screwed.
