Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I think you have that backwards. The various TV shows seem to be ultimately serving as a launching pad for the next round of characters. While they've used existing characters for that, and given those characters significant growth along the way, the ultimate goal is to introduce these new characters.
Most of the new characters so far have died, suffered a fate worse than death, or never really existed, with the exception of Captain Fascism. The shows so far have been about putting new outfits on existing characters.
I don't think Disney will court the backlash from dead Hiddleston. They only got away with it the first couple times because they made it clear he wasn't dead for real reals.
Captain Fascism?
Too subtle? Literally publicly beating a refugee to death with a symbol of liberty in the wrong hands seemed pretty straightforward. Being recruited by Hydra at the end was just a garnish.
No, too incorrect word usage. Unless, of course, fascism got a drastic definition change while I wasn't looking.
And Elaine is a Hydra agent?
... we dunno, the character she's playing is Valentina Allegra de Fontaine, she's clearly someone with authority in the US government in the MCU (I'm assuming US government due to the recruitment of US Agent)
In the comic books she was a member of shield and a lover of Nick Fury's however it turned out she was secrelty a mole for a group called Levithan (a russian counterpart ot SHIELD it sounds like) she alsosecretly was Madam Hydra for a time.
So there's a few ways the MCU could go with her character
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Voss wrote: He's literally the embodiment of the unchecked power and authority
Which is why he wasn't stripped of his title and position... or ignored by others. Yup total power and authority.
Because he turned a surrendering man into soup in front of a dozen witnesses with cameras. There are practical limits, even to extreme ideologies. No one other than Sam and Bucky had any issue with his behavior up until that very public meltdown.
Had he killed the guy in the warehouse during the firefight, next to his fallen partner, he would've gotten another medal for it. It was all about the optics.
He had a lot of issues but fascism wasn't one of them.
I guess if you ignore the heavy handed symbolism, the current events they were very, very obviously drawing from, and the links to what Hydra was trying to accomplish with Cap via SHIELD in the Winter Soldier, sure, nothing there.
Captain America is being held up as inspiring people, elevating them to reach their dreams.
The danger of Cap is the fixation on the Cult of Personality can get really twisted and used to other ends- which it immediately does.
'US Agent' was shown to be about crushing people down if they stepped out of line. Much like the whole system being portrayed in the shoe- the banks, the agency in character of the 'refugees,' etc. All of it was about the boot.
Its not that complex.
Voss wrote: 'US Agent' was shown to be about crushing people down if they stepped out of line.
Was he? He was mostly just where he was told to be, and there's a big gap between "Aw shucks! Big shoes to fill!" and "CAP SMASH!" that we didn't see because the show failed to develop him properly. Trying to make that out as him being an allegory for fascism strikes me as reductive.
To be fair U.S. Agent didn't really understand what it meant to be Cap. And being Cap he expected a general level or respect and reverence that doesn't come with the title and the shield.
When that guy spit in his face and he started yelling "Don't you know who I am!?" it showed how much he expected and how little he understood.
He wasn't fascist. He was ignorant. He was being a soldier who expected Cap to just be another soldier+1 when Cap regularly was a bad soldier for the sake of doing the right thing. Walker wasn't a good enough person to make those kinds of calls. To be fair basically nobody is. Roger's is the moral compass of the Marvel Universe.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Voss wrote: 'US Agent' was shown to be about crushing people down if they stepped out of line.
Was he? He was mostly just where he was told to be, and there's a big gap between "Aw shucks! Big shoes to fill!" and "CAP SMASH!" that we didn't see because the show failed to develop him properly. Trying to make that out as him being an allegory for fascism strikes me as reductive.
The show had all sorts of issues, but what they showed off with him seems perfectly in line with this to me. Even 'just where he was told to be' is completely in line with that.
But Walker was on his trajectory from the moment they showed him off in the locker room, stewing in his insecurities and doing the big interview on the football field.
That he was ultimately disposable isn't really an issue. Every episode had him going for the violent or oppressive response, every time. Even his attempts to get Sam on side were overblown and coercive. If I remember correctly, we were both wondering if he'd end up shooting a kid as early as episode 1 or 2.
He fought Sam and Bucky because he still believed he had the authority to brutalize that guy, and they weren't allowed to take his symbol away.
There are so many things pointing to 'Captain Fascism' as the expected take away that it doesn't feel reductive at all. It felt like Disney dropping a moral anvil wrapped in current events every episode and screaming 'Do you get it yet?' over and over again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/12 03:07:57
Voss wrote: If I remember correctly, we were both wondering if he'd end up shooting a kid as early as episode 1 or 2.
That was actually me ridiculing the end of Wandavision, where Agent Whatshisname, who up until this point has been a dick, but not evil, suddenly and inexplicably opens fire on a pair of children so that the show can make him an irredeemable bad guy.
As to the rest of what you said, Lance put it into words better than I did.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/12 03:21:41
Voss wrote: If I remember correctly, we were both wondering if he'd end up shooting a kid as early as episode 1 or 2.
That was actually me ridiculing the end of Wandavision, where Agent Whatshisname, who up until this point has been a dick, but not evil, suddenly and inexplicably opens fire on a pair of children so that the show can make him an irredeemable bad guy.
As to the rest of what you said, Lance put it into words better than I did.
Nah he'd been acting kinda brutal before. I knew well before that moment he was clearly willing to do anything and EVERYTHING to do what he "needed to do"
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
BrianDavion wrote: Nah he'd been acting kinda brutal before. I knew well before that moment he was clearly willing to do anything and EVERYTHING to do what he "needed to do"
Not to get into it again, but from his perspective an entire town had been taken hostage by an enhanced person - she knew that she was doing it and had chosen not to stop herself from doing it - so he was doing everything he could to stop her. Then she mind controlled most of his officers, and he just went further in trying to bring what is essentially an enhanced domestic terrorist action (I don't think it's outlandish to level such a title against what amounts to a mass kidnapping), and then... he fires his gun at some kids because the show needs to have a lower level bad guy that the muggles (REAd: Darcy et al) can fight whilst Vision fights Mirrored Marvel Villain #223-H and Wanda has a CGI skybattle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/12 05:12:10
I can't believe Thanos was Loki's father all along!
Spoiler:
Well... that was not what I was expecting.
In a weird way, Sylvie is Loki, but also not Loki. And thus Immortus is not Kang, but also is Kang.
And we have Kang! He's here, in the MCU, and he's terrifying. Thanos wouldn't've stood a chance against this guy.
Overall I am beyond impressed that they decided to leave it at a cliffhanger, and then use the mid-credits scene to confirm something I didn't think we'd ever see - Season 2! I really thought, given the nature of the MCU and how it keeps moving forward, that these shows would be a one-and-done situation. But if there's more Loki, then sign me the hell up as this is the best thing Marvel has done TV-wise.
Only condition is that they have to bring Natalie Holt back. Her music was integral to this show, and that's not something you can say about music in the MCU.
Anyway, yeah, this was a fascinating finale. They stuck this landing, didn't give us yet another Loki, or make everyone Loki, or whatever. They went full man behind the curtain, gave us Kang by way of Immortus, and had Sylvie fail because of her inability to trust. They also left Loki in a reality where the enemy he just found out about rules, and his friends don't remember him.
So do we get Season 2 before Ant-Man 3? And I swear, if Kang is defeated by some plucky one-liners and CGI fight scene in Ant-Man, it will be a waste.
We reached Legends of Tomorrow season 1 finale (Including Big Bad lurking at the End of Time) about halfway through the final episode, then we leapfrogged all the way to Crisis on Infinite Earths (specifically Episode 4).
I mean, sure, it was well done and all that, and I can't deny Doctor Who's history too, and it set up what is going forward.
I just felt I'd seen it all before, in a pretty darn similar context.
Then again, maybe it's all just a case of 'there are only 7 plots.'
H.B.M.C. wrote: I can't believe Thanos was Loki's father all along!
Spoiler:
Well... that was not what I was expecting.
In a weird way, Sylvie is Loki, but also not Loki. And thus Immortus is not Kang, but also is Kang.
And we have Kang! He's here, in the MCU, and he's terrifying. Thanos wouldn't've stood a chance against this guy.
Overall I am beyond impressed that they decided to leave it at a cliffhanger, and then use the mid-credits scene to confirm something I didn't think we'd ever see - Season 2! I really thought, given the nature of the MCU and how it keeps moving forward, that these shows would be a one-and-done situation. But if there's more Loki, then sign me the hell up as this is the best thing Marvel has done TV-wise.
Only condition is that they have to bring Natalie Holt back. Her music was integral to this show, and that's not something you can say about music in the MCU.
Anyway, yeah, this was a fascinating finale. They stuck this landing, didn't give us yet another Loki, or make everyone Loki, or whatever. They went full man behind the curtain, gave us Kang by way of Immortus, and had Sylvie fail because of her inability to trust. They also left Loki in a reality where the enemy he just found out about rules, and his friends don't remember him.
So do we get Season 2 before Ant-Man 3? And I swear, if Kang is defeated by some plucky one-liners and CGI fight scene in Ant-Man, it will be a waste.
Spoiler:
the speculation is that Kang is being set up as the next Thanos. so I doubt we'll see him defeated for good in Antman 3. In fact My guess is we see Antman 3 be what brings him to the attention of "The Avengers" and we eventually see Loki return to the "main timeline" by working with the avengers to stop him for good. this'll proably be the next avengers movie
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
That wasn't what i was expecting at all, but very much enjoyed it.
I'm just hoping it doesn't do a "Primeval" (british ITV show about dinosaurs) and set up a really interesting cliffhanger only to completely drop the ball with it)
The ending did throw me a wee bit, as I’d forgotten we were getting season 2.
Spoiler:
However, I’m glad Season 2 is a direct continuation, rather than Loki In Trouble Elsewhere.
This is an interesting lead in to the New Big Bad, the way Thanos was something of a slow burning and rarely seen threat.
We’re seeing at least a version of Kang. Maybe he’s the best version, maybe he’s the worst. They left that bit somewhat unclear, as we don’t know which side he was on during the Multiverse War.
AntMan 3 - Quantamania? Well, we get Multiverse of Madness first, I think? Plenty more time for more Kang(s)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/14 16:04:34
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
What if every film in phase 4 is about defeating Kang, except it’s a different Kang every time?
I am already bored by the premise you just put forth.
-----
That was... well. It wasn't an ending. It was a vehicle for moving a handful of characters to various loosely connected sequels, including itself.
It kinda felt like the end of a very railroaded D&D campaign (or Planescape Torment, for those that know how that game ends), where things only progressed to a point because the players knew what the DM had planned, but then time-travel pretzel logic happened, and suddenly everyone's actions are dictated by their two-letter alignment designations (though Loki's seems to be set to 'random').
I think the biggest surprise for me is that the TVA still exists. I wonder if it kept its plot-hole inducing 'nullify-everything' powers.
I do somewhat like it. I don't particularly like the instant and retroactive consequences.
And they never really did square the circle with Endgame's timeline jumping when there wasn't a branching timeline (despite that being the origin of this Loki), and it seems fairly important with both sets of consequences going forward.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The ending did throw me a wee bit, as I’d forgotten we were getting season 2.
Spoiler:
However, I’m glad Season 2 is a direct continuation, rather than Loki In Trouble Elsewhere.
This is an interesting lead in to the New Big Bad, the way Thanos was something of a slow burning and rarely seen threat.
We’re seeing at least a version of Kang. Maybe he’s the best version, maybe he’s the worst. They left that bit somewhat unclear, as we don’t know which side he was on during the Multiverse War.
Well,
Spoiler:
the version of the story he told claims he was the first, and peaceful. But after it all kicked off he spiraled way down the moral event horizon and weaponized Alioth. And then basically choked out the universe and (by implication at least) the very concept of free will.
Which is a pretty wild claim, to be honest.
The big problem I had with the whole thing is some sense that it actually matters. It matters for Sylvie because it affected her personally and destroyed her life. Of course she cares.
But once you've got infinity realities of infinite versions of infinite things, I'm entirely checked out. You're not operating on a scale I'm capable of caring about. You kick a puppy in front of me, I'm mad. If there are an infinite number of infinite puppy kickers existing in some dark corner of the universe, you might as well be lying about kicking puppies at all. It makes you kind a freak with a weird fantasy, but not something I actually care about.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/07/14 19:08:55
They covered that. By killing Kang, Sylvie caused Kang, as there was now no-one to prune the multiverse. As that doesn’t kick off until 3100, it’s going to happen again.
Who knows how many times this dance has been danced? And will we be dealing with the same Kang as Sylvie killed
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
They covered that. By killing Kang, Sylvie caused Kang, as there was now no-one to prune the multiverse. As that doesn’t kick off until 3100, it’s going to happen again.
Who knows how many times this dance has been danced? And will we be dealing with the same Kang as Sylvie killed
They kind of covered it... But honestly it doesn't follow. Even by timetravel 'logic.'
If that's all it was, he could've just visited every timeline and murdered himself as a baby. Nothing the TVA actually does has anything to do with Him. If they did, they'd focus so much on the 31st century, and not care about much of anything else. The solution of narrowing everything down to a single timeline (somehow) is impossibly complex. When Doctor Who waves things off as 'timey-Whimey' it's a better solution than trying to figure out how this actually would work. It's equally nonsense, but at least it isn't wasting everyone's time with crap about free will and inevitability.
The endless 'dance' is part of problem. There is nothing to suggest that just letting it happen is actually worse than the multitude of crimes that actually get committed to stop it from happening (and everything else the TVA does).
It just makes the stakes so infinitesimally small. Does the superhero save the plane and lose his relationship is far more interesting and relevant than the cosmic infinite mess of incarnations and timelines. Because all of the above isn't an answer, it's an empty spectacle.
This manages to be interesting because it's personal to Loki and Sylvie. But infinite Bob and his future infinite shenanigans in endless incarnations are the polar opposite of that. Hero B punches variant #37733 in the face and it doesn't matter. Huzzah.
