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'd love to see Iron Man and Silver Surfer team up. They'd make good alloys.

 Galef wrote:
I'd love to see Iron Man and Silver Surfer team up. They'd make good alloys.

Ouch!

 Galef wrote:
I'd love to see Iron Man and Silver Surfer team up. They'd make good alloys.

Owwwww.....

Painful, like all good puns.

 gorgon wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
He was also nearly sympathetic.

Sure, his plan is utterly guano, pants on head, Tory voting insane. But the motivation (saving existence from itself) isn’t as twisted as his strength solution suggests.

I mean he clearly cares about gamora to such a degree he sees her as his daughter. She even weeps when he fake dies.

Its clear he never 'abused' her (not directly anyway). He cares about her feelings with such a small scene as when she tells him she hates his throne, and instead of sitting on the throne, he sits on the steps to his throne.

Well, sure. Until he throws his 'daughter' into a chasm, sheds a tear, and is over it almost immediately. He seems awfully content with his decision to go 'daughter'-murdering by the end of the film.

You really almost have to completely turn off your brain to think that Thanos behaves like a caring parent OR appears to be someone with a coherent plan. Now, if the character is meant to be a batgak crazy monster who's achieved almost perfect self-delusion (such as that he cares for Gamora or that his scheme makes even a lick of sense)...fine, I'm on board.

Well, even though it was a bright neon sign beating you with a hammer, you still managed to miss the point of him throwing her into the abyss; the REQUIREMENT of getting the gem is sacrificing what you love most in the universe. Thanos sacrifices her, and cries over it. Regardless of how long it lasts, the fact that the gem manifests itself to him is PROOF of his love for her. He isn't content to "go daughter murdering" as you put it, so much as "I need to save the universe, and it requires my daughter's life to get the final piece I need". Is his plan crazy? Of course. But that doesn't mean he doesn't love his daughter. The movie hammers home the point that he does. Just because you're watching it with blinders on doesn't make it untrue. Humorously, given the back and forth between the Marvel/DC fans we've had on here, if Snyder did it like this, you'd approve of it and call it "deep writing".

"Thing he loves most" only needs to be the top item on an unimpressive list. And in fact it was exactly that, because he murdered it in the name of a plan that makes no sense to any sane individual.

Well he IS known as the Mad Titan.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Dude, you've got so much wrong in your replies, it's like you didn't understand anything about the movie references I brought up. For example, S-M:H was specifically about Peter learning *not* to rely on the suit. IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.

SM:H shouldn't BE about Peter learning "not to rely on Stark suit". The whole idea is preposterous at very basic level. There is no aspect even remotely like that in the original character. Which is what the movie should be about.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.

It was IM3 - but what is that going to help? The suit was duplicated already by villain in IM1, and then again in IM2. And in Infinity War, we saw Stark handing out copies, thus completely nullifying the ending of IM3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

We have the multiple suits for the Ant man cast - the suit is just a tool in any of the films - Marvel films are about the people in them.

I don't like Ant-Man suit multiplication either, though it is less offensive than Iron Man suit spam.
The point is that the tools are misused, thus making the films much worse than they could be.

 KTG17 wrote:
HATE the nano suits. From Black Panther to Iron Man to Spiderman. I know its an evolution of the costumes, saves time and kids prob think its cool, but I hate them. Forming guns or spider legs from nothing is just too much for me.

100% with you there, but mainly for the way that they fold away from their faces whenever they go to talk.

It's what killed Black Panther's finale for me, as whenever BP and Killwhatever took a breather from fighting, their masks came off so the actors faces could be on screen so we could see the struggle these two were fighting.

Plus in sci-fi I love folding tech, that being stuff that starts small and folds into something bigger. The Silver Centurion (suit case suit) from Iron Man 2 is the ultimate example of that to me. Nano-tech just kinda makes everything appear out of no where, and it's no fun.

But at least it isn't as stupid as the "Every piece of this suit has its own in-built power system, propulsion system and guidance system, 'cause that's efficient!" suits from Iron Man 3.

Backfire wrote:
There is no aspect even remotely like that in the original character.

Who cares? The movies aren't the comics. In the MCU it is an aspect of his character.

I really hated the magic disappearing masks in Black Panther as well. It was my chief complaint about that movie.

Backfire wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Dude, you've got so much wrong in your replies, it's like you didn't understand anything about the movie references I brought up. For example, S-M:H was specifically about Peter learning *not* to rely on the suit. IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.

SM:H shouldn't BE about Peter learning "not to rely on Stark suit". The whole idea is preposterous at very basic level. There is no aspect even remotely like that in the original character. Which is what the movie should be about.

Yes. I was disappointed it wasn't the same origin story movie as the last two.

 AduroT wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
He was also nearly sympathetic.

Sure, his plan is utterly guano, pants on head, Tory voting insane. But the motivation (saving existence from itself) isn’t as twisted as his strength solution suggests.

I mean he clearly cares about gamora to such a degree he sees her as his daughter. She even weeps when he fake dies.

Its clear he never 'abused' her (not directly anyway). He cares about her feelings with such a small scene as when she tells him she hates his throne, and instead of sitting on the throne, he sits on the steps to his throne.

Well, sure. Until he throws his 'daughter' into a chasm, sheds a tear, and is over it almost immediately. He seems awfully content with his decision to go 'daughter'-murdering by the end of the film.

You really almost have to completely turn off your brain to think that Thanos behaves like a caring parent OR appears to be someone with a coherent plan. Now, if the character is meant to be a batgak crazy monster who's achieved almost perfect self-delusion (such as that he cares for Gamora or that his scheme makes even a lick of sense)...fine, I'm on board.

Well, even though it was a bright neon sign beating you with a hammer, you still managed to miss the point of him throwing her into the abyss; the REQUIREMENT of getting the gem is sacrificing what you love most in the universe. Thanos sacrifices her, and cries over it. Regardless of how long it lasts, the fact that the gem manifests itself to him is PROOF of his love for her. He isn't content to "go daughter murdering" as you put it, so much as "I need to save the universe, and it requires my daughter's life to get the final piece I need". Is his plan crazy? Of course. But that doesn't mean he doesn't love his daughter. The movie hammers home the point that he does. Just because you're watching it with blinders on doesn't make it untrue. Humorously, given the back and forth between the Marvel/DC fans we've had on here, if Snyder did it like this, you'd approve of it and call it "deep writing".

"Thing he loves most" only needs to be the top item on an unimpressive list. And in fact it was exactly that, because he murdered it in the name of a plan that makes no sense to any sane individual.

Well he IS known as the Mad Titan.

Actually, that's what I'm saying.

If the intent by the Russos was for him to be the Mad Titan like in the comics, and have a plan as equally batgak crazy as falling in love with and wooing Death itself...cool. Make you sympathetic for a split second before you realize how bonkers it all is and slap your forehead...yeah, I'm really good with that.

It's when I see/hear people in various places talk about Thanos as a genuinely sympathetic villain who 'kinda has a point if you think about it' that I start wondering about things. Namely, is that just fans not using even an ounce of brain power, or was that the conclusion the Russos wanted audiences to reach? I'm not the Russos' biggest fan, but I'm gonna assume it's the former.

The thing that makes Thanos work, and not just him it's a constant among a certain sort of villain, is his insanity is perfectly sane.

He truly believes that he's trying to do something good, that he's not being cruel or evil and that if everyone else could just see what he sees then they'd realise this, and the massive amount of death and destruction wrought in pursuit of this goal is regrettable, but the end justifies the means.

What the movie perhaps lacks, and has generated a lot of sympathy for a Thanos as a result, is any moment of counterpoint. I think there's an assumption that the audience will see the loss of 50% of all intelligent life for the mass genocide and consequently insane idea that it is, but given the setting, people aren't attaching the gravity to it that they might if it were a realistic, or even historical, movie.

Right up until the final scenes, where the evaporation of favorite characters probably does have an impact, the audience is insulated from the reality of Thanos' plan. We don't even see the deaths on Gamora's planet because we're sharing her perspective.

Perhaps even just a simple monologue from Stark, or Rogers perhaps as a better option, where they really drove home what they're fighting for and the implications of Thanos succeeding might help, but as it stands, this is Thanos' movie and he gets to put forward his side of the argument too often to come out as anything less than sympathetic.

it's still a somewhat daft comic book baddie plan, as it'll be totally undone, at least on Earth, in 50-75 years, based on recent population growth, especially as like any wildly irresponsible deity explanations of his actions to the masses is deemed unnecessary, could he have just made the Universe a lot bigger ?

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
it's still a somewhat daft comic book baddie plan, as it'll be totally undone, at least on Earth, in 50-75 years, based on recent population growth, especially as like any wildly irresponsible deity explanations of his actions to the masses is deemed unnecessary, could he have just made the Universe a lot bigger ?

I think that’s one of the reasons he didn’t just double the number of resources. I got the feeling that Thanos wanted the galaxy’s (universe’s?) population to know what had happened, realise why he’d done it and learn from it. That’s why his henchmen use words like salvation and sacrifice when they’re killing people. He wanted to galaxy to think it had been given a second chance to get things right.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
it's still a somewhat daft comic book baddie plan, as it'll be totally undone, at least on Earth, in 50-75 years, based on recent population growth, especially as like any wildly irresponsible deity explanations of his actions to the masses is deemed unnecessary, could he have just made the Universe a lot bigger ?

I think that’s one of the reasons he didn’t just double the number of resources. I got the feeling that Thanos wanted the galaxy’s (universe’s?) population to know what had happened, realise why he’d done it and learn from it. That’s why his henchmen use words like salvation and sacrifice when they’re killing people. He wanted to galaxy to think it had been given a second chance to get things right.

And f he just doubles the resources, the universes population would grow MORE, inflating the problem.

-

 Azreal13 wrote:
What the movie perhaps lacks, and has generated a lot of sympathy for a Thanos as a result, is any moment of counterpoint. I think there's an assumption that the audience will see the loss of 50% of all intelligent life for the mass genocide and consequently insane idea that it is, but given the setting, people aren't attaching the gravity to it that they might if it were a realistic, or even historical, movie.

Ya know, I think you're dead on there. All the big epic set pieces probably also distract audiences from considering it.

Having Cap deliver the speech would have been a good fit. And given him something to do in yet another film that minimized his presence...

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
it's still a somewhat daft comic book baddie plan, as it'll be totally undone, at least on Earth, in 50-75 years, based on recent population growth, especially as like any wildly irresponsible deity explanations of his actions to the masses is deemed unnecessary, could he have just made the Universe a lot bigger ?

Right, and beyond that, just randomly cutting populations in half could very obviously have catastrophic consequences on some worlds instead of being any kind of boon to them or the universe. There's no sense in any of it, and we could go on and on. The film probably could have used just a little more underlining of that point, as Azreal's pointed out.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
it's still a somewhat daft comic book baddie plan, as it'll be totally undone, at least on Earth, in 50-75 years, based on recent population growth, especially as like any wildly irresponsible deity explanations of his actions to the masses is deemed unnecessary, could he have just made the Universe a lot bigger ?

I think that’s one of the reasons he didn’t just double the number of resources. I got the feeling that Thanos wanted the galaxy’s (universe’s?) population to know what had happened, realise why he’d done it and learn from it. That’s why his henchmen use words like salvation and sacrifice when they’re killing people. He wanted to galaxy to think it had been given a second chance to get things right.

That...actually makes the crazy plan way less crazy. I hadn’t thought of that!

 Azreal13 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Dude, you've got so much wrong in your replies, it's like you didn't understand anything about the movie references I brought up. For example, S-M:H was specifically about Peter learning *not* to rely on the suit. IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.

SM:H shouldn't BE about Peter learning "not to rely on Stark suit". The whole idea is preposterous at very basic level. There is no aspect even remotely like that in the original character. Which is what the movie should be about.

Yes. I was disappointed it wasn't the same origin story movie as the last two.

LOL. To be fair, does Spiderman really need an origin story? Or Batman, for that matter? Aren't origin stories kinda passe? If in-universe, the general public can be OK knowing that supers exist without getting into the nitty-gritty of how they became a hero, can't we?

I think it's fine that Marvel can introduce characters without spending hours on how they got their powers, why they want to be a superhero, when they can have heroes and just tell stories around them. And it's not like Marvel didn't do that in the comics, either, where a new character appears out of the blue and starts doing stuff. Sure, it's usually villains, but new allies like Spidey work fine, too. And having already been introduced in Civil War, wouldn't the moment for another Spidey origin have passed from a chronological narrative standpoint?

If you have to spend a 2-hour movie introducing each MCU Hero, for the sheer number of heroes in something like Infinity War, you'd never be able to get there. As it is, the MCU had been going for a decade from IM1, and released 18 films prior to IW - that's a lot of content, esp with AM2 as something of the other bookend to IW.

Backfire wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Dude, you've got so much wrong in your replies, it's like you didn't understand anything about the movie references I brought up. For example, S-M:H was specifically about Peter learning *not* to rely on the suit. IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.

SM:H shouldn't BE about Peter learning "not to rely on Stark suit". The whole idea is preposterous at very basic level. There is no aspect even remotely like that in the original character. Which is what the movie should be about.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.

It was IM3 - but what is that going to help? The suit was duplicated already by villain in IM1, and then again in IM2. And in Infinity War, we saw Stark handing out copies, thus completely nullifying the ending of IM3.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

We have the multiple suits for the Ant man cast - the suit is just a tool in any of the films - Marvel films are about the people in them.

I don't like Ant-Man suit multiplication either, though it is less offensive than Iron Man suit spam.
The point is that the tools are misused, thus making the films much worse than they could be.

Spiderman: H is the first Spiderman film I could stomach -fun film but my fav bit was the end with engagement ring...
Suits - well given that the Marvel films are never about the Tech or the Suits - but who uses/wears them, why they do, etc I am fine with more of them they are just props for some cool fighty stuff.

IM3 ending - I didn't believe he wouldn't make more suits, Peper would not have believed it - hell he all but winks at the camera when he fetches his semi-sentient arm.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Dude, you've got so much wrong in your replies, it's like you didn't understand anything about the movie references I brought up. For example, S-M:H was specifically about Peter learning *not* to rely on the suit. IM2 saw Tony destroy the suits so others wouldn't get them. Not gonna waste any more on you if you can't even comprehend the most basic things.

SM:H shouldn't BE about Peter learning "not to rely on Stark suit". The whole idea is preposterous at very basic level. There is no aspect even remotely like that in the original character. Which is what the movie should be about.

Yes. I was disappointed it wasn't the same origin story movie as the last two.

LOL. To be fair, does Spiderman really need an origin story? Or Batman, for that matter? Aren't origin stories kinda passe? If in-universe, the general public can be OK knowing that supers exist without getting into the nitty-gritty of how they became a hero, can't we?

I think it's fine that Marvel can introduce characters without spending hours on how they got their powers, why they want to be a superhero, when they can have heroes and just tell stories around them. And it's not like Marvel didn't do that in the comics, either, where a new character appears out of the blue and starts doing stuff. Sure, it's usually villains, but new allies like Spidey work fine, too. And having already been introduced in Civil War, wouldn't the moment for another Spidey origin have passed from a chronological narrative standpoint?

If you have to spend a 2-hour movie introducing each MCU Hero, for the sheer number of heroes in something like Infinity War, you'd never be able to get there. As it is, the MCU had been going for a decade from IM1, and released 18 films prior to IW - that's a lot of content, esp with AM2 as something of the other bookend to IW.

Agreed - Spidermans origins is done in a quick conversation with his mate, - job done, same with Justice League and a couple of their main cast. We don.t need more most of the time.

I’m a bit behind in my marvel filmage, just saw Thor Ragnarok last night.. but I heard all about IW and who dies because people at work don't know what spoilers are. I haven’t seen Spiderman homecoming yet, but plan to soon. But, after watching Thor I started surfing around IMDB and looked up the new Spiderman kid, and it says they’re working on a sequel to homecoming.. Didn’t he die in Infinity War? How are they gonna explain that? Or is it some kind of a prequel sequel?

I'm pretty sure the sequel to Infinity War will be out before the sequel to Homecoming, so whatever magic that brings Spiderman back will have happened by that point. After the end of Infinity War, any announcements are going to be spoilers - the only way to avoid that would have been to put the whole pre-production of any further Marvel movies n hold until after the next Avengers film comes out, which isn't feasible.

Sequel to Infinity War (Endgame?) April (?) 2019

Spider-Man:Far from Home July 5, 2019

People are having a laugh with the mental gymnastics the studios are having to run through in terms of marketing...

Technically speaking, they could include Miles Morales and say Peter died saving the world. I mean, we already have Miles gakky friend Ned in the movie-verse instead of Harry. Homecoming is already a crappy rendition of Spider-Man, so why not pull Peter out of it and have him die a hero’s death?

In case you can’t tell, I hated Homecoming (but loved his performance in Civil War and Infinity War).

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Technically speaking, they could include Miles Morales and say Peter died saving the world. I mean, we already have Miles gakky friend Ned in the movie-verse instead of Harry. Homecoming is already a crappy rendition of Spider-Man, so why not pull Peter out of it and have him die a hero’s death?

In case you can’t tell, I hated Homecoming (but loved his performance in Civil War and Infinity War).

Or Spider-Gwen because purty ladies in tight supersuits is empowering or somesuch

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Technically speaking, they could include Miles Morales and say Peter died saving the world. I mean, we already have Miles gakky friend Ned in the movie-verse instead of Harry. Homecoming is already a crappy rendition of Spider-Man, so why not pull Peter out of it and have him die a hero’s death?

In case you can’t tell, I hated Homecoming (but loved his performance in Civil War and Infinity War).

Or Spider-Gwen because purty ladies in tight supersuits is empowering or somesuch

Women is tight armour suits kicking ass is a plus for me. Marvels version of Bubblegum Crisis - cool

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Technically speaking, they could include Miles Morales and say Peter died saving the world. I mean, we already have Miles gakky friend Ned in the movie-verse instead of Harry. Homecoming is already a crappy rendition of Spider-Man, so why not pull Peter out of it and have him die a hero’s death?

In case you can’t tell, I hated Homecoming (but loved his performance in Civil War and Infinity War).

But we already know they aren't doing this - unless it is the greatest fake-out of all time.

Tom Holland is already filming "Far From Home" and posts about it fairly regularly.

Plus it is rumored to be featuring one of the greatest Spidey Super-Villains of all time too, so that's a bonus!

 Mysterio wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Technically speaking, they could include Miles Morales and say Peter died saving the world. I mean, we already have Miles gakky friend Ned in the movie-verse instead of Harry. Homecoming is already a crappy rendition of Spider-Man, so why not pull Peter out of it and have him die a hero’s death?

In case you can’t tell, I hated Homecoming (but loved his performance in Civil War and Infinity War).

But we already know they aren't doing this - unless it is the greatest fake-out of all time.

Tom Holland is already filming "Far From Home" and posts about it fairly regularly.

Plus it is rumored to be featuring one of the greatest Spidey Super-Villains of all time too, so that's a bonus!

They already had Doc Oc in a movie.

Ha, I'm kidding. Really excited to see Mysterio. Though I would love to see them make a good run at the Venom/Symbiote storyline. I want to see a well cast Carnage causing problems in NYC. Really unlikely to happen though. :(

 Necros wrote:
I’m a bit behind in my marvel filmage, just saw Thor Ragnarok last night.. but I heard all about IW and who dies because people at work don't know what spoilers are. I haven’t seen Spiderman homecoming yet, but plan to soon. But, after watching Thor I started surfing around IMDB and looked up the new Spiderman kid, and it says they’re working on a sequel to homecoming.. Didn’t he die in Infinity War? How are they gonna explain that? Or is it some kind of a prequel sequel?

It's a movie based on a marvel comic.

Superhero comics only have one really important rule: NO-ONE stays dead.
There is a second rule: In the event of a breach of rule 1, ret-con the entire thing and "make it never happened". Both Marvel and DC have used this contrivance multiple times (double digits) in the last 40 years - each.

They'll be back faster than I can snap my fingers - just like they were never gone.

The next Avengers should definitely see Shuri take up the mantle of the Black Panther, like in the comics.

 chromedog wrote:

 Necros wrote:
I’m a bit behind in my marvel filmage, just saw Thor Ragnarok last night.. but I heard all about IW and who dies because people at work don't know what spoilers are. I haven’t seen Spiderman homecoming yet, but plan to soon. But, after watching Thor I started surfing around IMDB and looked up the new Spiderman kid, and it says they’re working on a sequel to homecoming.. Didn’t he die in Infinity War? How are they gonna explain that? Or is it some kind of a prequel sequel?

It's a movie based on a marvel comic.

Superhero comics only have one really important rule: NO-ONE stays dead.
There is a second rule: In the event of a breach of rule 1, ret-con the entire thing and "make it never happened". Both Marvel and DC have used this contrivance multiple times (double digits) in the last 40 years - each.

They'll be back faster than I can snap my fingers - just like they were never gone.

Except for Ben Parker. Ben Parker stays dead.

 AduroT wrote:

 chromedog wrote:

 Necros wrote:
I’m a bit behind in my marvel filmage, just saw Thor Ragnarok last night.. but I heard all about IW and who dies because people at work don't know what spoilers are. I haven’t seen Spiderman homecoming yet, but plan to soon. But, after watching Thor I started surfing around IMDB and looked up the new Spiderman kid, and it says they’re working on a sequel to homecoming.. Didn’t he die in Infinity War? How are they gonna explain that? Or is it some kind of a prequel sequel?

It's a movie based on a marvel comic.

Superhero comics only have one really important rule: NO-ONE stays dead.
There is a second rule: In the event of a breach of rule 1, ret-con the entire thing and "make it never happened". Both Marvel and DC have used this contrivance multiple times (double digits) in the last 40 years - each.

They'll be back faster than I can snap my fingers - just like they were never gone.

Except for Ben Parker. Ben Parker stays dead.

And batmans parents. And kyle rayners girlfriend in the fridge.

 AduroT wrote:

 chromedog wrote:


Superhero comics only have one really important rule: NO-ONE stays dead.
There is a second rule: In the event of a breach of rule 1, ret-con the entire thing and "make it never happened". Both Marvel and DC have used this contrivance multiple times (double digits) in the last 40 years - each.

They'll be back faster than I can snap my fingers - just like they were never gone.

Except for Ben Parker. Ben Parker stays dead.

Yeah, but I remember back 20 years ago when that statement used to go "...but Bucky, Gwen Stacy, and Ben Parker always stay dead". Now we're just down to one out of the three.