f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Movies => Topic started by: Evildrider on February 05, 2013, 07:48:41 PM



Title: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 05, 2013, 07:48:41 PM
I figured it would be easier to do a mega thread for Marvel since there is a bit of news out there at the moment.

First big news/rumor item is that Avengers Phase 2 is looking like it's going to lead to World War Hulk.  With the Hulk getting a movie, Planet Hulk,  after Avengers 2 and then Avengers 3 being his return in a World War Hulk story.

We also know for sure that there is an Ant-Man and Doctor Strange movie coming in phase 3.

Also Chris Pratt, recently in Zero Dark Thirty, has been cast as Star-Lord in Guardians of the Galaxy.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 05, 2013, 08:46:36 PM
The sourcing on the World War Hulk thing, though, is incredibly thin--it's basically one fanzine making a big deal out of a seemingly off-the-cuff remark by Feige about how they want to use good Marvel stories without getting caught up in continuity bloat, e.g., something like Planet Hulk/World War Hulk would be fun to do if it could be non-bloaty. Still, I can see why they'd think it's the way to go in terms of keeping the Hulk as fun as he was in The Avengers rather than as glum as he was in the Ed Norton Hulk flick.

The Doctor Strange thing isn't absolutely for sure for sure but it's looking pretty good.

I think the fact that they are making Guardians of the Galaxy certainly shows that the whole thing is very unpredictable--that anything could happen, any character might get a flick.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 05, 2013, 08:57:44 PM
That site has been spot on almost all its Marvel leaks since the get go.  It's the main reason it's getting so much press.  I think the biggest thing that rumor has going for it is that Hulk was easily the biggest fan favorite in Avengers.

Doctor Strange and Ant-Man has been confirmed by Kevin Feige.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ubvman on February 06, 2013, 01:17:32 AM
I'm disappointed if they go with WW Hulk/Planet Hulk. Kind of looking forward to Thanos and the infinity gems/gauntlet.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on February 06, 2013, 04:58:19 AM
They already did that animated Planet Hulk that was rather good.  Why bother with a live action version ?

Especially since Banner has pretty much fuck all to do with it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 06, 2013, 06:16:35 AM
I love Doctor Strange so much as a character. He has one of the most distinctive origins and backstories in all of comics, just beneath the pure genius of Batman and Spider-Man's origins. He's about the only superhero I can think of whose origin is basically "depressed middle-aged man who has fucked up his life gets another chance, not because he fell into a radioactive puddle, but because he works hard and takes a leap of faith". He's sort of like the Theoden of super-heroes: midlife crisis melancholic, looking for a chance to be worthy of the moment. If they can keep that clear and intact, I think it could be great.

It also could be the most awful cheese fest of all the Marvel films if they get it wrong. I think they need to go to the fantasy-horror end of things visually--Strange's enemies can't look too much like their bright, spandexy comic-book versions. The upcoming Thor film will tell us a lot about whether they can do the Strange pic well.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on February 06, 2013, 06:26:23 AM
Do Strange wrong, though, and you're just retreading Iron Man.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 06, 2013, 06:36:37 AM
Yes, though it's interesting--that's really an element of the Iron Man character that developed slowly in the comics and didn't really take hold hard until the first film and Downey's interpretation of the character. Whereas it's built right into Strange's DNA from the outset.

It wouldn't be a Stan Lee/early Marvel character if he wasn't ripping off the pulps in some ways, of course--Strange has definitely elements of Lamont Cranston baked into him, for example.

They almost ought to go the other way from Downey's take on Tony Stark. Tony Stark in the films (and now the comics) is a cocky, super-talented, hedonistic prodigy who is always one step away from a catastrophic fall. Strange opens his story having been the arrogant prodigy who has already long since fallen. So his cinematic character has to be a guy who is so afraid of his own mojo, so gunshy about himself, that he might miss the moment where he has to act without hesitation or regret.

Could make a meeting down the line between Stark and Strange interesting if they get the right actor for the part.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on February 06, 2013, 07:04:43 AM
That site has been spot on almost all its Marvel leaks since the get go.  It's the main reason it's getting so much press.  I think the biggest thing that rumor has going for it is that Hulk was easily the biggest fan favorite in Avengers.

The problem you run in to here is pretty often taking a fan-favorite character of an ensemble and making him the centerpiece falls flat.  You realize that it was the interactions that made the character shine, not the character themselves.

Not that it can't be done, but it's quite a risk.  Particularly with the Hulk who's already had two failed films.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on February 06, 2013, 09:16:05 AM
I still love the first hulk film, personally. It was cerebral in a way that most hero films were not at the time and arguably laid the foundation for the much more complex films that came after. Stan Lee still says that Hulk got a bum rap. I agree that the ending was a mess but most of the film was wonderful.

That said if they go "Hulk fights space aliens!!" everyone is going to laugh their head off. World War Hulk might have been great fun but it was completely daft.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sky on February 06, 2013, 09:34:46 AM
Could make a meeting down the line between Stark and Strange interesting if they get the right actor for the part.
Benedict Cumberbatch


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 06, 2013, 10:00:27 AM
That said if they go "Hulk fights space aliens!!" everyone is going to laugh their head off. World War Hulk might have been great fun but it was completely daft.

This. It was also terrible. WWHulk was just BAD from the get go. And it was tied to and part of that whole goddamn Skrull Invasion shitpile of a story that was tied to the even bigger steaming shitpile of a story, Civil War. You'd have to be detaching a lot of story tentacles. Not that it couldn't be done, but I'd rather they go another way.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Hutch on February 06, 2013, 10:34:51 AM
Also Chris Pratt, recently in Zero Dark Thirty, has been cast as Star-Lord in Guardians of the Galaxy.

Someone explain, and be as succinct or verbose as you desire, why they are making a movie about Guardians of the Galaxy.

Who at Marvel has got such a hard-on for Guardians of the Galaxy, that they're getting a movie? Much less getting a movie ahead of Dr Strange.

My bewilderment springs from the fact that I used to read Iron Man, Hulk, and Ghost Rider (along with X-Men, the Avengers, and the occasional Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, or Dr Strange story), but the GotG were nowhere to be found during my comic-reading days. I can't see how a GotG movie is going to do well financially. Unless there's an Avengers tie-in, maybe? Who the hell are these people?

Re: Avengers 2 (or 3). I wouldn't mind seeing an Ultron/Vision story. Ultron was a classic Avengers villain. Although they haven't really established his creator in the Marvel Movie Universe just yet.

Edit: punctuation, they are the little marks that use their influence, to help a sentence make more sense


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on February 06, 2013, 10:39:24 AM
Am I the only one that's scared about Eccleston in the Thor 2 movie ?

Gi Joe was an abortion due to him hamming it up.  Not that it was ever going to be any good, but you understand where I'm coming from.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 06, 2013, 10:51:29 AM
Guardians of the Galaxy have always had a really strong cult fanbase.

Keep in mind that it's not an Avengers-like project. The budget will be much smaller.

And there will most likely be an Avengers tie in. Wouldn't be hard with the space stuff. Even if it's minor.

Gi Joe was an abortion due to him hamming it up.  Not that it was ever going to be any good, but you understand where I'm coming from.

Wait... Okay.... wait, no. Eccleston is totally hammy, which can be fun, so I can't really disagree with the comment about him hamming it up.. but THAT is the reason the GI Joe movie sucked? The whole project was terrible.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 06, 2013, 11:09:11 AM
I think the Guardians film has two reasons:

First, that it's actually drawing on some of Marvel's strongest storytelling in the last decade--while Civil War and all its follow-ons were shitting the bed, Annihilation and the stories that followed it were taut, interesting, and actually had a relatively tight and self-referential continuity. You could enjoy all the MU elements being drawn in but you didn't have to know about the appearance of Galactus in a Thor storyline six years ago, etc., to even have the faintest idea of what was going on. The characters will come to the screen with very few prior expectations even by the fans--you aren't going to have a lot of Rocket Racoon purists unloading fanboy angst in advance of the release. If you can make the character work visually and thematically in a film, everyone will follow along.

Second, this is just my suspicion, but I think the Guardians film is mostly going to be a way to amp up attention and drama for the second Avengers film by letting Thanos rip up and kill a bunch of relatively disposable characters. My guess is that they're looking over the script and deciding if any of the characters have a shot at being genuine favorite "discoveries" like the Hulk was in the first Avengers film. That character(s) will survive the film. Everyone else, I'm thinking, buys the farm. It's the way you make Thanos into a palpable, known threat. If the Guardians don't die in their own film, then the bulk of them will die in Avengers 2--that's even more likely, since they might want to get a bit of fun out of introducing the relatively 'real-world' characters of the Avengers to an angry tree, a laser-blasting racoon, a slinky green alien assassin lady, a dude who calls himself "Star Lord" and a big Hulk-like guy who fights with knives. The Guardians can tell the Avengers or SHIELD about Thanos, have everybody go 'Right, we don't do talking animals' and then freak out when they all get ganked by Thanos or minions thereof. (Blood Brothers would be a good warm-up fight..)

Without the Guardians' film they'd have to introduce Thanos cold in the second Avengers film. (You can't have him pop up as an antagonist in the individual flicks, even Thor's, because he would have to be a threat that none of them can even remotely deal with by themselves). 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on February 06, 2013, 11:11:19 AM
Well, all you have to do is bring in Squirrel Girl into Thor 2 and problem solved.  :grin:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 06, 2013, 11:20:43 AM
Without the Guardians' film they'd have to introduce Thanos cold in the second Avengers film. (You can't have him pop up as an antagonist in the individual flicks, even Thor's, because he would have to be a threat that none of them can even remotely deal with by themselves). 

I think you're going to see threads of Thanos in all of the individual movies leading up to Avengers. Thor makes sense to have a little more, given it's in SPACE. But a more important reason to doubt that is the great amount of time between the release of Thor 2 and when Avengers 2 will come out, which would be over a year and a half. Guardians fits nicely in that with a release window of 2014.

Somewhere... soemwhere, there is a calendar that looks a lot like the infamous Blizzard calendars that I would love to see more than the Blizzard calendar.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on February 06, 2013, 11:47:56 AM
I'm a geek and I have no idea who the fuck GoG are, or that they were even a thing.

It'd better be a damn small budget.

I don't think Squirrel Girl would get any love from the general public. She's too silly, even for me, and I like goofy things.  


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 06, 2013, 12:13:13 PM
I'm a geek and I have no idea who the fuck GoG are, or that they were even a thing.

It's not like "Geek" means you would know everything. I know GoG, but I don't know how to speak Klingon, for instance.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on February 06, 2013, 02:14:55 PM
KA PLAH!



I only know what the GoG are because they showed up in the Avengers Cartoon for an episode. I have no idea how they intend to make those heroes relevant for a movie. At all.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 06, 2013, 02:25:22 PM
The GoG they're going with in the film came together to fight a grim galactic war (in which Thanos was an antagonist but not the only one) and then stayed together to be a sort of emergency-reponse Special Forces team dealing with big universal crises. Basically think of them as the space version of the A-Team or the Howling Commandos and you're getting close to the mark. The character breakdown is basically:

Gritty, experienced veteran leader, human: Star-Lord
Han Solo-like wisecracking gunslinger, anthropomorphic animal: Rocket Raccoon
Ninja assassin with a dark past, sexy green lady: Gamora
Hulk-like giant rampaging brute, a giant alien tree: Groot
Riddick like cold killer on a suicide mission: Drax


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 06, 2013, 04:58:33 PM
GoG is being written by James Gunn (Slither and Super - which if you haven't seen either, DO SO). You can bet he will bring something fresh to the story, and it will be humorous but also probably violent. And the Guardians have been around a lot longer than the version that Khaldun brought up. They used to be a more super-hero-ey style cosmic group of heroes. This version does sound right up Gunn's alley though.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 06, 2013, 05:44:05 PM
They're clearly going to forget all about the earlier Guardians, who are very much a product of an earlier comic-book era. Though the more recent stuff did make an interesting attempt to fold them back into the story eventually via temporal paradoxes and all that stuff.

I think it's fair to say we can expect a much more violent film than Avengers with a very different visual style. I think they're going more "niche" with this one.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on February 06, 2013, 06:19:02 PM
I'm a geek and I have no idea who the fuck GoG are, or that they were even a thing.

It's not like "Geek" means you would know everything. I know GoG, but I don't know how to speak Klingon, for instance.

But you know Klingon-speaking is a thing.  Meanwhile the public forgot it was a thing until Big Bang Theory brought it up again.

Not that GoG can't be a good film because the public will have clue "0" about it, but it's not going to be doing Spider Man or Avengers numbers without being a stellar movie.  It's uber-niche, which was my point.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 06, 2013, 08:59:59 PM
GoG is probably more about Marvel finding a movie to put a bunch of Thanos information in before hitting Avengers 2.  I mean they basically hunt Thanos whenever possible.  Especially Drax and Gamora who both held infinity gems at one time.  It doesn't look like Iron Man 3 is gonna have much to do with Thanos.  Thor 2 has more of a chance to go that route, but with the addition of Enchantress and Executioner I don't know how much will be put in.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 07, 2013, 07:01:10 AM
I wouldn't be too surprised if it turns out that Malekith in Thor 2 is working for or connected to Thanos.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 07, 2013, 09:59:14 AM
In the current Marvel NOW continuity, Iron Man is off to team up with the Guardians. Additionally, images of a "Deep Space Suit" Iron Man got leaked. Now, the Deep Suit thing can be written off to some degree because toys always have weird versions not in the movies.

The Marvel NOW thing, however, is much more interesting. Tying Iron Man into it, even tenuously, would help the exposure greatly. However, Iron Man 3 also comes out in a couple of months, while GoG is still a lot further away.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: rk47 on February 07, 2013, 10:24:30 PM
I love Doctor Strange so much as a character. He has one of the most distinctive origins and backstories in all of comics, just beneath the pure genius of Batman and Spider-Man's origins. He's about the only superhero I can think of whose origin is basically "depressed middle-aged man who has fucked up his life gets another chance, not because he fell into a radioactive puddle, but because he works hard and takes a leap of faith". He's sort of like the Theoden of super-heroes: midlife crisis melancholic, looking for a chance to be worthy of the moment. If they can keep that clear and intact, I think it could be great.

It also could be the most awful cheese fest of all the Marvel films if they get it wrong. I think they need to go to the fantasy-horror end of things visually--Strange's enemies can't look too much like their bright, spandexy comic-book versions. The upcoming Thor film will tell us a lot about whether they can do the Strange pic well.


Have you seen their animated take on Strange's Origins?
Painful to watch. Very, very painful.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 08, 2013, 06:09:42 AM
Yeah, I didn't like it at all.

Fucking with Strange's origins is like fucking with Spider-Man's or Batman's. It's the one thing about the character that doesn't need any fixing at all.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MahrinSkel on February 16, 2013, 03:44:25 PM
Am I the only one that's scared about Eccleston in the Thor 2 movie ?

Gi Joe was an abortion due to him hamming it up.  Not that it was ever going to be any good, but you understand where I'm coming from.
Depends on which Eccleston was cast.  The manic smiler of the Ninth Doctor, or the misanthropic bastard of Heroes.  Given that he's playing Malekith, it would seem like a chance to chew the scenery in a really memorable way.

--Dave


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on March 06, 2013, 07:22:15 AM
Re: the Planet Hulk/World War Hulk rumor as the post-Avengers 2 direction of these properties:

Joss Whedon said in reply to a query from IGN, "no, that's nonsense".

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2013/03/05/planet-hulk-movie-rumor-whedon-nonsense/


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on March 06, 2013, 09:29:46 AM
Shocker.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on March 06, 2013, 10:27:01 AM
Eh. Dismissal by someone like Whedon really doesn't give me a CASE CLOSED. Hell, Raimi denied all the time that there was  NO VENOM in his Spidey flick. He even said it was a stupid idea (which it was, ultimately).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on March 06, 2013, 02:10:56 PM
Planet Hulk is palpably a stupid idea in a way recognisable by studio execs, also it has no obvious sales value. Wheras Venom is only a palpably a stupid idea to someone who has actually read a Spiderman comic.

I'm doubtful we'll see a standalone Hulk movie soon.

I also seriously doubt anyone worth a salary has been wasting their time on potential plots of 2016 movies four years ahead of time.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on March 06, 2013, 02:17:01 PM
Planet Hulk is palpably a stupid idea in a way recognisable by studio execs, also it has no obvious sales value. Wheras Venom is only a palpably a stupid idea to someone who has actually read a Spiderman comic.

I'm doubtful we'll see a standalone Hulk movie soon.

I also seriously doubt anyone worth a salary has been wasting their time on potential plots of 2016 movies four years ahead of time.


With how popular the Hulk was in The Avengers, you'd be wrong thinking Ruffalo won't get himself a Hulk movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on March 06, 2013, 02:19:28 PM
Btw, when I first heard about GoG, my first thought was 'Green Lantern the movie'. That is how weird and shitty GoG could get.

As for Thanos, they don't really need to introduce him before Avengers 2.

Avengers movies aren't dependent on the villian as an antagonist, there isn't much screen time left after the Avengers finish antagonising each other. There may be threads and references, but it can work with or without the thing they did with Loki.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on March 06, 2013, 02:20:49 PM
Planet Hulk is palpably a stupid idea in a way recognisable by studio execs, also it has no obvious sales value. Wheras Venom is only a palpably a stupid idea to someone who has actually read a Spiderman comic.

I'm doubtful we'll see a standalone Hulk movie soon.

I also seriously doubt anyone worth a salary has been wasting their time on potential plots of 2016 movies four years ahead of time.


With how popular the Hulk was in The Avengers, you'd be wrong thinking Ruffalo won't get himself a Hulk movie.

Meh, maybe, I doubt it'll even be planned till they see how Avengers 2 pans out.

The lead actors weren't the reason that the last two attempts were shit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on March 06, 2013, 02:21:59 PM
Eh. Dismissal by someone like Whedon really doesn't give me a CASE CLOSED. Hell, Raimi denied all the time that there was  NO VENOM in his Spidey flick. He even said it was a stupid idea (which it was, ultimately).

STOP IT.  WHY MUST YOU STIR THE CUP OF MY PERSONAL PAIN.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Venkman on March 06, 2013, 07:12:16 PM

With how popular the Hulk was in The Avengers, you'd be wrong thinking Ruffalo won't get himself a Hulk movie.
[/quote]

If not for Hulk 1 and 2, you'd probably be right. However, nobody's chomping on that bit just because he had a few good scenes amongst a cast of a dozen other superheroes after two under-performers.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on March 06, 2013, 08:15:15 PM
The point is that The Hulk in Avengers is what people have been asking for.  He's not just the total rage monster, he seemed to be in the more symbiotic Hulk/Banner stage. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on May 30, 2013, 09:35:08 AM
Lots of interesting stuff going on now with casting news and such.

Pretty clear that they're not going at Guardians of the Galaxy with faint heart--the current casting rumors around John C. Reilly and Glenn Close are that they're being looked at for relatively minor parts as officers of the Nova Corps, which is apparently being set up as the outer space and aliens counterpart to SHIELD. Continuing rumor that they're casting Tennant as Rocket Raccoon's voice, which seems a good idea to me. Contrary to my original guess, it doesn't seem like Thanos is the major villain of the film--sounds more like the Collector is going to be it. Though I wouldn't be too surprised if Thanos shows up in the background somewhere.

Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch seem pretty certain for Avengers 2--Whedon's been talking about that explicitly in public.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on May 31, 2013, 02:58:21 AM
And there are numerous reports that "Thor 2" is in big trouble.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 31, 2013, 11:00:33 AM
And there are numerous reports that "Thor 2" is in big trouble.

Could you expand on this? Havent heard anything.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Trippy on May 31, 2013, 12:11:53 PM
Marvel has been keeping tight control over the movies they are directly producing and they keep butting heads with key people that are involved with the movies. The original Thor 2 director left over "creative differences" and the current director is fighting Marvel over the run time and edit of the movie. He wants a 150 minutes movie edit but Marvel only wants 120 minutes. The composer was also just fired.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2013, 12:24:48 PM
I can see Marvel's point.  If it were 10 mins more, ok.  30 mins more, though? What could he possibly be adding to the story that isn't wank when it requires that much more time?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Trippy on May 31, 2013, 12:28:27 PM
Dunno. Avengers was 140 minutes, though, and some people say the extended version of the Ed Norton Hulk was a better edit. Marvel presumably prefers it to be shorter cause that means more showings per day and presumably more money initially.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on May 31, 2013, 07:44:05 PM
When you look at the history of how Marvel films got to this point, it's a razor-thin balancing act between control-freakery, weird corporate power battles, and a few inspired creative decisions. Like most corporate types, they're likely to think that a) and b) explain how they're making oodles of money rather than c), but c) is really where it's at.

Sean Howe's Marvel book is pretty good at laying out the strange maneuvers involved to get to this point.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2013, 07:57:05 PM
Dunno. Avengers was 140 minutes, though, and some people say the extended version of the Ed Norton Hulk was a better edit. Marvel presumably prefers it to be shorter cause that means more showings per day and presumably more money initially.

Avengers was justified as an ensemble piece.  30 extra mins in a movie with 4-6 main characters? Flys by in chunks of interaction.  30 mins longer in a single-character piece like Thor, Spider Man or Iron Man?  Wankery.  If we'd lost the kid in IM3 would it have been a worse movie?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on May 31, 2013, 08:14:13 PM
Christ on a stick. 30 minutes in a great script, with great direction, are great. 30 minutes in a dull bit of summer action-movie Michael Bay explosions and shit are agonizing no matter what.

30 minutes nothing until you see what the 30 minutes are. Do you trust Ike Perlmutter or people like him to decide which 30 minutes are the awesomesauce? Some of the mid-level bean counters at Marvel apparently tried to block Whedon's selection ("too cultish") and then a lot of his specific calls about how to do the movie.

The whole line is going to need to be considerably less calculated if it's going to thrive and not slowly degenerate into the Bond-style equivalent of "Octopussy".


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on June 01, 2013, 05:05:28 AM
Your distrust of Marvel doesn't change the fact that they have put out two movies (Avengers, IM3) that are in the top 10 money makers of all time.  Maybe they actually know what they are doing.

Having said that, they will have a flop sooner or later.  I say "Guardians of the Galaxy".  It could be interesting to see how that affects their plans down the line. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on June 01, 2013, 02:23:43 PM
Without seeing it obviously no one here can know.

But too long movies are fashionable at the moment because directors are being indulged. If the producer is pushing a director to cut tighter then it sounds like hes doing his job.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 01, 2013, 06:45:50 PM
Even Django Unchained, which I thought was perhaps the best movie of 2012 and and probably a few years back...was easily 30min too long.  Tarantino was indulged and of course if he wasn't then it wouldn't be a Tarantino film BUT even great movies can go too long.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on June 03, 2013, 05:18:41 PM
Benicio Del Toro just signed a multi picture deal with Marvel.  He'll be playing the lead villain in Guardians of the Galaxy.  Also I read that Guardians is going to be similar to movies like Ghostbusters and Galaxy Quest than a straight up action movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on June 03, 2013, 05:28:18 PM
Even Django Unchained, which I thought was perhaps the best movie of 2012 and and probably a few years back...was easily 30min too long.  Tarantino was indulged and of course if he wasn't then it wouldn't be a Tarantino film BUT even great movies can go too long.

I agree completely.  A good editor makes a good movie great.  Although when I buy it on blu-ray I want all the deleted scenes they can scrape off the 'cutting room floor'.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 21, 2013, 11:09:55 AM
So the news from the Comic-Con panel is interesting.

Guardians looks like it's shooting for a funny tone, which I think is wise.

Though it doesn't look like it's being used to set up Avengers 2, contra my own guess. Just to establish a space setting for the Marvel U. pictures, really.

Winter Soldier is looking pretty interesting--going for a taut conspiracy-filled thriller feeling, apparently.

The big surprise to me is that Avengers 2 chief bad-guy is not Thanos (who is at least name-dropped in Guardians, apparently) but Ultron. That means almost of necessity that in addition to Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, who have been confirmed as additions, that Hank Pym has pretty much got to move over from Wright's Ant-Man film into Avengers 2 *or* it means that Tony Stark will be the person who makes Ultron instead (which in many ways could make good sense and could keep the character's development from Iron Man 3 humming along--explaining among other things why he might get back into the armor.

I do wonder how they'll update Ultron or make him relevant given that he could easily come off as a superhero-franchise version of Skynet or some such. Also of interest now is the rumor about Vin Diesel being cast as the Vision--the Vision is a natural accompaniment to Ultron but maybe Diesel could actually *be* Ultron?

No discussion of Doctor Strange, apparently, despite the fact that there's been a lot of rumors about a completed script and some casting going on.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on July 21, 2013, 11:13:32 AM
I really hope they don't fall into the trap of having too many characters, because Avengers 2 sure sounds like it's going to have a lot of them.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 21, 2013, 02:52:26 PM
So the news from the Comic-Con panel is interesting.

Guardians looks like it's shooting for a funny tone, which I think is wise.

Though it doesn't look like it's being used to set up Avengers 2, contra my own guess. Just to establish a space setting for the Marvel U. pictures, really.

Winter Soldier is looking pretty interesting--going for a taut conspiracy-filled thriller feeling, apparently.

The big surprise to me is that Avengers 2 chief bad-guy is not Thanos (who is at least name-dropped in Guardians, apparently) but Ultron. That means almost of necessity that in addition to Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, who have been confirmed as additions, that Hank Pym has pretty much got to move over from Wright's Ant-Man film into Avengers 2 *or* it means that Tony Stark will be the person who makes Ultron instead (which in many ways could make good sense and could keep the character's development from Iron Man 3 humming along--explaining among other things why he might get back into the armor.

I do wonder how they'll update Ultron or make him relevant given that he could easily come off as a superhero-franchise version of Skynet or some such. Also of interest now is the rumor about Vin Diesel being cast as the Vision--the Vision is a natural accompaniment to Ultron but maybe Diesel could actually *be* Ultron?

No discussion of Doctor Strange, apparently, despite the fact that there's been a lot of rumors about a completed script and some casting going on.

I hope that they stick with Ultron being made by Hank Pym, I'd rather not see it changed to Stark.  Besides those two never got along too well in the comics, so I'd find it funny if Pym stole or collected some of the "destroyed" Iron Man armors from the 3rd movie and used it to make Ultron.

I think that Vin Diesel would make a decent Vision.  I'm not sure who else he could play besides doing the voice for Ultron.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on July 21, 2013, 03:58:02 PM
Vin does have the right face shape for Vision I think. I think it would fall apart once he started talking though.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 21, 2013, 04:20:57 PM
Whedon has given a short follow-up interview stating that this Ultron will not be created by Hank Pym, and that they want to leave Edgar Wright to do his own thing with Ant-Man without any presumptions about that character. That kind of makes me think that the Ant-Man they're using for that film is not Pym in his comics personality but more like the Irredeemable Ant-Man version.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on July 21, 2013, 04:31:27 PM
I could see Diesel doing the Ultron voice easily. His most important role ever was already a robot!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 21, 2013, 04:44:39 PM
If they turn CA2 into a genuine thriller I'll be impressed.

I think they need to take some risks with avengers to stop it going stale.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on July 21, 2013, 08:14:46 PM
But too long movies are fashionable at the moment because directors are being indulged. If the producer is pushing a director to cut tighter then it sounds like hes doing his job.

Agree 100%. A Thor movie doesn't need to be two and a half hours. Sure, maybe that extra 30 minutes is some of the best film-making of all time - but probably not. Almost every summer blockbuster that is over 2 hours in length feels pointlessly overlong to me. Most of these movies have very thin material to start with. Economy and density are generally good for movies.

Diesel as Ultron's voice sounds cool. I would like to see Guardians played totally straight - I'm not that familiar with them but don't they have a fucking Ent and a Raccoon on their team? In some ways it would be more comedic to be completely serious with it.

Avengers 2 sounds incredibly overstuffed...and Scarlett Witch is one of the lamest characters in Marvel. Her super-power is incomprehensible bullshit and her role in most stories is to conveniently make whatever the writers wants to have happen happen. Even her costume is terrible.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MahrinSkel on July 21, 2013, 08:39:57 PM
The only thing that occurs to me is that we have a villain (Loki) who embodies the Xanatos Gambit (everything, even his "failures", moves him towards his goals).  So someone who mucks with probability is the logical counter if he is to be defeated.

That and she's one of the characters that freely hops back and forth between the Avengers and X-Men continuity, so maybe they're looking at some kind of crossover or reboot.

--Dave


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on July 21, 2013, 08:46:31 PM
That and she's one of the characters that freely hops back and forth between the Avengers and X-Men continuity, so maybe they're looking at some kind of crossover or reboot.

Not unless Disney is willing to spend a whole hell of a lot to get the film rights to the X-Men back from Fox.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on July 21, 2013, 08:52:06 PM
My understanding of Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver is that whichever movie franchise (X-Men or Avengers) uses them first owns them, so I'm tempted to think they are being used here in part to reserve them.

"Messing with probability" is such a dumb superpower - probability is not the cause of anything. If you flip a coin and it lands on heads it's because of the way you flipped it, air currents, etc - the probability of it landing on heads was 100% given the circumstances.

It's also a carte blanche to make dumb shit happen.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 21, 2013, 10:22:09 PM
My understanding of Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver is that whichever movie franchise (X-Men or Avengers) uses them first owns them, so I'm tempted to think they are being used here in part to reserve them.


From what Marvel has said they are both using the two different parts of Quicksliver and Scarlet Witch.  Marvel can't make any reference to them being mutants or their connection to the X-men and Fox can't make any mention outside of those parameters.  I wonder if they will be used as villains in Days of Future Past and as heroes in Avengers 2.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 22, 2013, 03:55:32 AM
My understanding of Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver is that whichever movie franchise (X-Men or Avengers) uses them first owns them, so I'm tempted to think they are being used here in part to reserve them.


From what Marvel has said they are both using the two different parts of Quicksliver and Scarlet Witch.  Marvel can't make any reference to them being mutants or their connection to the X-men and Fox can't make any mention outside of those parameters.  I wonder if they will be used as villains in Days of Future Past and as heroes in Avengers 2.

It's made me wonder to what extent they can tiptoe around things in Avengers. I mean, they can't mention Magneto being their father, but can it be mentioned that their father is a super-villain and that they themselves are reformed villains? Also, they can't use the term "mutants", but can they say that some people are born with super-powers and that people are starting to fear the growing superhuman population>


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 22, 2013, 06:30:17 AM
I think the way they're playing it in the MU, nobody's a full-time "superhero" in the leotards-and-patrolling-for-crime sense. Except maybe Cap, and that's just his gig as a soldier or agent in a paramilitary force. So I don't think the idea of "established supervillains" who have children who can reform and become superheroes is going to be quite it for those two--when we see them, I'm guessing it will be as their superpowers activate for the first time, with a relative minimum of backstory. Maybe they'll use elements of the storyline where Ultron kills an entire Eastern European nation and have them be 'discovered' in the course of a battle there.

In Days of Future Past, judging from the Comic-Con panel, I think we're just going to see a bunch of mutants in quick succession in the apocalyptic future. Putting Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch there is probably just an IP-politics move, not a substantive element of the plot.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 22, 2013, 01:51:19 PM
I could see Diesel doing the Ultron voice easily. His most important role ever was already a robot!

That's just his acting.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on July 22, 2013, 05:50:26 PM
My understanding of Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver is that whichever movie franchise (X-Men or Avengers) uses them first owns them, so I'm tempted to think they are being used here in part to reserve them.

"Messing with probability" is such a dumb superpower - probability is not the cause of anything. If you flip a coin and it lands on heads it's because of the way you flipped it, air currents, etc - the probability of it landing on heads was 100% given the circumstances.

It's also a carte blanche to make dumb shit happen.

Statistical mechanics called, it said "henh?"


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 22, 2013, 06:50:53 PM
Margalis is correct, probability does not exist or even have theoretical meaning except in the perception of the observer.

Statistical mechanics is merely a strategy for combining the range of possible micro interactions, with an application of the law of large numbers to provide a useful model of macro behaviour of a thing, given the limited information available to an outside observer.

https://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayContent&id=00000005671


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on July 22, 2013, 07:02:09 PM
And you think comic book writers have a clue about anything you've said?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on July 22, 2013, 07:09:18 PM
Go back to the coin flipping example. Say you flip a coin and it is going to land heads, but then Scarlett Witch uses her powers so it lands tails instead. What actually happened there?

She changed...air density? Made your thumb quiver as you flipped it? Slowed the rotation of the coin in the air? Those are all physical effects, not changes to probability. Probability does not determine behavior, it's a statistical aggregate measure. When you make something that wasn't going to happen happen or vice-versa you're adjusting the "probability" from one to zero or the reverse.

In essence she has the ability to make anything happen, which is why her story lines are so often lame. The Wikipedia section on her powers is pure gobbledygook.

Manipulating luck is a nonsense power that when taken to its natural conclusion is just the power to do anything. "My enemy randomly self-immolated, how lucky!"

Quote
And you think comic book writers have a clue about anything you've said?

There have been a lot of attempts to explain, change and retcon her powers, so on some level the writers do recognize that it's bullshit. Even if you don't get exactly why manipulating probability is dumb it becomes apparent when you write for the character and realize that it's carte blanche to do anything.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on July 22, 2013, 09:55:02 PM
Also, Superman can't possibly fly. The laws of gravity and aerodynamics are against him.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on July 22, 2013, 10:00:57 PM
Scarlet Witch's probability powers come from the same place that all the extra mass Banner pulls out of nowhere comes from when he changes into the Hulk.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MahrinSkel on July 22, 2013, 10:09:19 PM
Scarlet Witch's probability powers come from the same place that all the extra mass Banner pulls out of nowhere comes from when he changes into the Hulk.
The same place that Mjolnir's mass goes (Hulk can't lift it, but he can toss Thor while *he's* holding it, so it loses mass when Thor holds it).  Obviously extra dimensions are involved.

--Dave


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on July 23, 2013, 03:18:41 AM
Isn't Mjolnir's deal that only those who are worthy of the power of Thor can use it? It's not that it's physically that heavy, more of a protection against <blah> thing, where the thing is <not thors>.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on July 23, 2013, 08:05:57 AM
Margalis is correct, probability does not exist or even have theoretical meaning except in the perception of the observer.

Statistical mechanics is merely a strategy for combining the range of possible micro interactions, with an application of the law of large numbers to provide a useful model of macro behaviour of a thing, given the limited information available to an outside observer.

https://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayContent&id=00000005671

NO, he's not correct.  Are you both stupid?  Do have no awareness of quantum mechanics?  No awareness of thermodynamics?  WTF?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on July 23, 2013, 08:10:36 AM
Isn't Mjolnir's deal that only those who are worthy of the power of Thor can use it? It's not that it's physically that heavy, more of a protection against <blah> thing, where the thing is <not thors>.

Yeah.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on July 23, 2013, 08:17:06 AM
So.. a wizard did it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on July 23, 2013, 08:39:33 AM
Well, yeah.  He's a God, dude.  What other explanation is there ?  Advanced Science = Magic = Wizards.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on July 23, 2013, 08:56:47 AM
There isn't one. It just amused me that 2 pages of superhero blerf once again came down to "Magic, shut up."


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 23, 2013, 09:50:54 AM
Also, Superman can't possibly fly. The laws of gravity and aerodynamics are against him.

There is a huge difference. Flying is a power with limits you can define. An audience can conceive of how an unknown thing can deliver a specific power like that.

Messing with "probability" doesn't mean anything, other than possibly "able to make arbitrary changes to reality". If your audience has an ounce of imagination they end up getting frustrated because it is never clear why you don't just solve all problems immeadiately with a power.

Trying to write a worthwhile story for that, even if it made any philosophical sense, is worse than trying to write for Hiro Nakamura.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 23, 2013, 09:59:34 AM
Margalis is correct, probability does not exist or even have theoretical meaning except in the perception of the observer.

Statistical mechanics is merely a strategy for combining the range of possible micro interactions, with an application of the law of large numbers to provide a useful model of macro behaviour of a thing, given the limited information available to an outside observer.

https://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayContent&id=00000005671

NO, he's not correct.  Are you both stupid?  Do have no awareness of quantum mechanics?  No awareness of thermodynamics?  WTF?

Neither of those things impact what Margalis said.

Quantum mechanics is a dumb example that does not impact the way almost any real world statistics are calculated. But as it happens crazy land physics reinforces the point - probability is a function of the observer in combination with that which being observed to a greater extent in quantum physics  than any other field.

As for thermodynamics I have no idea why you think that changes the nature of probability.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 23, 2013, 10:05:40 AM
So.. a wizard did it.

A wizard did it is a fine premise.

So long as we're clear what it is a wizard did.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on July 23, 2013, 11:09:49 AM
Also, Superman can't possibly fly. The laws of gravity and aerodynamics are against him.

There is a huge difference. Flying is a power with limits you can define. An audience can conceive of how an unknown thing can deliver a specific power like that.

Messing with "probability" doesn't mean anything, other than possibly "able to make arbitrary changes to reality". If your audience has an ounce of imagination they end up getting frustrated because it is never clear why you don't just solve all problems immeadiately with a power.

Trying to write a worthwhile story for that, even if it made any philosophical sense, is worse than trying to write for Hiro Nakamura.

The number of possible energy states a system can be in directly effects how that system behaves, it's the wave function.  The probability of a system being in any one of those states is effected by the number of states that exist.  An observer only comes into play with the collapse of the wave function.  The electron orbitals of hydrogen are not dependent upon an observer.

If you accept the Psi function as being real, then the power to alter probably is effectively the power to alter the Psi function of a system.  I'm not a fan of Wanda, but dismissing her power as not meaning anything based upon real-world physics (rather than your readers just won't understand what her power is) chaffed me.  If she can alter the decay rate of an isotope, she could make it more radioactive and kill you with it.  The Marvel writers don't get this, I concede that.  The Marvel writers also don't get the magnetic forces are 1/c harder to generate than electric forces makes Magneto's required potential energy absurdly large, but that doesn't stop him from being a cool character.

They don't explain her power very well, or define it's nature and limits, but that is different from "it just doesn't mean anything".  They didn't explain why the Hulk increases mass in a universe where mass/energy is conserved, but we aren't dismissing the Hulk's powers.  Wanda's power is fine, if they define its source and limits a little better.  It's actually one of the less obviously physically impossible powers. 

That said, the character is bland and unlikeable and her costume sucks, I'll agree to that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 23, 2013, 11:17:07 AM
I think people are seriously over estimating the physics knowledge of the world.  To most "luck" is a very tangible and real force, as bullshit as that is. Giving someone the power to change luck needs no explanation beyond that in the sense of explaining it for movie goers to accept.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 23, 2013, 11:30:44 AM
If you are arguing her power alters quantum wave functions, that would be fine. Except of course that makes her as powerful as God.

But it isn't the same as the power to adjust probabilities. Probability is the likelihood of the value or outcome of a given variable considering the information available to the observer.

If I flip a coin, P(heads) from my point of view might be 50%, when it lands and I cover it, it might be 100% from my point of view, but still 50% from yours. As for the concept of 'true probability' from God's point of view, its neither knowable, nor can we know if it exists. It certainly isn't useful as a concept.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 23, 2013, 11:55:42 AM
I don't have the language or know-how to really articulate this, but what if you imagined that what the Scarlet Witch is doing is opening a tiny multiversal rip or aperture in a 'many worlds' kind of physics (which Marvel's comics often play around with anyway) and essentially substituting one coherent state for another, but she can't really control exactly which 'branch' she draws from or even entirely which 'branching point' she's substituting or stitching in.

So she points at the coin flip and maybe she gets a different outcome of the flip not by changing the physics of the flip in "her" reality but by swapping the flip with another universe where the flip came down differently. But maybe she can't control it well so sometimes she gets a flip where the coin fell on the ground or the coin is radioactive or the man flipping it has a heart attack mid-flip, etc.

The problem with this in the end besides yeah, it really doesn't make that much sense in terms of physics (but it's better maybe than 'controlling probability') is that in Marvel's continuity this kind of moosing around with 'many worlds' causality has already demonstrably posed a serious risk to omniversal reality (Hickman's current writing on Avengers is once again barking up this tree). She would indeed be a kind of God and enormously dangerous. Which is actually consistent with her history but also means there is just no way at all that she should be running around in a leotard fighting bad guys. At this point in the MU continuity, Tony Stark Hank Pym and Reed Richards would know enough to know that she has to be killed or rendered permanently harmless.

In the film? I dunno how they're going to handle her exactly. Particularly if they have a Doctor Strange movie coming--there's no way around it, Strange HAS to be a magician of some kind, even if you come up with a scienc-y explanation for magic, so you might want to do the same (more or less) for Scarlet Witch and really go to the "a wizard did it" line of explanation. Problem there in narrative or expositional terms is setting limits on what the character can do  that feel at least slightly thought through.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 23, 2013, 11:56:11 AM
Again dude, you are WAY over thinking this.  To most people "luck" is a tangible thing, does it have any basis in science whatsoever? no.  Will telling people "she gives others bad luck" make sense? of course it will.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 23, 2013, 12:02:15 PM
People think it is, then they sit around wondering why the 'luck potion' subplot sucks so badly.

Khaldun's rationalisation isn't terrible. 'The ability to shake things about but probably with unpredictable and arbitrary consequences'. But your entire plot is now deus ex machina.

And it doesn't relate to probability. But that isn't a bad thing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 23, 2013, 12:15:23 PM
In the film, you could essentially treat her like the first X-Men movie treated Rogue: a person whose powers are so dangerous and unpredictable in their consequences that she only uses them as a desperate last resort. Which is actually consistent with the Scarlet Witch's role in several Ultron stories--she's the only one who has been able to get past Ultron's other defenses by basically having a power that can't be defended against (but in at least one case she temporarily made him more powerful because of her inability to control the exact outcome of her hexes). So you just bring her along for the ride and don't really let her do much until some critical juncture in the plot. At which point, sure, she's a deus ex, but then so was Eric Solvang saying, "Ok, get Loki's staff and I built a backdoor onto the unbeatable gadget" or the Cosmic Cube in Captain America, etcetera. You can have your deus ex if you've established that it's a hail mary plot device that the characters have reason to be very afraid of using before the moment where they have no choice (or that they had no possiblity of knowing about before that moment).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 23, 2013, 12:58:08 PM
They've clarified a lot:

* No Pym in Avengers II.  Pym will be in Ant-man, although it is not clear he will be the titular character.
* Ultron is a 'Stark creation'.
* Thanos does appear in and impact Avengers II (I'm betting he (or an agent - the Ultimate version Collector?) puts a virus in Ultron, which will be Stark's army of unmanned Iron Man suits).
* We've been told for a long time that GotG leads into Avengers II, but does not overlap it (The GotG do not appear in Avengers II).
* Planet Hulk is not likely to happen during the next decade.
* Age of Ultron is only a name - the Storyline from this last year has nothing to do with the movie.  The movie will not have time travel, X-men, Fantastic Four or any of the other key elements of the AoU comics.  It is described as an origen story.

Another thing to note: By the time Avengers II hits in summer 2015, we'll have had about 25 hours of movies set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, 4 15 minute shorts, and 31 or so hours of S.H.I.E.L.D. The world will be more defined by the cohesive stories appearing accross episodes of S.H.I.E.L.D. than it will be by the various stories spread across the movies.  You can be sure they'll use the series to establish framework for the movie that is not essential, but enriches the movie.

And,  there is some pretty solid evidence that if S.H.I.E.L.D. is a monster success, we could see a second MCU TV series in 2014 giving us another 15 hours of MCU TV (Jessica Jones, Hulk, Daredevil, Power Pack, Black Panther and Heroes for Hire are all in some stage of TV development - I would think that a Daredevil TV series could give them an outlet for their 'Urban hero' tales (As seen in the comics in Spider-man, Daredevil, Moon Knight, Batman, etc...) without too much of a special effect budget).  However, I'd place the more likely date for a second TV series to be Fall 2015 after the sequel hits.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on July 23, 2013, 01:45:02 PM
If you are arguing her power alters quantum wave functions, that would be fine. Except of course that makes her as powerful as God.

But it isn't the same as the power to adjust probabilities. Probability is the likelihood of the value or outcome of a given variable considering the information available to the observer.

If I flip a coin, P(heads) from my point of view might be 50%, when it lands and I cover it, it might be 100% from my point of view, but still 50% from yours. As for the concept of 'true probability' from God's point of view, its neither knowable, nor can we know if it exists. It certainly isn't useful as a concept.

This perspective just seems arbitrary.  I get that you and Margalis don't like the concept, she honestly isn't a favorite of mine.  Saying that probably manipulation doesn't mean anything, or that correlating her power to control of wave functions automatically give her God-like powers doesn't sound like opinion, it sounds like you're saying the power simply won't work.  Which I think is wrong.

Look at wikipedia's definition of, Probability Amplitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_amplitude).  The wave function is a probably amplitude.  Being able to change a wave function is saying that the person is able to change a probability amplitude.  The square of which is a probability.  I'm saying that what Marvel means by, "she can control probability" is that she has some form of control over wave functions.  Being able to change a wave function is not the same as being able to change the wave function of the entire universe.  It's a matter of extent.  It doesn't immediately make her god like (although some of the comics kind of present her in that way).  That's an order of magnitude less suspension of disbelief than, he got dosed with gamma radiation or bitten by a radio active spider, require (from me).



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 23, 2013, 01:53:14 PM
* Ultron is a 'Stark creation'.

I haven't seen anything that actually states it will be a stark creation. Where was this? The only thing I've seen is that they say they are crafting a new origin.

If so, that's a helluva spoiler.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on July 23, 2013, 02:51:39 PM
Also, Superman can't possibly fly. The laws of gravity and aerodynamics are against him.

Terrible analogy.

Superman can fly because of magic. Magic cannot make things happen by altering probability as probability does not make things happen - it's merely post-facto observation.

My problem is not the magic part, it's the altering probability part. I'm willing to accept that magic exists but even if it does changing the probability of something and thus causing it to happen is nonsense.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on July 23, 2013, 02:51:55 PM
There is a huge difference. Flying is a power with limits you can define. An audience can conceive of how an unknown thing can deliver a specific power like that.
Like flying so fast one can reverse the spin of the Earth and turn back time?  Or being able to lift any amount of mass and size despite only having two tiny hands?

It can be just as silly and just as (un)defined.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on July 23, 2013, 03:02:04 PM
I think people are seriously over estimating the physics knowledge of the world.  To most "luck" is a very tangible and real force, as bullshit as that is. Giving someone the power to change luck needs no explanation beyond that in the sense of explaining it for movie goers to accept.

Discount the science/probability argument and look at the story-writing implications. There's a reason why stories involving Wanda are mostly stupid. One writer makes her use her powers to make a gun jam, then the next writer ups the ante and makes that gun explode, then the next guy makes the holder of the gun explode. Pretty soon you're at the point where she can explode an entire galaxy and why not?

"The Thing is pretty strong and can lift up to 80 tons" is pretty straightforward. "Scarlett Witch can make improbable things happen" can mean anything. "It's magic" is fine but her magic is basically the power to do anything - which is silly.

Magneto can do a lot of different things but they are at least loosely tied to his powers - at least some weak explanation is required for why he can fly around for example. Wanda can just increase the possibility of a strong localized gust of wind...

Here's a question: Can she increase the probability of being bitten by a radioactive Spider and immediately just become Spider-Man?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 23, 2013, 03:08:33 PM
I thought that they finally narrowed her powers down to reality alteration and not just simply probability manipulation.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 23, 2013, 03:09:40 PM
One way to do it well would be to make her power strong but incredibly unpredictable in it's strength or it's affect. Make it so dangerous that even to her it would be a last resort.  I'm not arguing it's not a stupid power but we can't bring science into this argument because it can never be explained.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on July 23, 2013, 03:29:32 PM
Quote from: Evilrider
I thought that they finally narrowed her powers down to reality alteration and not just simply probability manipulation.

My point is that reality alteration has always really been her power.

Edit: As far as making her powers work for good stories, I agree that were her powers weak enough, small enough, or worked on a more probabilistic basis it could make for some good stuff. For example if she is fighting 50 guys with guns and 2 of their guns jam, one guy trips and shoots another guy, the fattest guy has a heart attack, etc.

But of course new writers come in and want to evolve characters, make them gain better control of their powers, shake things up - and Marvel is not good at disciplined editorial oversight. Her powers are very open-ended and ripe for abuse. If you want to make the Hulk fly you can get creative and have him jump really far but that's not really flying. You could have him flap his arms with super strength but that's just too dumb. But for Wanda if you want her to fly you can make her increase the chances of a strong localized gust of wind and now she functionally has flight powers.

This will be my last post on why I think she is lame:

1. "Adjusting probability" is really just adjusting reality - which is extremely open ended and ripe for abuse
2. Many of her story lines are dumb, in part springing from the nature of her powers
3. Marvel clearly has issues with her given the numerous attempts to retcon or change her powers in pretty fundamental ways
4. Her costume is ugly as fuck

Characters with very open-ended powers work in small doses but as major characters present a lot of problems.

Doctor Strange is an interesting comparison. What exactly can he do or not do? I don't know. It's worth pointing out that Dr. Strange has mostly worked better as a guest character than as a main character, and also that he deals mostly with crazy wizard mystical shit. When you're fighting some sort of demon sorcerer in another dimension you're already so out there that exactly how big a fireball he can conjure up is pretty irrelevant.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 23, 2013, 03:34:12 PM
Quote from: Evilrider
I thought that they finally narrowed her powers down to reality alteration and not just simply probability manipulation.

My point is that reality alteration has always really been her power.

It's either that or chaos magic.  I think they waffle between the two.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 23, 2013, 03:57:01 PM
* Ultron is a 'Stark creation'.

I haven't seen anything that actually states it will be a stark creation. Where was this? The only thing I've seen is that they say they are crafting a new origin.

If so, that's a helluva spoiler.
You're right - it isn't explicitly said in any coverage so far.  However, the graphic used at Comic Con, the events of IM III, Joss' comments that they need to utilize the existing characters in this story to achieve the origen, and all the other little pieces sprinkled down over the past 6 months pain the picture pretty darn clearly - I think it would be a big stretch to call it a spoiler at this point. 

My pet theory: They nixed the original post credits scene from IM III and have not announced what it was.  There were claims that it was going to have Iron Man in his space armor meet the GotG, but I (now) think it was going to be the first piece of the Ultron puzzle - perhaps seeing one of those suits of armor rebel against Stark?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 23, 2013, 04:15:12 PM
GoG just started production, so I'm not sure how that was ever a possibility for an after-credits scene for IM3.

edit: AH! I knew that rumor sounded familiar. It all came from marvel making "space suit" iron man toy, and someone extrapolated that as a possibility. But it was always stupid considering there's always crazy shit that is not in the movie that the toys are licensed on.

http://screenrant.com/iron-man-3-post-credits-scene-cameo/


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 23, 2013, 04:42:43 PM
If you are arguing her power alters quantum wave functions, that would be fine. Except of course that makes her as powerful as God.

But it isn't the same as the power to adjust probabilities. Probability is the likelihood of the value or outcome of a given variable considering the information available to the observer.

If I flip a coin, P(heads) from my point of view might be 50%, when it lands and I cover it, it might be 100% from my point of view, but still 50% from yours. As for the concept of 'true probability' from God's point of view, its neither knowable, nor can we know if it exists. It certainly isn't useful as a concept.

This perspective just seems arbitrary.  I get that you and Margalis don't like the concept, she honestly isn't a favorite of mine.  Saying that probably manipulation doesn't mean anything, or that correlating her power to control of wave functions automatically give her God-like powers doesn't sound like opinion, it sounds like you're saying the power simply won't work.  Which I think is wrong.

Look at wikipedia's definition of, Probability Amplitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_amplitude).  The wave function is a probably amplitude.  Being able to change a wave function is saying that the person is able to change a probability amplitude.  The square of which is a probability.  I'm saying that what Marvel means by, "she can control probability" is that she has some form of control over wave functions.  Being able to change a wave function is not the same as being able to change the wave function of the entire universe.  It's a matter of extent.  It doesn't immediately make her god like (although some of the comics kind of present her in that way).  That's an order of magnitude less suspension of disbelief than, he got dosed with gamma radiation or bitten by a radio active spider, require (from me).



Perception absolutely is arbitrary.

The distribution of amplitude has all sorts of interesting consequences and can be used to model all sorts of interesting stuff, but it isn't an inherent property of the thing, it is the construct of the limited information you have about a thing.

It is possible (but unhelpful and probably incorrect) to argue that there is a maximum amount of information you can know and assuming our understanding of physics is perfect (again unlikely and impossible to be certain of), and that this should give a best possible wave function. But that is entirely unhelpful for all practical purposes as you can never know that it is what you are looking at.

In case you didn't figure it out, this fundamental misunderstanding about stats is particular bugbear of mine and something stats syllabuses leave till way way too late. It causes massive confusion.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 23, 2013, 05:03:04 PM
GoG just started production, so I'm not sure how that was ever a possibility for an after-credits scene for IM3.

edit: AH! I knew that rumor sounded familiar. It all came from marvel making "space suit" iron man toy, and someone extrapolated that as a possibility. But it was always stupid considering there's always crazy shit that is not in the movie that the toys are licensed on.

http://screenrant.com/iron-man-3-post-credits-scene-cameo/
There are a few things mixed together above, but one aspect was confirmed: Marvel nixed the original after credits piece in IM III and replaced it with the Banner/Stark piece.  According to a quote attributed to Ruffalo:

They were about to wrap the movie and I saw Robert (Downey Jr.) at the Academy Awards and he had this idea. Marvel had had an idea but then they scrapped it.

I believe the change was made when something they anticipated being ready (or close enough that they could fake it) was behind schedule - or that RDJ's contract uncertainty forced the change.  I think, given the Ultron news and the events of IM III, it was Ultron related, although I originally throught it might be GotG related like everyone else seemed to think.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 23, 2013, 05:05:50 PM
That statement to me reads that they liked his more. I really don't see the evidence that it would have been GoG or Ultron after the credits.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 23, 2013, 06:45:51 PM
Agreed... there is no evidence of Ultron or GotG as the original angle... just theories ( for now). I bet we'll eventually get the truth.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on July 23, 2013, 07:51:27 PM
I think Ultron probably works better than Thanos. If you bring in Thanos you probably also have to bring in a bunch of other Marvel cosmic stuff.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 23, 2013, 08:58:08 PM
Plus Thanos in the original Starlin stories that got the character rolling only worked to some extent with Starlin's trademark bombast and pretentiousness--his motivation being that he was in love with Death, who was a "literal" abstract entity who really existed in the MU. That worked in those comics, but I just cannot see that kind of pure comic-book motivation flying in the more grounded cinematic MU. They're doing work now on Thanos to texture his origin more--basically he's a combination of an alienated freak, a science nerd who has a sort of Asperger's, and a guy who has an imaginary friend who might be Death but also might be his imagination. Plus he's got daddy and mommy issues (from having murdered mommy) and he's a demigod. It helps to make him a bit more grounded but if anything he's a more queasy mix of rather shopworn everyday psychological tropes and cosmic space handwavium. He might be the kind of character who is best kept way off in the distance for a long while and is menacing through more accessible front-line badguys (Nebula, the Collector).

I can see Ultron working really pretty well. I think if they go on to an Avengers 3, that might be when I'd roll out something like the Masters of Evil just for the sheer craziness of a big mano-a-mano between multiple heroes and multiple bad guys.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on July 24, 2013, 02:03:42 AM
Also, Superman can't possibly fly. The laws of gravity and aerodynamics are against him.

Terrible analogy.

Superman can fly because of magic.

No.

If we're going to have a fucking stupid nerd argument, Superman isn't magic. He's an alien being who processes yellow sun radiation in such a way that it gives him a range of abilities including flight. It's a natural ability he has as a Kryptonian to be Earth's most successful solar panel. Superman is also especially vulnerable to magic.

Arguing about semantics (i.e. "Probability means <this particular definition>") and powers in comics is insane anyway, but honest to god don't write off one set of powers on a character is acceptable BECAUSE COMICS ("I'm willing to accept that magic exists"), then get your panties in a bunch about how Scarlett Witch isn't using the correct technical terms for her ability to bend reality to her will.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on July 24, 2013, 05:24:18 AM
They said magic because there's no way in the laws of physics the guy can fly.

Well, I take that back, there's one way.

Superman flies by emitting the longest most glorious series of farts out his sanctimonious sphincter that the jet of super fast air propells him like a squid through water.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on July 24, 2013, 05:31:57 AM
Anti-Grav Internal Organ.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 24, 2013, 05:32:14 AM
Supes doesn't fly he just does really long controlled jumps!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on July 24, 2013, 05:39:32 AM
Well, that is how it started.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on July 24, 2013, 07:20:35 AM
Anti-Grav Internal Organ.



Mine's more eloquent and doesn't involve breaking physics!

Super jump, squeeze a few out.  Dude has super breath, why not super gas?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on July 24, 2013, 07:40:31 AM
Hey, don't look at me, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this :

I don't like Superman, he's an utterly retarded Superhero.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on July 24, 2013, 08:38:14 AM
No, I get that.  I'm not fond of him either, which is why I find "on the brink of shitting his pants at all times" more satisfying than magic or an anti-gravity mcguffin.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on July 24, 2013, 08:53:18 AM
[snip]

The distribution of amplitude has all sorts of interesting consequences and can be used to model all sorts of interesting stuff, but it isn't an inherent property of the thing, it is the construct of the limited information you have about a thing.

[snip]

There is a group of physicists that are arguing that the wave function IS 'real'  Ars Tech Article (http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/the-insanely-weird-quantum-wave-function-might-be-real-after-all/)

All experiments point to there being no hidden variables, there is only a little uncertainty left possible with our current world view. 
There is a maximum amount of information you can have about a system due to the uncertainty principle (talking about data here). 
We definitely don't know everything there is to know because the Standard Model is incomplete (talking about forces and systems here).

Quote from: UnSub
[snip]

Arguing about semantics (i.e. "Probability means <this particular definition>") and powers in comics is insane anyway, but honest to god don't write off one set of powers on a character is acceptable BECAUSE COMICS ("I'm willing to accept that magic exists"), then get your panties in a bunch about how Scarlett Witch isn't using the correct technical terms for her ability to bend reality to her will.

Well said.  Wish I had said that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 24, 2013, 09:37:34 AM
The argument being made there is that the particle may be smeared across multiple positions and literally be in all of then at once.

If that is ever proven, then the the function isn't a probability function at all, even if experimental physicists would be likely to continue to use the term incorrectly.

It would mean the wave function is more analogous to a reality density map.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MediumHigh on July 24, 2013, 10:45:20 AM
Superman can fly because of telekinesis. Basically he can fly because he says so. He can also keep the structural integrity of objects because he says so. Also he is functionally immortal since his body can't age because he says so.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 24, 2013, 11:05:58 AM
There are more things in heaven and earth, f13 crowd, Than are dreamt of in your physics.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on July 24, 2013, 11:30:38 AM
The argument being made there is that the particle may be smeared across multiple positions and literally be in all of then at once.

If that is ever proven, then the the function isn't a probability function at all, even if experimental physicists would be likely to continue to use the term incorrectly.

It would mean the wave function is more analogous to a reality density map.

Of course you are right, you just made a phrase to prove it.  "reality density map", not a probability at all... even though it's calculated exactly like a probability, quacks like a probability, and has feathers like a probability.  If you didn't laugh when you typed that, you should chuckle now.

meanwhile, 50 years ago

Stan Lee: I have a great name for a new character in the X-Men universe, The Scarlet Witch!
Jack Kirby:  ... is she a whore?
Stan Lee: (thunderous) NO!  She's a, a, a witch!  She wears red.
Jack Kirby: We're doing magic in mutant land?
Stan Lee: WHAT, hmmm. (fuming, but seeing Jack's point)
Jack Kirby: What's her power?
Stan Lee: You know, she hexes people
Jack Kirby: Gives em warts?  Makes them fall in love with her?
Stan Lee: No dammit, she gives them bad luck.
Jack Kirby: (eyebrows raised)
Stan Lee: Well it's not just people, it's things too!  She's like Murphy, if something can go wrong it will go wrong!
Jack Kirby: So she's Irish?  That makes sense, evilest witch I ever dated was an Irish girl, but boy did she have
Stan Lee: STOP BEING A DICK!
Jack Kirby: (laughing) Ok, ok.  But still, sounds like magic.  Maybe her mutant power is that she can alter luck?
Stan Lee: Yes! Now you're talking... wait, gotta be bigger than that, she can modify probability!
Jack Kirby: I'm getting it.  So if she's in a fight, and the floor is even a little slippery, the villain will slip and fall possibly hitting himself on the noggin?
Stan Lee: EXCELSIOR!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 24, 2013, 11:45:25 AM
I can't think of a single super hero/villain doesn't sound just dumb if we break it down like that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 24, 2013, 11:50:57 AM
The punisher?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 24, 2013, 11:57:33 AM
You don't have to break down Punisher for him to be dumb.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 24, 2013, 12:01:40 PM
A guy with PTSD goes around shooting people he thinks are bad? Eerily realistic.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MediumHigh on July 24, 2013, 12:32:21 PM
And everyone loves him for it  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 24, 2013, 01:26:53 PM
A guy with PTSD goes around shooting people he thinks are bad? Eerily realistic.

And we don't hold those dudes up as heroes.

Punisher is a dumb character. I've never seen the appeal.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 24, 2013, 01:29:51 PM
The former cop in LA who went on a shooting spree against other cops is still held in high regard by many and he was killing "the good guys"  you think someone going around murdering killers wouldn't be famous? Have you seen Dexter?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ingmar on July 24, 2013, 01:30:29 PM
Dexter is also a tremendously unappealing premise, to me.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 24, 2013, 01:30:48 PM
Okay, you sold me, Punisher is THE BEST CHARACTER EVER.

 :drill:

The former cop in LA who went on a shooting spree against other cops is still held in high regard by many and he was killing "the good guys"  you think someone going around murdering killers wouldn't be famous? Have you seen Dexter?

Famous does not mean heroic. Dorner was also not a hero. There are people that loved Manson too.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MediumHigh on July 24, 2013, 01:42:26 PM
We like the idea of vigilante justice when the targets are people you don't like. In the 80's it was all drug dealers and mob bosses. If the punisher decided to gun down ceo's and shoot up abortion protesters, I'm sure half ya'll drink the koolaid. I think the new 52 superman went all "coporate america is evil, planet busting PUNCH" when he entered metropolis.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 24, 2013, 01:56:45 PM
Okay, you sold me, Punisher is THE BEST CHARACTER EVER.

 :drill:

The former cop in LA who went on a shooting spree against other cops is still held in high regard by many and he was killing "the good guys"  you think someone going around murdering killers wouldn't be famous? Have you seen Dexter?

Famous does not mean heroic. Dorner was also not a hero. There are people that loved Manson too.


Dude, even the most vile murderers are heroes to some.  Just because YOU do not think they are heroic doesn't mean that no one would.  Yes IMO the punisher is not a hero, he is a vigilante at best and at worst a psychotic killer but the character as he was originally conceived is entirely realistic.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 24, 2013, 03:10:12 PM
What is your point? Of course I'm speaking of my own opinion. Christ.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 24, 2013, 03:30:33 PM
The argument being made there is that the particle may be smeared across multiple positions and literally be in all of then at once.

If that is ever proven, then the the function isn't a probability function at all, even if experimental physicists would be likely to continue to use the term incorrectly.

It would mean the wave function is more analogous to a reality density map.

Of course you are right, you just made a phrase to prove it.  "reality density map", not a probability at all... even though it's calculated exactly like a probability, quacks like a probability, and has feathers like a probability.  If you didn't laugh when you typed that, you should chuckle now.

But it doesn't act like a probability - that was the point of the article, previously people have argued that it doesn't matter if it is a probability distribution based on observer knowledge or actual superposed states, because it gave the same result in every useful model. Those guys appear to be arguing that it isn't a probability distribution because they found a small thing that maybe gives a definite result.

Which apart from anything else would make the whole thing a lot more elegant.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on July 24, 2013, 03:34:42 PM
George Zimmerman is probably closer to a real-life version of the Punisher than we'd like to admit. There's a reason society doesn't tolerate vigilantes, everyone has a slightly different idea of who the good and bad guys are.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on July 24, 2013, 03:51:12 PM
 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on July 24, 2013, 05:20:35 PM
Jack Kirby: I'm getting it.  So if she's in a fight, and the floor is even a little slippery, the villain will slip and fall possibly hitting himself on the noggin?
Stan Lee: EXCELSIOR!

The problem is that a dude comically slipping naturally escalated into "the entire history of the universe is instantly re-written."

There is an art to creating superpowers. Spider-Man has remained almost unchanged since inception. If you look at heroes that have been re-written a lot it's very often because their powers are ill-defined, too restrictive or not restrictive enough, Very often these types of characters work in small doses but fall apart in continuing series.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 24, 2013, 05:21:32 PM
George Zimmerman is probably closer to a real-life version of the Punisher than we'd like to admit. There's a reason society doesn't tolerate vigilantes, everyone has a slightly different idea of who the good and bad guys are.

Its easy, the bad guys are the people who don't understand what probability is.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on July 24, 2013, 05:41:30 PM
George Zimmerman is probably closer to a real-life version of the Punisher than we'd like to admit. There's a reason society doesn't tolerate vigilantes, everyone has a slightly different idea of who the good and bad guys are.

Its easy, the bad guys are the people who don't understand what probability is.

LOL, so good.  Would read again!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on July 24, 2013, 05:56:29 PM
Some of you appear to be taking this discussion a bit too personally.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 24, 2013, 08:53:12 PM
George Zimmerman is probably closer to a real-life version of the Punisher than we'd like to admit. There's a reason society doesn't tolerate vigilantes, everyone has a slightly different idea of who the good and bad guys are.

This was a small but pretty great element of The Dark Knight--the guys who all go out dressed as Batman. I really wish one of the two major superhero universes would engage this more thoroughly. Combine us (real-world modern humans) with those universes, and I guarantee you'd see the following:

1) Serious social movements and maybe even political parties built around the strongest or most extreme examples of superhuman vigilantism.
2) Massive bodies of law and legislation and whole businesses built around the consequences of superheroics. (e.g., Damage Control in Marvel Comics--a reconstruction and insurance agency specializing in the aftermath of superhero battles; the law firm She-Hulk worked for that dealt with superhero/villain litigation; etc.)
3) Religious cults around superhero/villain resurrections; also, at least in the DC Universe, the existence of God and Satan is a readily verifiable, straightforwardly empirical fact which would have at least a bit of impact on people;
4) Tons of people dying or suffering injury from irradiating themselves, jumping in toxic vats, etc. , in hope of gaining superpowers.

So yeah, Zimmerman isn't a bad premise for superhero stories--except that he shows that *some* people would very much tolerate vigilantes, especially IF they thought the vigilantes were beating up on or killing those "other guys".


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on July 24, 2013, 09:21:04 PM
Jack Kirby: I'm getting it.  So if she's in a fight, and the floor is even a little slippery, the villain will slip and fall possibly hitting himself on the noggin?
Stan Lee: EXCELSIOR!

The problem is that a dude comically slipping naturally escalated into "the entire history of the universe is instantly re-written."

There is an art to creating superpowers. Spider-Man has remained almost unchanged since inception. If you look at heroes that have been re-written a lot it's very often because their powers are ill-defined, too restrictive or not restrictive enough, Very often these types of characters work in small doses but fall apart in continuing series.


I'd definitely agree with that. Spider-Man is clearly very powerful, but yet still clearly very mortal, BUT he's never so mortal that I'm left wondering how he isn't dead yet 50 times over.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 25, 2013, 12:23:31 AM
Jack Kirby: I'm getting it.  So if she's in a fight, and the floor is even a little slippery, the villain will slip and fall possibly hitting himself on the noggin?
Stan Lee: EXCELSIOR!

The problem is that a dude comically slipping naturally escalated into "the entire history of the universe is instantly re-written."

There is an art to creating superpowers. Spider-Man has remained almost unchanged since inception. If you look at heroes that have been re-written a lot it's very often because their powers are ill-defined, too restrictive or not restrictive enough, Very often these types of characters work in small doses but fall apart in continuing series.


I'd definitely agree with that. Spider-Man is clearly very powerful, but yet still clearly very mortal, BUT he's never so mortal that I'm left wondering how he isn't dead yet 50 times over.

Yeah, you're just left wondering if THIS one is ACTUALLY Peter Parker or a clone or an alien.

PS, they killed him.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on July 25, 2013, 03:30:01 AM
I'm sure he'll get better!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 25, 2013, 09:43:17 AM
This is the movie forum.  They didn't kill him in the movies.  They just killed him in all the comic universes to undercut the value of the character as a movie tentpole in a bid to get the rights back.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 25, 2013, 09:56:28 AM
This is the movie forum.  They didn't kill him in the movies.  They just killed him in all the comic universes to undercut the value of the character as a movie tentpole in a bid to get the rights back.

There has been PLENTY of non movie talk in this thread about the basic structure of the characters that Marvel have/use.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 25, 2013, 01:19:32 PM
This is the movie forum.  They didn't kill him in the movies.  They just killed him in all the comic universes to undercut the value of the character as a movie tentpole in a bid to get the rights back.
There has been PLENTY of non movie talk in this thread about the basic structure of the characters that Marvel have/use.
I know.  I was just looking for a way to work in the moves Marvel is making to diminish the film rights of the characters they do not control.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 25, 2013, 01:40:49 PM
I don't buy that that is their strategy. Not even a little bit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on July 25, 2013, 01:58:59 PM
Yeah, you're just left wondering if THIS one is ACTUALLY Peter Parker or a clone or an alien.

They didn't kill him because they had problems writing his character due to his powers. The fact that they killed him (sort of) for various other reasons is not particularly relevant.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 25, 2013, 02:20:27 PM
Yeah, you're just left wondering if THIS one is ACTUALLY Peter Parker or a clone or an alien.

They didn't kill him because they had problems writing his character due to his powers. The fact that they killed him (sort of) for various other reasons is not particularly relevant.

I think you're reading too much into my comments. I was merely making fun of marvel and the clone peter parker stuff.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 25, 2013, 02:45:28 PM
...
I think you're reading too much into my comments. I was merely making fun of marvel and the clone peter parker stuff.
Wait, how do you know it was him reading too much into your comments and not his .... DUM DUM DUM.... clone?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on July 25, 2013, 02:55:03 PM
...
I think you're reading too much into my comments. I was merely making fun of marvel and the clone peter parker stuff.
Wait, how do you know it was him reading too much into your comments and not his .... DUM DUM DUM.... clone?



(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TomsMindBlown.gif)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 11, 2013, 09:29:05 PM
Vin Diesel will be voicing Groot in Guardians of the Galaxy.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on August 11, 2013, 09:42:52 PM
He is Groot!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 12, 2013, 07:20:18 PM
Leaked Guardians of the Galaxy stuff from Comic-Con. (http://vk.com/video-28416224_165782862)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on August 13, 2013, 10:06:13 AM
That page isn't working for me at all, but it appears the MarvelStudios reddit has a bunch of stuff, including stills.

http://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3OxMAJ6piDM/UgkY3AKrQ7I/AAAAAAAABeY/nQVgRfj4zu8/s320/tumblr_mrff3fGVZM1rvhl57o1_400.gif)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 26, 2013, 08:58:00 AM
Feige confirmed that Ronan the Accuser is the main Big Bad of the Guardians movie, but that he may be working for or with Thanos, and that Thanos is the "big bad behind the scenes" who is seen fairly often in the course of the film.

Given the announcement of Ultron for Avengers 2, I think they may be lining up Thanos for Avengers 3 if the Guardians film does well. If by that point they've also had Doctor Strange, Black Panther and Ant-Man films, I could see 3 being a kind of crazy-ass "everybody against a big bad guy" flick.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on August 26, 2013, 09:21:34 AM
Maybe on Thanks for 3, but I don't see them doing a physical fight with Thanks himself until Further down the road.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 26, 2013, 09:23:25 AM
Why would the avengers fight Tom Hanks? He seems like such a nice guy.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on August 26, 2013, 09:33:53 AM
Fucking after the fact spell check...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on August 26, 2013, 09:53:32 AM
I'm not jazzed on the idea of Thanos being a major villain at any point, as I suspect any Thanos story would involve the infinity gauntlet and thus be stupid.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on August 26, 2013, 09:58:11 AM
I'm not jazzed on the idea of Thanos being a major villain at any point, as I suspect any Thanos story would involve the infinity gauntlet and thus be stupid.

It's not like one of the gems has shown up in one of the movies or anyt..... oh wait.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on August 26, 2013, 09:59:37 AM
Worse than that :

Quote
The Infinity Gauntlet is glimpsed briefly during the Thor adaptation film. It is seen in Odin's treasure room.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on August 26, 2013, 10:24:08 AM
They're not beholden to the comic continuities.  The Infinity Gauntlet will clearly be a 'thing', but it may not be right out of the comics.  I think they'll change a lot - for example, I doubt we'll ever see Thanos humoping the leg of any physical manifestation of Death.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on August 26, 2013, 11:05:10 AM
Thinking about it more I wouldn't be surprised if the angle they take is that the IG makes Thanos powerful in ways comparable to the Avengers - stronger than Hulk, smarter than Iron Man, etc. Sort of like an Avengers version of Super Skrull. Or even if it gives him massive power that's how he chooses to use it.

I don't think you can write a story around a guy who can do anything. The original IG series is proof of that - collecting the gems in Thanos Quest was cool, but the actual IG series was dogshit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 26, 2013, 09:14:30 PM
Starlin's version of Thanos has always been expressly about a guy who invariably defeats himself because he doesn't believe he's worthy of either ruling the universe or of the love of Death. Problem was that at the end of IG, he supposedly recognizes that and quits for good. It's not an interesting story or bad guy either way--it's Starlin's Mary-Sue version of a 'profound' bad guy who learns a lesson about power, and as such is just not very interesting.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MrHat on August 29, 2013, 01:29:42 PM
(http://snakkle.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/james-spader-GC.jpg)

http://marvel.com/news/story/21099/exclusive_avengers_age_of_ultron_casts_james_spader_as_the_films_legendary_villain


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on August 29, 2013, 02:01:08 PM
Yeah, kind of left field casting, but I'm fine with it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on August 29, 2013, 02:47:53 PM
I kept reading this as James Woods and thinking it was awesome. James Spader is ok though.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 29, 2013, 03:03:55 PM
I can see it. He can definitely play a cold, calculating but somehow needy character, and that's a good take for Ultron.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on August 29, 2013, 03:39:20 PM
It's just gonna be voice tho, right ?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on August 29, 2013, 03:44:18 PM
I imagined so, even before this casting news. I figured Ultron would be CG anyway.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on August 29, 2013, 05:07:29 PM
I'm betting there is a 'man in a suit' to this Ultron rather than pure CGI.  The comic representation with an unmoving head probably would look pretty dumb on the screen.  I think they'll do something to let Ultron look more human.  Or at least more like Spader.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on September 18, 2013, 06:56:53 PM
So Stan Lee said in an interview that Black Panther, Doctor Strange, Ant-Man, and the Inhumans look to be the next Marvel projects.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 18, 2013, 10:46:15 PM
The interviews and articles seem to be boiling down to their focus on the Inhumans is their attempt to give them an X-men like property for the screen.  I think the buzz around Guardians of the Galaxy is going to be a big factor in how the Inhumans unfolds...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: SurfD on September 19, 2013, 12:45:29 AM
Black panther and Doc strange could be really, really awesome if done well.

Especially Doc Strange.  Have we even had a good Adult "magic" hero movie in, like, forever? 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ingmar on September 19, 2013, 12:51:22 AM
If nothing else, it should give us some entertaining rubbernecking as conservative Christians lose their minds over it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on September 19, 2013, 03:04:32 AM
Feige confirmed that Ronan the Accuser is the main Big Bad of the Guardians movie, but that he may be working for or with Thanos, and that Thanos is the "big bad behind the scenes" who is seen fairly often in the course of the film.

Given the announcement of Ultron for Avengers 2, I think they may be lining up Thanos for Avengers 3 if the Guardians film does well. If by that point they've also had Doctor Strange, Black Panther and Ant-Man films, I could see 3 being a kind of crazy-ass "everybody against a big bad guy" flick.

I have never heard of any of those characters, just saying. As someone who never read comic books, I really wonder how far Marvel can dive down the well of obscurity before the balance between the instant appeal of the characters and their actual realisation in film form tips towards the point where audiences (particularly international ones) just say 'fuck this'


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on September 19, 2013, 04:11:54 AM
Iron Man wasn't an instantly recognizable character prior to his movies either. Hell, the first successful movie based on a Marvel character (although not nearly as successful as the modern stuff) was Blade. As long as they don't go overboard with budgets, don't make shitty movies, and continue to do a good job marketing them, they should be fine.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on September 19, 2013, 04:40:30 AM
I had actually heard of Iron Man prior to the film, and Iron Man is a somewhat relatable character (relative to all these other characters). I wiki'd some of these characters and the description of Thanos reads like the sort of thing a six year old would write in a fit of sugar-addled excitement.

I'm entirely ready to be proven wrong when Guardians of The Galaxy breaks box office record and such.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on September 19, 2013, 04:44:31 AM
I think Spiderman or one of the X-Men will sneak into a Marvel movie.  There are vibrations in the interwebs.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on September 19, 2013, 05:44:08 AM
I had actually heard of Iron Man prior to the film, and Iron Man is a somewhat relatable character (relative to all these other characters). I wiki'd some of these characters and the description of Thanos reads like the sort of thing a six year old would write in a fit of sugar-addled excitement.

I'm entirely ready to be proven wrong when Guardians of The Galaxy breaks box office record and such.

I think Guardians of the Galaxy is the one that will really struggle because it's Sci-Fi which is typically a hard sell, and will also likely have to have a large budget if they want to do it right. And I guess Ant-Man might have problems also because Edgar Wright makes great movies that everybody loves, but nobody goes to see in theaters.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on September 19, 2013, 05:47:36 AM
He also makes shite, like Scott Pilgrim.  I'm really, really not going to put GotG up or down due to him.

I do, however, agree that it seems to be a much harder sell.  The actual idea itself doesn't interest me terribly much and I really have no clue how you tie it back to everything that's come before.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on September 19, 2013, 07:37:18 AM
I had actually heard of Iron Man prior to the film, and Iron Man is a somewhat relatable character (relative to all these other characters). I wiki'd some of these characters and the description of Thanos reads like the sort of thing a six year old would write in a fit of sugar-addled excitement.

I'm entirely ready to be proven wrong when Guardians of The Galaxy breaks box office record and such.

You're not alone in this.  I had this discussion already in whichever thread we started discussing Gog a year or two ago and I'm in the exact same position & mindset as you re: comics.

I know I'm old and out of touch, but all I've seen is people laughing at the ludicriousness of the raccoon firing guns .gif.  When I tell them it's from a movie coming out I get an incredulous, "wait, really?"  Which isn't going to be good if it's taking itself seriously.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on September 19, 2013, 09:51:46 AM
He also makes shite, like Scott Pilgrim.  I'm really, really not going to put GotG up or down due to him.

Guardians of the Galaxy is being done by James Gunn, who has a history of making quirky, crazy shit into entertaining movies. FFS, he made a movie about space slugs attacking a small town entertaining.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on September 19, 2013, 09:53:00 AM
That could be any number of films ;  narrow it down ?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on September 19, 2013, 09:54:25 AM
He did Slither (the aforementioned space slug movie) and Super, both of which were a bit black comedy. He also did the series of web videos PG-Porn that were pretty funny. You can bet Guardians of the Galaxy will not take itself too seriously.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on September 19, 2013, 09:55:16 AM
Was Slither the one with Castle ?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on September 19, 2013, 09:59:50 AM
Yes, that's the one.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on September 19, 2013, 10:08:15 AM
Okay doke.

(Oh and I realise now I'd written Guardians rather than Ant Man.  Not sure about either of them, to be honest...)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on September 19, 2013, 10:12:42 AM
I think Ant Man will be fun, but it won't be a hit. The character is just too wacky to be that big a hit. He's a February success, not a summer blockbuster.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on September 19, 2013, 11:05:20 AM
I had actually heard of Iron Man prior to the film, and Iron Man is a somewhat relatable character (relative to all these other characters). I wiki'd some of these characters and the description of Thanos reads like the sort of thing a six year old would write in a fit of sugar-addled excitement.

I'm entirely ready to be proven wrong when Guardians of The Galaxy breaks box office record and such.

You're not alone in this.  I had this discussion already in whichever thread we started discussing Gog a year or two ago and I'm in the exact same position & mindset as you re: comics.

I know I'm old and out of touch, but all I've seen is people laughing at the ludicriousness of the raccoon firing guns .gif.  When I tell them it's from a movie coming out I get an incredulous, "wait, really?"  Which isn't going to be good if it's taking itself seriously.

Do you have a link to that image?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on September 19, 2013, 11:10:06 AM
http://wifflegif.com/tags/161876-rocket-raccoon-gifs


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on September 19, 2013, 11:24:06 AM
 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 19, 2013, 12:08:14 PM
Out of context, all comic ideas are moronic and seem destined to fail.  Man turns into giant green rage monster?  Alien can see through walls and move faster than light?  Man dresses up like bat to intimidate criminals?  Hot woman dresses up in skimpy outfit and ... no, that one always has an audience.  They're all crazy shit.  However, like everything in the comics/sci-fi universe, there are angles to these ideas that work and angles that suck.  Example: [Star Wars teddy bear that works: Wookie.  Star wars teddy bear that sucks: Ewok.]

When I talk about whether GotG, Doc Strange, and Inhumans could work on film, I remind people to look at Thor.  Thor in the comics and Thor in the movies are substantially the same character in many ways, but are different in key ways that make him more relatable to a movie audience.  Many of those changes are expansions of updates that have been worked into the comics over time.  They'll make the changes they need to make to get these new characters to work on film.

The Destroyer featured in Thor was a creation of the same drug addled 60s and 70s minds that invented Thanos, Ronan, Rocket Raccoon and Doctor Strange.  However, it has also been featured in comics for decades and has been updated over time to stay appealing to a modern comic audience - just like the rest of the characters.  The Destroyer worked in Thor.  It may not have been a perfect execution of the concept, but it worked.  I have faith that the team working on these other films will also make them work.

And, don't underestimate the benefit of having SHIELD (and potentially other shows) on TV to lay groundwork for these odd-ball ideas.  Even if people seeing these films do not watch the Marvel shows, the Marvel shows will be big enough to impact mainstream culture and lay groundwork.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on September 19, 2013, 12:22:24 PM
You sound like every Hollywood exec right before a genre crash.

Thor was little-known but not unknown. That movie also had the advantage of word being out that this was one of a trilogy of movies to introduce The Avengers.  Even given that advantage, it still did barely more than its budget domestically.

Blade was a better example of an unknown character. (Who was released among the trend of Vampire movies in the late 90's vs. superheros of the 00's.)  It remains to be seen if he was also a better example of the budget they should be pushing on GoG.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on September 19, 2013, 12:26:36 PM
Thor succeeded precisely because they cut all that shit out.  They basically gave us Alien Shakespeare with a hot fucking lead for the women and fight scenes for the guys.

There was a bare Minimum of comic retardery in that film.  Hell, Captain America had a lot more.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on September 19, 2013, 01:37:03 PM
When I heard they were making a Thor movie, I thought for sure it was going to be terribly both narratively and financially. I was wrong on both counts. It was executed well and made money. I'm willing to give Marvel films the benefit of the doubt on making off-the-wall concepts work on screen.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on September 19, 2013, 01:49:01 PM
The Destroyer featured in Thor was a creation of the same drug addled 60s and 70s minds that invented Thanos, Ronan, Rocket Raccoon and Doctor Strange.  However, it has also been featured in comics for decades and has been updated over time to stay appealing to a modern comic audience - just like the rest of the characters.  The Destroyer worked in Thor.  It may not have been a perfect execution of the concept, but it worked.  I have faith that the team working on these other films will also make them work.

Honestly, I found very little in Thor that I could relate to; the main reason I enjoyed the film is because Chris Hemsworth is fun to watch romping around*. Hell, Captain Vanilla should be on a par with Iron Man in the relatability stakes (he is human after all), but the film was full of comic nonsense and moustache twirling and suffered greatly for it.

I think there's fantastical ideas, like aliens fighting their family feud on earth, that can work. It's not the most novel plot concept, but it's something that's easy enough to accept and run with, it's a familiar idea. Then there are fantastical ideas that are pure comic-book homage with none of the inanity sucked out, such as evil demon laser-wielding nazi things hiding in the forest (seriously, what the fuck was the plot in that film other than "Demon-nazis bad!"). While there are familiar ideas in there: nazis are bad, demons are bad, lasers are cool, oh shit there's a plane with bombs on headed for the US that we have to stop! It was all thrown in with no apparent sense other than the fact that it was all connected via some comic written decades before I was even born.

This is what I feel when I look at the premise for GotG:

Quote
In the far reaches of space, an unlikely cast of characters including an American pilot and a group of futuristic ex-cons go on the run with a highly coveted object and must join forces to defeat a cosmic force of epic proportions

I look at the list of characters, I have never heard of them. There could be a really fun sci-fi story in there, but my suspicion is that the authors will be so horribly constrained by the existing IP that the story will end up being an incoherent mess of canonincal wank that marks the tail-end of most comic book series as far as I can see. If the IP were better known then riding on the cooattails and absorbing the baggae can work, but I literally have no clue who any of these people are, and names like Drax the Destroyer don't fill me with confidence, neither does a genetically engineered raccoon...

*also Natalie Portman...

Quote
Star wars teddy bear that sucks: Ewok.

Fuck off, Ewoks are  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on September 19, 2013, 01:55:44 PM
And now we're back to the exact point we were the last time the conversation was had.  Skeptics who have no idea wtf the property is and comics true believers who have faith in Marvel.

So we're back to the 'guess we wait and see' state.  Ah well, it was a good half-days conversation.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on September 19, 2013, 01:59:07 PM
Yeah, but at least this time I got to see a baffling Raccoon gif.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on September 19, 2013, 02:20:46 PM
I'm not sure why people hate the Racoon gif. I think it looks great.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on September 19, 2013, 02:21:44 PM
I'm sure I'd love it as a Funny or Die clip; as a film I have to pay £15 to see I'm less enthused  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on September 19, 2013, 06:32:05 PM
I would love to see what you think is worth that price and how closely you hold to that. Cause if a raccoon with a gun is enough to hold you off, I would think that the vast majority of modern popular entertainment would leave money in your pocket as well.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on September 19, 2013, 07:00:57 PM
So looks like there is an Agent Carter TV show in the works now.  Marvel is pretty busy.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 19, 2013, 09:14:09 PM
So looks like there is an Agent Carter TV show in the works now.  Marvel is pretty busy.
I'm not so sure on this rumor - the equivalent tales have flown around for Jessica Jones, as well as some rumors for Heroes for Hire, Daredevil and a few other properties.  I am betting there will be a second Marvel Universe series, but I don't think Agent Carter is an appreciable front runner to be the Wonderland to SHIELD's Once Upon a Time.  Heck, I'm betting they have 6 to 10 series at similar levels of development. 

Of course, if they follow the original idea for Wonderland as a limited run counterpoint for Once Upon a Time, Agent Carter would make a lot of sense - Agent Carter during the days SHIELD gets off the ground in an 8 episode miniseries would make a lot of sense as a way to bridge the summer gap between Season 1 and 2 of SHIELD.  An approach like that - 8 to 10 episode stand alone tales in the MCU focusing on secondary film characters (War Machine, Loki, Thunderbolt Ross, Warriors Three, Nova, etc...) or other 2nd and 3rd tier characters (Heroes for Hire, Jessica Jones, Punisher, Blade, Runaways, Power Pack, etc...) makes a lot of sense.  You could get A list talent to commit to those roles if they know it is limited and that there might be movies to come. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on September 19, 2013, 09:55:35 PM
I'm sure they've constantly got a lot of stuff in "early development". That phrase is so vague it could just mean that they have one guy scribbling ideas down in a notebook.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on September 20, 2013, 01:16:20 AM
I'm sure they've constantly got a lot of stuff in "early development". That phrase is so vague it could just mean that they have one guy scribbling ideas down in a notebook.

This.

And media / comic websites are just so happy to run any story that gets them clicks.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 20, 2013, 06:59:52 AM
I'm sure they've constantly got a lot of stuff in "early development". That phrase is so vague it could just mean that they have one guy scribbling ideas down in a notebook.

This.

And media / comic websites are just so happy to run any story that gets them clicks.
While I think they have a number of series in similar stages of development, the coverage of this story does note that they've elevated the situation to having someone write a pilot.  That requires a number of substantial steps to have been taken (fleshing out the roles, developing budgets, etc...) and investments of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  It doesn't mean that we're going to see a series, but if the articles are accurate, they do indicate more than just a passing fancy.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on September 20, 2013, 07:08:08 AM
No, they don't.

The guy who sits next to me at the office has a brother in Hollywood. He's shot 15 different pilots, but only two have seen air time and only a few more than that even made it to the stage they were reviewed as potential series after being shot.  Writing a script is as meaningless as "someone bought the movie rights to <property>."  It's a business and that is just a part of it.

Much more important are the backers, if it's a vehicle for a trend or an actor, or has a producer with enough influence to get it pushed through.  Which all come before quality of the material, as evidenced by the number of shit shows that get aired and cancelled within a few episodes each year.

Someone else around here works directly in the business and can point out with much greater detail why 'writing a script' isn't necessarily an indicator of any serious interest in a project.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on September 20, 2013, 07:12:12 AM
Pretty much. At least some of these kinds of rumors are also to float trial balloons or promote work they've already got coming out. Say, in this case, for example, to make fans curious about the Agent Carter short if they weren't already. Now that they've established that they do Easter Eggs and have a plan, they can stoke up fan interest at even a hint of a future possibility of an MU character or plotline making its appearance.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on September 20, 2013, 07:41:01 AM
From the original article (http://www.deadline.com/2013/09/marvel-developing-agent-carter-tv-series/#utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter):

Quote
I hear the project is in very early stages, one of several in the works at Marvel, and is in the process of locking in a writer. It is unclear if Atwell would reprise her role if Agent Carter comes to fruition.

So assuming any of this is true, they don't even have a writer nailed down to write the script for the pilot yet, it's one of many projects they're working on, and they don't even know if the same actress would play the character.

There was talk of Guillermo del Toro doing a Hulk TV show for a couple years, and then it was just put on hold. At the same time, AKA Jessica Jones was being worked on, then ABC mentioned a couple years later they passed on it, then the person who was doing the writing said earlier this year that she hoped it might end up on cable. These are projects that were officially announced that they were in the works (rather than just rumored), had fairly big names attached to them and 2-3 years later it was mentioned that they were put on hold (along with a number of other projects). Even if the Agent Carter thing is real, you're looking at potentially years before anything actually happens with it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on September 20, 2013, 11:06:55 AM
Someone else around here works directly in the business and can point out with much greater detail why 'writing a script' isn't necessarily an indicator of any serious interest in a project.

Not just the writing of a script, but the selling of a script means fuckall to whether it actually gets made into a movie. I had a guy approach me recently about purchasing the option to write a screenplay for my first novel - which would have netted me some money had he done it but peanuts compared to what he would have made by selling the screenplay. And even if he'd gotten far enough to sell it, that's no guarantee on it being made into anything. For every movie released, there's probably a thousand scripts sitting on someone's desk that someone paid for.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 20, 2013, 12:40:54 PM
No, they don't.

The guy who sits next to me at the office has a brother in Hollywood. He's shot 15 different pilots, but only two have seen air time and only a few more than that even made it to the stage they were reviewed as potential series after being shot.  Writing a script is as meaningless as "someone bought the movie rights to <property>."  It's a business and that is just a part of it.
It is business.  And business is expensive.  What took place before those scripts were written, before the properties were purchased, etc...?  A lot of analysis and paper pushing.  And that shit is expensive. 

By the time Agent Carter goes to pilot script, they've had people in development, legal, accounting, and a variety of other areas massaging the situation.  All along the path they had to repeatedly make the decision: Continue to proceed or cut our losses and let it die.  The payment that goes to the writer is a small part of the entire cost.  For a project to get to that point, the studio has devoted a lot of resources.

This is obviously quite different in situations where someone is shopping a script.  However, that is not what we're dealing with in these Marvel projects.  Marvel is driving this train and they've spent a lot of time on the issue before this pilot gets written.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Simond on September 21, 2013, 09:38:47 AM
I had actually heard of Iron Man prior to the film, and Iron Man is a somewhat relatable character (relative to all these other characters). I wiki'd some of these characters and the description of Thanos reads like the sort of thing a six year old would write in a fit of sugar-addled excitement.

I'm entirely ready to be proven wrong when Guardians of The Galaxy breaks box office record and such.
Psst. Thanos was in the first Avengers film.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on September 21, 2013, 10:06:16 AM
In much the same way as Blonde American Waitress was in the film, yes.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on September 21, 2013, 10:54:00 AM
I had actually heard of Iron Man prior to the film, and Iron Man is a somewhat relatable character (relative to all these other characters). I wiki'd some of these characters and the description of Thanos reads like the sort of thing a six year old would write in a fit of sugar-addled excitement.

I'm entirely ready to be proven wrong when Guardians of The Galaxy breaks box office record and such.
Psst. Thanos was in the first Avengers film.

No he wasn't. The cocktease segments after 15minutes of credits do not count as 'in the film'; by that point I've already taken a piss and cycled halfway home from the cinema.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on September 26, 2013, 10:23:50 PM
So I was thinking.  With the Age of Ultron (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr5rzSMNmRM) teaser finally released it brought something to mind.  What if Ultron is actually a corrupted form of JARVIS left over from the destroyed suits in Iron Man 3?  I mean the suits probably weren't all totally destroyed and there were enough for something to be cobbled together.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 27, 2013, 12:39:44 AM
Welcome to five pages ago.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on September 27, 2013, 10:25:42 AM
So I was thinking.  With the Age of Ultron (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr5rzSMNmRM) teaser finally released it brought something to mind.  What if Ultron is actually a corrupted form of JARVIS left over from the destroyed suits in Iron Man 3?  I mean the suits probably weren't all totally destroyed and there were enough for something to be cobbled together.

The "teaser' isn't released. That's a clever capture from SDCC cleaned up a bit. Notice the crowd noise at the end, the relative hallowness of hte audio and how INCREDIBLY DARK the entire thing is.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 27, 2013, 11:25:38 AM


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Trippy on October 24, 2013, 07:51:22 PM
Cap stuff moved to:

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=23756.0


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 24, 2013, 08:22:32 PM
Ant-man rumors going round is that Paul Rudd is in the lead as Hank Pym and Rashida Jones as Janet Van Dyne.  I actually don't have a problem with this considering this is supposed to be a more comedic film than the other movies.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on October 25, 2013, 01:46:16 AM
Rashida Jones as Wasp is pretty inspired casting.

Paul Rudd I'm not a fan of and he doesn't strike me as right for the part either. Hank Pym is a pretty messed-up dude, need someone that can hint at being messed-up under the surface.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 25, 2013, 02:33:39 AM
I have a feeling that Marvel really isn't going to go into wife-beating asshole Hank Pym.  I think there are too many kids that love the Marvel movies that they wouldn't ever go that dark.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 25, 2013, 02:43:12 AM
Checking the source on the Paul Rudd rumor, the story is from back in February and consists of "He was hanging out with Ruffalo and Evans at the Oscars, and Edgar Wright tweeted about him once".


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 25, 2013, 02:45:56 AM
There have been more recent rumors and somewhat of a confirmation.  Even AICN (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/64799) is commenting on it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 25, 2013, 04:03:27 AM
AICN also jumped on the Planet Hulk rumor bandwagon until it got debunked. Hey, maybe the Paul Rudd thing will happen but AICN commenting on it doesn't do anything to remove my skepticism.

Edit: Which apparently brings us full circle to the start of this thread.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on October 25, 2013, 05:19:46 AM
Yes. That zine has actually reported a lot of stuff that not only hasn't happened, but appears never ever had a chance of happening. I think a lot of this kind of early rumor-milling is basically fans making lots fan-informed guesses, calling them "rumors", and occasionally getting close by the luck of the draw.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on October 26, 2013, 09:34:38 PM
Also don't discount an actor interested in a part trying to build up his chances of getting the role by leaking rumours to selected sources. Getting a lead role in a Marvel film doesn't necessarily have a great payday for the actor (at least on their first contract) but it is great for profile building.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on October 27, 2013, 07:40:52 AM
Pardon the slight cross-post, but is the Ultimates universe being cancelled?  And why is the main universe called 616?  The wiki didn't explain.  The cinematic universe is 19999 I think, just wondering if these numbers have any meaning.  Lastly, the MCU is based off the Ultimates universe correct?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 27, 2013, 12:36:36 PM
Pardon the slight cross-post, but is the Ultimates universe being cancelled?  And why is the main universe called 616?  The wiki didn't explain.  The cinematic universe is 19999 I think, just wondering if these numbers have any meaning.  Lastly, the MCU is based off the Ultimates universe correct?

Captain Britain (and then Excalibur later) stories involved a lot of dimensional travel and also introduced the Captain Britain Corps who were tasked with protecting all of reality more or less. Presumably to more easily keep track of which reality is which, each one was given a number, and since each member of the Corps was a version of Captain Britain the numbers were used to differentiate the various members of the Corps.

As far as I know, it's unknown what the post-Cataclysm state of the Ultimate Universe will be. And parts of the movie Universe are based off the Ultimates universe, parts are based of the regular universe, and parts are made up specifically for the movies.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on October 27, 2013, 02:51:48 PM
Essentially, yeah, they're closing the Ultimates universe down, bringing the Miles Morales Spider-Man to the main MU, but they've also been steathily redoing the "main" MU so that it is more like the Ultimates universe (and thus more like the movies)--Samuel Jackson Nick Fury, Cap is way more like the Ultimate/Movie Cap, etc.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Teleku on October 27, 2013, 02:59:50 PM
The ultimate universe really bums me out.  I really liked almost all of the Ultimate universe versions of the various comic lines very much for their first few years.  I'd say the first 5'ish years or so of the Ultimate universe was really really good (or at least way the fuck better than what the main universe had become).  Then they started doing the same shit to it that corrupted the main universe (which is what they had initially said they specifically created the Ultimate universe to get around!!!!1).  The whole thing started going to shit, then they decided to kill it in an orgy of bad plot and horrible writing.  Cataclysm indeed.

Just, gah.  Its amazing how much Marvel can swing between greatness and complete stupidity.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on October 27, 2013, 06:23:32 PM
It's just what happens when you have what, 60 years of continuity?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on October 27, 2013, 06:25:58 PM
At least Marvel hasn't completely ruined their continuity like DC has many times over.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 27, 2013, 06:37:29 PM
but they've also been steathily redoing the "main" MU so that it is more like the Ultimates universe (and thus more like the movies)--Samuel Jackson Nick Fury, Cap is way more like the Ultimate/Movie Cap, etc.

I think most of the movies' resemblance to the Ultimate Universe is superficial aside from the Nick Fury thing. The Ultimates generally had a much darker and more cynical tone than anything the movies have gone for.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on October 27, 2013, 09:30:01 PM
Yes. But there's some character notes from Ultimates that they've definitely borrowed, and they've also gone for that more 'real' sort of feeling that the early Ultimates books had (e.g., not a universe overcrowded with spandex guys.) Which, by the way, explains why I don't think they're going to use any of the cheesier kinds of costumed guys in the SHIELD show--they clearly want to be fairly parsimonious with creating super-powered people in movies.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on October 28, 2013, 04:00:42 AM
Then they started doing the same shit to it that corrupted the main universe (which is what they had initially said they specifically created the Ultimate universe to get around!!!!1).  The whole thing started going to shit, then they decided to kill it in an orgy of bad plot and horrible writing.  Cataclysm indeed.

Turns out if you do a reboot but keep all the same writers and methodologies the same problems occur!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on October 28, 2013, 09:56:08 AM
Yup. Don't reboot unless you're interested in getting new writers and artists involved who will look at things completely differently.

And don't reboot a comic-book universe unless you have a new idea about how to handle long-term serial storytelling. Superhero movies have been very interesting in this respect: they haven't bought into a lot of the tropes that drive shared universe comic-book stories. Secret identities have been treated as being of minimal interest for the most part, and so all the recycled stories that center on the maintenance of secret IDs have fallen by the wayside. Villains are seen much more as a done-in-one, and so all the contrivances used to keep them alive and available are being dropped. I'd love to see DC or Marvel start a "pocket universe" line where every month's books advance the real-time lives of characters by six months or so--first so that their lives don't seem improbably packed with significant events or conflicts, second so that we can get genuine progression in their lives--they can marry or be injured or die or age and then that's just it, that's the status quo. Every year of story telling could be about five years in-universe. The MU movies are already almost doing about that--at least some months, sometimes longer, in between stories. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 29, 2013, 10:56:49 AM
Still rumor at this point, but I like the direction here as it makes sense of the apparent inconsistency between 10 Rings In IM I (and II briefly) and the Mandarin tale in IM III (obviously, spoilerish if true):

http://www.blastr.com/2013-10-29/rumor-day-ben-kingsleys-secret-marvel-project (http://www.blastr.com/2013-10-29/rumor-day-ben-kingsleys-secret-marvel-project)

My question would be where would this pay off?  Avengers III?  S.H.I.E.L.D.?  IM IV in 2019 or later?  A war machine mini-series?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on November 26, 2013, 11:11:01 PM
So under the category "news to me" Michael Rooker is playing Yondu, and I saw somewhere he's going to be one of the villians. John C. Reilly is playing Rhomann Dey(sp), which I find to be odd unless they are planning on adding Richard Rider/Nova sometime soon.

Amy Pond is going to be Nebula. I wonder if it's a random add or are they going to play up her relationship with Thanos?

After reading this new team of GotG I still don't much care for RR and Groot. I'd rather they had Moondragon, Mantis, Adam, or Major Victory/Justice (however they wanted to deal with that). If they do add a Quasar later on I'd hope it would be Wendell, or they do something fairly interesting with Phyla.

I'm still scratching my head over Yondu. Of all the characters to use from the old team, he'd be the last I'd use in a story. I can see how Starhawk, Major and Charlie may be hard sell (for a movie) on a team that already has a Raccoon and an Ent though.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on November 27, 2013, 10:16:36 AM
We've already seen Adam Warlock - if you looked carefully and knew what you were seeing.  Think 80s geriatric movie...

Oh, and about that conversation we all had back in September where I said Daredevil, Heroes for Hire and Jessica Jones were in development and you thought I was crazy... we were both right.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on November 27, 2013, 04:06:29 PM
We've already seen Adam Warlock - if you looked carefully and knew what you were seeing.  Think 80s geriatric movie...

Oh, and about that conversation we all had back in September where I said Daredevil, Heroes for Hire and Jessica Jones were in development and you thought I was crazy... we were both right.


You mean the conversation back in this thread? The one that was actually about the rumors of an Agent Carter TV series that had nothing to do with you mentioning that there were rumors of those other shows also? In fact would this be the same conversation where you said "While I think they have a number of series in similar stages of development, the coverage of this story does note that they've elevated the situation to having someone write a pilot." indicating that you thought an Agent Carter TV show was further along than some of these other rumored shows? I mean you realize we can click back a couple pages and actually reread the conversation right?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on November 27, 2013, 04:24:57 PM
So looks like there is an Agent Carter TV show in the works now.  Marvel is pretty busy.
I'm not so sure on this rumor - the equivalent tales have flown around for Jessica Jones, as well as some rumors for Heroes for Hire, Daredevil and a few other properties.  I am betting there will be a second Marvel Universe series, but I don't think Agent Carter is an appreciable front runner to be the Wonderland to SHIELD's Once Upon a Time.  Heck, I'm betting they have 6 to 10 series at similar levels of development.  

Of course, if they follow the original idea for Wonderland as a limited run counterpoint for Once Upon a Time, Agent Carter would make a lot of sense - Agent Carter during the days SHIELD gets off the ground in an 8 episode miniseries would make a lot of sense as a way to bridge the summer gap between Season 1 and 2 of SHIELD.  An approach like that - 8 to 10 episode stand alone tales in the MCU focusing on secondary film characters (War Machine, Loki, Thunderbolt Ross, Warriors Three, Nova, etc...) or other 2nd and 3rd tier characters (Heroes for Hire, Jessica Jones, Punisher, Blade, Runaways, Power Pack, etc...) makes a lot of sense.  You could get A list talent to commit to those roles if they know it is limited and that there might be movies to come.  
I said I was crazy.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on December 02, 2013, 10:07:38 PM
I forgot to mention how worried Del Toro's take on the Collector scares me.   :ye_gods: People say this guy can act but I just don't see it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 03, 2013, 08:06:01 AM
I forgot to mention how worried Del Toro's take on the Collector scares me.   :ye_gods: People say this guy can act but I just don't see it.

Don't be insane.  Del Toro is a great actor with just as much range as say a Sean Connery, Nicolas Cage or even a Tom Cruise.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Bunk on December 03, 2013, 08:21:48 AM
I don't think the studio is to worried about his take on the character, considering that 99.99% of the viewing public will have no idea who the character is.

I was a 35 comic a month guy in the late 80's/early 90's and I barely remember him.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on December 03, 2013, 08:57:26 AM
In the meantime, David Goyer is reportedly writing some side script treatments to go along with Batman v. Superman that includes films built around Booster Gold, Team 7, Suicide Squad and Deathstroke. The Team 7 one is especially laughable, as it's one of the biggest flops of the New 52 (that's saying something) and makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever if your film is not set in a universe absolutely crowded with spandex heroes. http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/david-goyer-developing-dc-comics-films-like-suicide-squad-more/


I think Marvel can rest pretty easy.
 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Father mike on December 03, 2013, 09:05:47 AM
In the meantime, David Goyer is reportedly writing some side script treatments to go along with Batman v. Superman that includes films built around Booster Gold, Team 7, Suicide Squad and Deathstroke.

I know absolutely nothing else about the character, but the Booster Gold episode of Justice League Unlimited remains one of my favorites.  If they had put Ryan Reynolds  in a movie based on the JLU character instead of in Green Lantern, I would have watched the hell out of that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on December 03, 2013, 10:31:40 AM
In the meantime, David Goyer is reportedly writing some side script treatments to go along with Batman v. Superman that includes films built around Booster Gold, Team 7, Suicide Squad and Deathstroke.

I know absolutely nothing else about the character, but the Booster Gold episode of Justice League Unlimited remains one of my favorites.  If they had put Ryan Reynolds  in a movie based on the JLU character instead of in Green Lantern, I would have watched the hell out of that.
Oh yeah, Ryan Reynolds as Booster Gold would have been golden perfect.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 03, 2013, 11:56:38 AM
This thread is weird. Del Toro is great.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on December 03, 2013, 01:03:07 PM
I don't think the studio is to worried about his take on the character, considering that 99.99% of the viewing public will have no idea who the character is.

I was a 35 comic a month guy in the late 80's/early 90's and I barely remember him.

Well the Collector is a minor character. I'm concerned though that the overall movie will be campy.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 03, 2013, 01:07:17 PM
I don't think the studio is to worried about his take on the character, considering that 99.99% of the viewing public will have no idea who the character is.

I was a 35 comic a month guy in the late 80's/early 90's and I barely remember him.

Well the Collector is a minor character. I'm concerned though that the overall movie will be campy.

Pretty sure from day 1 that is what they have said they were going for.  Perhaps the word campy was not used but certainly an action/comedy.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on December 03, 2013, 01:28:44 PM
I can deal with action/comedy. You can argue that most of the Marvel films are action/comedy. "Adam West campy" is what I thought when I saw Del Toro.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 03, 2013, 01:48:21 PM
IM III was pretty much a combination of IM II and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.   It was a Shane Black film in the MCU.

I have a feeling we'll get the same type of thing from GotG: A James Gunn film in the MCU.  If you want an idea of what this film is going to end up being, look to Dawn of the Dead, Slither and Super for guidance. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 03, 2013, 02:17:59 PM
IM III was pretty much a combination of IM II and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.   It was a Shane Black film in the MCU.

I have a feeling we'll get the same type of thing from GotG: A James Gunn film in the MCU.  If you want an idea of what this film is going to end up being, look to Dawn of the Dead, Slither and Super for guidance. 

I'm not sure I agree with the Dawn of the Dead bit. He only wrote that one. And I wouldn't say that it was the script that was the best part of that one. Slither and Super are both great. But more notably, Gunn got his start with Troma, to get the idea of what his style is. It will have some camp, which is not bad if it's done well. I mean, it has a raccoon with a machine gun. You can't do something like GoG straight up.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 03, 2013, 02:19:13 PM
I expect, nay demand at least one yiffing joke.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on December 03, 2013, 03:31:05 PM
I think they're going camp, if not Adam West camp, and that it should be fun. I don't think you can play it safe if you're making a movie with a space raccoon, a giant tree-alien, two green people with knives and a guy who calls himself Star-Lord.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on December 03, 2013, 05:55:00 PM
You would think not, but its not long ago that studio execs spent millions on a humourless Green Lantern film. They even hired Ryan fricking Reynolds, and not for a joke or anything.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 03, 2013, 06:00:01 PM
Ryan Reynolds was NOT the problem with that movie, even by a longshot. And hell, I didn't hate GL as most did.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 04, 2013, 10:59:31 AM
Ryan Reynolds was NOT the problem with that movie, even by a longshot. And hell, I didn't hate GL as most did.

This. Green Lantern wasn't a terrible movie by any stretch of the imagination. It just wasn't as good as it could or should have been. And Ryan Reynolds was absolutely not the problem with that movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on December 04, 2013, 01:03:36 PM

I don't have a problem with the movie as long as I pretend Ryan is Kyle Rayner  (a character I don't own a comic featuring). I just don't think he's a good Hal.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on December 04, 2013, 02:23:21 PM
Reynolds would have made a superb Guy Gardner.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on December 05, 2013, 03:45:43 PM
I'll just leave this here for completeness on the "comic book hero" genre. This was back in July but its the first time I've seen it.

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2013/07/23/gina-carano-is-taking-avengelyne-to-the-big-screen

Quote
Gina Carano is Taking Avengelyne to the Big Screen

MMA fighter turned actress Gina Carano is set to play the eponymous character in the big screen adaptation of Rob Liefeld's comic book series Avengelyne.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Carano and Liefeld are "re-conceiving" and "rebuilding" the title as a vehicle for the actress, and the proposed film(s) will carry a tone akin to Kate Beckinsale's pulpy Underworld franchise. For those unfamiliar with the Image comic book series, it centers around a fallen angel who now fights demons on Earth using her considerable super strength.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 05, 2013, 03:56:27 PM
What does that have to do with the Marvel Universe?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 05, 2013, 04:09:31 PM
What does that have to do with the Marvel Universe?
Perhaps confusion with Angela?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on December 05, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
Same thing as the Green lantern. And I wasn't about to make a new thread based on that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on December 07, 2013, 02:28:43 PM
Quote
Rob Liefeld

Does that mean every shot of every character will only be from the knee on up and they'll cgi in the jelly-like spines?



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 07, 2013, 04:22:07 PM
My favorite Leifeld is still the following, which is even on topic.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on December 07, 2013, 04:24:27 PM
Is it sad that I didn't even have to click that to know exactly which picture it was?  :awesome_for_real:

Edit: Instead of going off on Leifeld mocking for the next three pages, I'll just link this. (http://www.progressiveboink.com/2012/4/21/2960508/worst-rob-liefeld-drawings)  Yes, it is where I got the pic I linked but there is so much more there.   :grin:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on December 07, 2013, 06:57:13 PM
I like the one with the Torch making tender missionary position love to the Thing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on December 07, 2013, 07:19:41 PM
that whole article was fantastic. Thank you so much.  I'm happy to know I wasn't the only one who thought the comic art of the 90s was bullshit, largely because of ALL OF THAT being replicated by every artist.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on December 07, 2013, 07:22:30 PM
Oh that Liefeld rant was beautiful!   :heart:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Teleku on December 09, 2013, 04:53:49 PM
I........sorry.  Some of it was funny, but a lot of it felt like they were really stretching for shit to complain about.  Maybe its because that's what I grew up with, but a lot of that looked perfectly fine.  Its style choices, and a lot of the little nitty gritty things they dinged him on for much of that I could do the same with pretty much every other comic book artist ever.  I actually like a lot of the 90's style artwork, unrealistic as it (but not a lot of comic artists have ever really tried to go for ultra realistic, which seems to be the only thing they will accept).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 09, 2013, 06:57:07 PM
I don't know... I would enjoy seeing a Leifeld inked animated movie. It'd be great stoned.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 10, 2013, 12:20:37 AM
I........sorry.  Some of it was funny, but a lot of it felt like they were really stretching for shit to complain about.  Maybe its because that's what I grew up with, but a lot of that looked perfectly fine.  Its style choices, and a lot of the little nitty gritty things they dinged him on for much of that I could do the same with pretty much every other comic book artist ever.  I actually like a lot of the 90's style artwork, unrealistic as it (but not a lot of comic artists have ever really tried to go for ultra realistic, which seems to be the only thing they will accept).

No.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on December 10, 2013, 12:35:59 AM
I expect even comic book artists to be able to understand basic human anatomy.  Leifeld clearly doesn't.  He's also a lazy artist.  Whether or not other comic book artists are also lazy and have no understanding of basic human anatomy is irrelevant.

LOOK AT THIS

(http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1070346/40.gif)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 10, 2013, 08:02:40 AM
Out of context... in the prior panel her spine was crushed by an I=beam.  Right?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 10, 2013, 08:39:32 AM
I believe what he's saying is not that the art is good but that very few comic artists can be held under a microscope and come out clean.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Bunk on December 10, 2013, 08:45:48 AM
There's being under a microscope, and then there's just blatant disregard for human anatomy. He can't even be bothered when it comes to teeth:

(http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1070450/16_medium.jpg)

What is that, 50+ teeth in that guy's mouth? If you don't want to try drawing teeth, don't draw a fricken closeup of a guy's mouth.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on December 10, 2013, 09:32:41 AM
I agree that some of the complaints about his art was nitpicking, but there was a lot that was pure laziness and sloppy drawing.  The anatomy issues are the worst part, but stuff like never drawing feet (and when he does so, being bad at it), muscles on top of muscles on top of muscles, the perspective problems (e.g. thighs being larger than entire torsos), characters having headgear so he can give them crazy mohawk mullet hair... just really bad sloppy things like that. 

Going on about coloring choices or continuity mistakes - that gets nitpicky.  Unless Liefeld was the colorist too, then it's back to lazy and sloppy.  The design stuff.. I can overlook most of it because it was the 90s and that was the style that had become popular, largely because of Liefeld, though.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on December 10, 2013, 05:02:56 PM
Compare DC of the same era to Marvel/ Image and that says all you need to know.

Leifield is the problem.   DC was doing the same shadow tricks, dark ultra contrast/ crosshatched face and super gritty nonsense but the drawing was much better.  People were over-muscled but still respected anatomy.  Women were super-boobed but had intact spines and proportion was always there.

His is not "comic" style it is "Cartoon" which is entirely different and looked down upon because it takes less talent to do it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on December 10, 2013, 05:12:50 PM
I used to hang out in a comic book shop back in the 90's and I can assure you everyone there ridiculed Liefield's 'art'.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: SurfD on December 11, 2013, 04:01:47 AM
One of the best examples of the "lazy artist" syndrome thing in that rant was the one with the hair.  Two characters.  Two pages. Something like 6 individual pannels.  SIX PANNELS.  And BOTH of their fucking hair change in practically every single pannel.

That is utterly stupid level of bad right there.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on December 13, 2013, 05:15:21 AM
Sooo.. Along with Amazing Spiderman 3 going into production not long after 2 comes out, they are spinning off both Venom and Sinister Six movies. 

I don't know what to think about that really.  I wasn't a big fan of the new Spiderman, I guess I'll have to see how the sequel goes.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on December 13, 2013, 10:25:10 AM
At least some of this is driven by a desire to grab as much of the content that the IP allows. It's really amazing when you go back to the selling of Marvel's IP to the most recent franchise holders how little Marvel *or* the purchasers really valued it in relationship to its potential. But now that they've got what they've got and Marvel's main cinematic universe has become what it is, it's pretty clear that both the Spider-Man and X-Men holders are going to try and get everything on screen that they're potentially entitled to have.

At least until one or all of the holders make a stinky bomb that can't recoup any of its costs simply because it's a bad concept or idea. I wonder a lot about what a Sinister Six movie would be like. If all of the Six are Oscorp creations rather than a group of independent operators who come together for a single purpose, I'm not sure I see what the concept in there will be. Maybe a kind of Thunderbolts/Dirty Dozen/Suicide Squad thing, I suppose, where the Six are stuck in a situation where it's cooperate or die.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 13, 2013, 01:44:32 PM
I'm still thinking that we'll have an announcement by 2020 that will put all of the Marvel Properties in one cinematic universe.  It is just a matter of negotiation and planning.  The properties are more valuable together than alone.  Disney is willing to deal (see Indiana Jones), so it is just a matter of time.  I think the current announcements about X-men, Spider-man, etc... films are as much about negotiation and planning as they are about carrying forward their franchises. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on December 13, 2013, 05:19:31 PM
Unless Marvel has it all under their wing, and is in control of choosing writers/directors/actors, I'd rather they remain separate.  I don't think it has anything to do with planning them all being together.  It's more about the other studios trying to mimic Marvel as much as possible.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ingmar on December 13, 2013, 06:05:07 PM
but a lot of that looked perfectly fine. 

Well I for one think it is awesome that the US government is open minded enough to hire blind IT guys.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: CmdrSlack on December 17, 2013, 10:59:45 PM

I don't have a problem with the movie as long as I pretend Ryan is Kyle Rayner  (a character I don't own a comic featuring). I just don't think he's a good Hal.

He's born to play Deadpool.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 17, 2013, 11:32:27 PM

I don't have a problem with the movie as long as I pretend Ryan is Kyle Rayner  (a character I don't own a comic featuring). I just don't think he's a good Hal.

He's born to play Deadpool.

Just not weapon X


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 18, 2013, 10:20:38 PM
Ant-man.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/65504 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/65504)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 18, 2013, 10:25:49 PM
If you can't be bothered to link to the original source, at least don't link to fucking Aintitcool.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 19, 2013, 09:14:45 AM
If you can't be bothered to link to the original source, at least don't link to fucking Aintitcool.
People complain about everything, here. The article isn't puff, and it mentioned the source. There is no reason to hate on it other than blind bitching.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 19, 2013, 09:43:12 AM
It's all puff!

"Hey, we knew this already, plus we really like him! He's a good guy!"


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 19, 2013, 12:39:46 PM
It's all puff!

"Hey, we knew this already, plus we really like him! He's a good guy!"
Do you know what quotation marks represent?



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 19, 2013, 12:51:03 PM
"Yes."

To note, I've never really liked AICN. Especially because of Knowles. In the early days, my main movie haunt was Corona's Coming Attractions.

But that piece was pretty much the definition of Puff, with the only theoretical part of it being based off of Faraci's (Bad Ass Digest) comments.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 19, 2013, 02:31:43 PM
If you can't be bothered to link to the original source, at least don't link to fucking Aintitcool.
People complain about everything, here. The article isn't puff, and it mentioned the source. There is no reason to hate on it other than blind bitching.

Not only is the article almost completely puff, it also neglects to mention that the Wrap's confirmation comes from sources of theirs and that Marvel and Rudd's representatives have not officially announced it and are not commenting on the story. Also it's just common courtesy to link to the people who wrote the original story so they get the traffic.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on December 21, 2013, 07:44:59 AM
The properties are more valuable together than alone. 

To who though? It adds value to Disney, but that doesn't benefit Fox or Sony. The deal will come when either Fox or Sony either thinks there is no value left in keeping the licences separate.

Having different studios behind the different franchises potentially means more films get made. If Disney had a stake in all of them they aren't going to release an X-Men, Spider-Man and Avengers film in the same year because the costs would be very high. They'd stick to one or two Marvel films a year to maximise exposure and ROI.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 21, 2013, 09:54:37 AM
The properties are more valuable together than alone. 
To who though? It adds value to Disney, but that doesn't benefit Fox or Sony. The deal will come when either Fox or Sony either thinks there is no value left in keeping the licences separate.
If the value to Disney was 2X, to Sony was 2X and Fox is 2X for their individually licensed components, but the value if you combined them was 7X, then it is just a matter of negotiation.  They can each come out ahead.  The only real sticking point is getting people to agree to valuations. 
Quote
Having different studios behind the different franchises potentially means more films get made. If Disney had a stake in all of them they aren't going to release an X-Men, Spider-Man and Avengers film in the same year because the costs would be very high. They'd stick to one or two Marvel films a year to maximise exposure and ROI.
I disagree.  Marvel, before Disney, had to be very careful with the pocketbook.  However, after Disney, they have deep reserves.  So, funding a movie is not a problem if they believe it will be profitable. 

When the studio looks at when to make movies and how to make movies, a limiting factor is whether you're going to burn out the audience by having too many similar films out within a given period.  That issue has nothing to do with the studio making the films.  Marvel currently has to consider X-men, Spider-man, and DC film projects when deciding how many of their own films to make just as much as if they were the ones making those films. 

I firmly believe that if Marvel were able to terminate all of those licensing agreements and get back all of those rights, they'd be making 4 films a year within 2 years - plus a few TV series, even with DC making films and tv series, too.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 21, 2013, 10:05:16 AM
Negotiating such a huge deal when the super hero bubble is close to popping would be a terrible business decision. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on December 21, 2013, 10:21:06 AM
What evidence do you have to make that claim?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 21, 2013, 10:41:54 AM
The Super Hero bubble is a lot like the Star Wars bubble - it will have dips, but they're going to have resurgences, too.  Disney is going to be making Marvel films for a long time.  That is opinion, but I am pretty darn sure I'm right.  I expect them to reboot the MCU at some point, and they may take a few years off while rebooting, but the whole machine has a long ways to go before that happens.

Some might argue that Marvel's best strategy is a short term strategy: Make 10 films a year for a few years - and get people burnt out on Doctor Strange, Iron Man, Hulk, Avengers, Captain America, Daredevil, Defenders, etc...  At the same time they're getting burnt out on the Disney stuff, they'll be burning out on Spider-man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, and DC properties.  Nobody will be in a good position to make quality films and we'll go into a fallow period for Superhero film - during which time the rights to more Marvel characters would revert to Disney.  Then they could reboot the entire thing and plan to include all of their properties.

And negotiating a huge deal can be done at any point if it is done right.  The key is to understand the positions and needs of the parties.  It isn't like Marvel would just hand over a large check to the other studios.  There would be profit participation involved, etc... 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 21, 2013, 11:31:04 AM
That's a lot of wishful thinking with no real evidence to support it.  I'm not saying it's false but there's no way to know whether super heroes movies will sustain.  All we do know is that movie bubbles do exist and eventually pop as people get burnt out and move to different things.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 21, 2013, 12:24:44 PM
When talking about these things, it's important to look beyond "movies" too, just to be fair. Cartoons, comics, theme park stuff, toys, flamthrowers, etc.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 21, 2013, 12:57:23 PM
When talking about these things, it's important to look beyond "movies" too, just to be fair. Cartoons, comics, theme park stuff, toys, flamthrowers, etc.
No, the throwing of flam NEVER goes out of style.

Since 1978, we've seen about one film every other year with a major Superhero in it.  Around 2000 it picked up to an average of 3+ per year.    It is accelerating, and has been going on longer than most of the readers on this board have been alive.  Although some argue that the best way for Marvel to get their properties back is to flood the market, I personally believe it will be hard to do.  I think you could do one major Superhero movie a month and not crush the market.  I'm not saying all comics fans would see all movies, but if done well, their is enough material and interest for them all to be profitable.  yes, you might undercut the profits of the next Avengers by having 12 superhero films before it in the year, but I think you can make up for that dip with the profits from the other ones. You've got 5 major comic book based movies in 2014 (including TMNT) and 2015 has at least 3 plus at least 6 Superhero TV series planned to be on TV around that time.

I just don't see a bubble bursting.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 21, 2013, 01:00:11 PM
The real indicator will be the tier 2-3 superheroes that marvel is going to start putting out and how well those movies do compared to the big names.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MahrinSkel on December 21, 2013, 01:19:47 PM
When talking about these things, it's important to look beyond "movies" too, just to be fair. Cartoons, comics, theme park stuff, toys, flamthrowers, etc.
No, the throwing of flam NEVER goes out of style.

Since 1978, we've seen about one film every other year with a major Superhero in it.  Around 2000 it picked up to an average of 3+ per year.    It is accelerating, and has been going on longer than most of the readers on this board have been alive.  Although some argue that the best way for Marvel to get their properties back is to flood the market, I personally believe it will be hard to do.  I think you could do one major Superhero movie a month and not crush the market.  I'm not saying all comics fans would see all movies, but if done well, their is enough material and interest for them all to be profitable.  yes, you might undercut the profits of the next Avengers by having 12 superhero films before it in the year, but I think you can make up for that dip with the profits from the other ones. You've got 5 major comic book based movies in 2014 (including TMNT) and 2015 has at least 3 plus at least 6 Superhero TV series planned to be on TV around that time.

I just don't see a bubble bursting.
*This* time is different.

You can flog anything into the ground, and movies are notorious for it.  It doesn't matter how many Superhero movies a year the market could sustain indefinitely, the industry will blow past that mark and make so many even the most die-hard geek is saying "Another Batman reboot already?  WTF, the Justin Bieber version was just a few years ago."

--Dave


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 21, 2013, 02:00:48 PM
Uh. My comments had nothing to do with a perceived "bubble", just pointing out that any deal Disney would want picking up the other parts would not just be about the movies. It was not an argument for or against some bubble.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 21, 2013, 06:03:31 PM
I was replying to several concepts that were related. 

And note that Marvel is not making the same superhero movie over and over.  Cap II is essentially a political thriller.  Guardians of the Galaxy is a sci-fi story.  Thor II was a war movie.  IM III was nothing like IM I or IM II.  They're not retreading the same ground just because they take place in the same universe and involve costumed characters.

The other studios are also aware that you need to shake things up.  The Wolverine is significantly different compared to the prior 4 Wolverine films.  The reworked the Amazing Spider-man films to distance them from the prior trilogy.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on December 21, 2013, 08:46:21 PM
I don't know why you guys keep arguing with him. It was apparent several pages ago he's a true believer in the idea that superhero movies will never die or get stale. That the current state is how movies will be for evah!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on December 21, 2013, 09:34:45 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Supermanmolemen.jpg)

Made in 1951. Just saying.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 22, 2013, 12:16:14 AM
I don't know why you guys keep arguing with him. It was apparent several pages ago he's a true believer in the idea that superhero movies will never die or get stale. That the current state is how movies will be for evah!
I apologize for stating an opinion and then supporting my view with facts.  I'll try to use your approach of baseless mockery instead.

You suck.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on December 22, 2013, 05:41:43 AM
There was a brief discussion on the last page based on an assumption that the Avengers would have made even more money than it did if spiderman and the xmen were crammed in there.

I'm really not sure that is actually true.

You obviously could base an avengers film around spiderman, just as this one was based on Iron Man. But I really don't buy the idea that Sony is 'obviously' leaving money on the table here. Seems like a lot of headaches for limited gain unless Disney just decide buy the whole thing for crazy money.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 22, 2013, 10:25:02 AM
There was a brief discussion on the last page based on an assumption that the Avengers would have made even more money than it did if spiderman and the xmen were crammed in there.

I'm really not sure that is actually true.

You obviously could base an avengers film around spiderman, just as this one was based on Iron Man. But I really don't buy the idea that Sony is 'obviously' leaving money on the table here. Seems like a lot of headaches for limited gain unless Disney just decide buy the whole thing for crazy money.
Marvel, before Disney, said that the entire collection is worth more to them together than if it were broken up.  I imagine a lot of the value would have little to do with movie ticket revenue, but would have more to do with the product sales for figures, etc...  Further, it would allow them to do events that tie everything together, like a 'Secret Wars', 'Invasion', or 'Civil War' movie event that featured a few characters from the different books/movie franchises, but had a bunch of others do cameos (mostly in action shots - perhaps entirely in CGI).  Imagine if 2018 had Civil War I, 2019 had a solo Cap and Iron Man Movies related to the storyline, 2020 had X-men, Spider-man and thunderbirds movies, and 2021 had the conclusion Civil War II.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 22, 2013, 12:05:23 PM
Just because spiderman is in the same comic universe as captain america, does not mean the public at large knows this or even cares.  I think you are under the false assumption that most people even asked "why isn't spiderman in the avengers movie?" anyone asking that question is in the minority.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on December 22, 2013, 12:33:28 PM
And note that Marvel is not making the same superhero movie over and over.  Cap II is essentially a political thriller.  Guardians of the Galaxy is a sci-fi story.  Thor II was a war movie.  IM III was nothing like IM I or IM II.  They're not retreading the same ground just because they take place in the same universe and involve costumed characters.

I would argue that most of the Marvel movies are fundamentally similar. They may have different settings or different superficial genre trappings but if you've seen one you've seen a half-dozen.

As far as Spider-Man not being in the Avengers, this strikes me as a "be careful what you wish for" scenario. The single largest reason superhero movies go off the rails is that they become overstuffed. The last thing these Marvel movies need is Spider-Man and the X-Men to also appear in them.

As to whether or not superhero movies are a bubble - who knows? The action-adventure genre certainly isn't a bubble, and many of these movies are just blockbuster action-adventure movies. Not a lot of huge movies these days aren't based on existing IP. If you want to make an expensive vampire hunter guy movie it probably makes more sense to base it on Blade than on something original.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 22, 2013, 02:09:35 PM
Further, it would allow them to do events that tie everything together, like a 'Secret Wars', 'Invasion', or 'Civil War' movie event that featured a few characters from the different books/movie franchises, but had a bunch of others do cameos (mostly in action shots - perhaps entirely in CGI).  Imagine if 2018 had Civil War I, 2019 had a solo Cap and Iron Man Movies related to the storyline, 2020 had X-men, Spider-man and thunderbirds movies, and 2021 had the conclusion Civil War II.

In other words, imagine if all the worst aspects of comic books were brought into the movies and everything just became crossover after crossover. Instead of just trying to make a good solo Cap movie like they're doing now which advances his personal storyline, they've got to do a Cap Civil War tie-in movie. Much like in the comics, the X-men get diminished somewhat because the concept of people hating and fearing mutants doesn't work as well when there are dozens of other people with superpowers which are more or less indistinguishable from mutants. Even Spider-man's character traditionally works best when he isn't involved with the Avengers. Company-wide crossovers have shown time and time again that throwing every character possible into one story typically makes the story worse, not better.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on December 22, 2013, 02:43:14 PM
Made in 1951. Just saying.

The bubble is not reflective of superhero movies being made, but that they are a greater portion of the funds and projects than they would be otherwise.  How many other superhero movies were in '51.  The 10 years following?  How about after Superman in 1980 or Batman in '89?

There's a resurgence and they're making lots of money because geeks and geekery are in.  Things will shift and movies with shift with them eventually, it's just a question of when.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on December 22, 2013, 03:53:57 PM
I think crappy non Marvel/Disney movies will kill the genre more than anything else.  I'm looking at you DC, Sony, Fox.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on December 22, 2013, 11:48:44 PM
Marvel, before Disney, said that the entire collection is worth more to them together than if it were broken up.  

Said Marvel, who were also responsible for breaking up the collection to begin with. Sure, they want Spider-Man et al now that its been a proven performer for Sony.

I can't see Disney putting out six $300m+ films (before marketing) a year all focused around superheroes. It's a case of loading up too heavily on one thing.

And nothing is stopping Marvel developing TV shows around other interesting characters it holds other than Marvel / Disney. After all, Disney could be funding multiple TV shows per year, but instead has opted to sign a deal with Netflix to spread the production risk.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 23, 2013, 12:13:28 PM
Six $300 million movies a year?  Cap II has a budget of $140.  Thor II  $170.  Iron Man III $200.  Avengers $220.  IM II $200.  Thor $150.  Rather than 1.8 billion, I think you'd be more likely to see 800 million and four films a year - or roughly 500,000,000 less than the net budget revenue (worldwide revenue minus budget) of the Avengers alone.

As for Spider-man (FYI - Spider-man has a dash in the name... Stan Lee didn't want his name to look too similar to Superman) in the Avengers:  It is all about Buzz.  You get Buzz when you combine big names.  You get Buzz when yhose big names are actors, or characters, or storylines that can be brought into the mainstream media.  Anything that the media can grab and spin a thousand different ways...  Often, the buzz is more important than the quality of the movie.  If you drop Jennifer Lawrence in a movie right now, it is guaranteed to be profitable, even if it were crap.  If you make a crappy Superman movie, the name alone will get people in the seats.  It is stupid, but it is the truth. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 23, 2013, 01:10:51 PM
Did you just correct someone and cite the reasons why for the proper spelling of a comic book character's name?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on December 23, 2013, 02:35:28 PM
While he is incredibly annoying, you can't really dump on an f13 poster for calling out spelling and grammar. That is what we do.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 23, 2013, 02:51:10 PM
Did you just correct someone and cite the reasons why for the proper spelling of a comic book character's name?
FYI - when someone says FYI, it can be meant as:

"Listen, Oh Ye Turd Clinging to the Ass of Society: You're a moron.  Everyone knows the following...", or
"Hey, here's some info that might be of interest... I kind of thought it was interesting when I first heard it..."

Although, I imagine, most people will be using the former when talking to some people on these boards, we're all (generally) going to be better off always assuming the later. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sigil on December 23, 2013, 05:02:20 PM

Although, I imagine, most people will be using the former when talking to some people on these boards, we're all (generally) going to be better off always assuming the later. 

Wow, you really are new here, aren't you?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 23, 2013, 06:53:12 PM
Clearly. If I'd been here a while I'd have Doolittled more of your asses into respectable gentlepeople.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Pennilenko on December 26, 2013, 12:21:48 AM
 :popcorn:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on December 26, 2013, 04:03:50 AM
It is all about Buzz.  You get Buzz when you combine big names.  You get Buzz when yhose big names are actors, or characters, or storylines that can be brought into the mainstream media.  Anything that the media can grab and spin a thousand different ways...  Often, the buzz is more important than the quality of the movie.  If you drop Jennifer Lawrence in a movie right now, it is guaranteed to be profitable, even if it were crap.  If you make a crappy Superman movie, the name alone will get people in the seats.  It is stupid, but it is the truth. 

(http://i.imgur.com/H0FOo1m.png) (http://imgur.com/H0FOo1m)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on December 26, 2013, 12:34:59 PM
Query; Is it appropriate for me to say "This thread delivers" Yet?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 26, 2013, 12:54:32 PM
Requires at least one good meltdown for that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 26, 2013, 02:26:34 PM
Imagine if 2018 had Civil War I

Bringing in the Civil War or any of the other super-fucktarded storylines that Bendis has been a part of to the movie-verse would be the quickest way to kill the worth of the Marvel franchise I can think of.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 26, 2013, 06:23:39 PM
See above. It'd generate buzz. It is something big media can grab. And, just because the comic version was disappointing, a movie version is not rewuired to be the same thing. Age of Ultron is being used as a tagline for Avengers II because it fits the general content of the movie and it has some established recognition the media can grab onto... not because the story is the same one told in the comics.  There are some superficial similarities with some of the characters, but Avengers II is more about the 60s stories than anything from this decade.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 26, 2013, 06:25:58 PM
There's a fine line between reasonable argument and hopeful fanfic wishing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on December 26, 2013, 07:53:08 PM
Don't say that, you're being mean if you don't jump in to the deep end and abandon rational thought!   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on December 26, 2013, 09:42:36 PM
the comic version was disappointing

Then why bother with it at all?  At any rate in the CU all the heroes' true names are already known to the government, and IMO there's no rational reason against registration seeing as how we have required licenses for every day, real world stuff.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 26, 2013, 09:59:00 PM
Civil War means fuckall to the media that would be important for generating buzz on a movie. The only thing that the media gave a shit about to come out of it was when Spider-Man revealed his identity - which has been quickly forgotten by like... everyone.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on December 26, 2013, 10:08:48 PM

You mean the media forgot or it's been retconned out of the comics?

I'm a bit biased in that I haven't really collected comics in quite some time and I believe, with ample reason (e.g. spidey clone) that most of the stuff I haven't read was utter garbage and I have zero interest in seeing an interpretation of them on the big screen.  I'm pleasantly surprised with the Guardians and related stuff, but then those now count as comics I've read.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 26, 2013, 10:38:53 PM

You mean the media forgot or it's been retconned out of the comics?

Actually, it's both.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on December 27, 2013, 07:47:02 AM
Imagine if 2018 had Civil War I

Bringing in the Civil War or any of the other super-fucktarded storylines that Bendis has been a part of to the movie-verse would be the quickest way to kill the worth of the Marvel franchise I can think of.

Want to know how well Civil War movie would do?  Start asking random people in your office if Spiderman is a black boy who might be gay.  Those who don't laugh at you are the ones who would watch a CW movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 27, 2013, 10:37:22 AM
One more time: Civil War was a major Marvel event.  Some people loved it, but many people thought it was trash.  That is 100% irrelevant.  What is relevant is that it got major buzz.  There were a lot of articles about it, people spent a lot of time talking about it in the comics world, and many aspects of it (Heroes accidentally getting people killed, Super hero registration, Cap's Death, etc...) were also discussed in non-comic specific media.  In other words, it was one of the greatest breakout media storylines for Marvel, especially if we look at the last decade only.

Civil War is a name with higher degrees of recognition than other Marvel cross-over stories.  Am I saying everybody in the world knows the name?  No.  Am I saying it is a case of automatic name brand recognition for casual movie goers across the globe?  No.  However, it is something the media can jump on, do crappy research around and write articles about.  It is something that would create speculation (Does this mean Cap dies?  Does this mean that XXXX's secret identity will be revealed?) which feeds the machine.  That is why they're eventually going to do it. 

They won't be the same friggin thing from the comics, but it will use the names - just like the smarmy Tony Stark was not the Stark from the comics, Hulk's origen was not a gamma bomb in the movies, and Age of Ultron is not a time travel story focused on Sue Storm and Wolverine. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on December 27, 2013, 10:50:16 AM
Query; Is it appropriate for me to say "This thread delivers" Yet?

No, but a 'Hi from the Den' is getting close.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 27, 2013, 11:11:40 AM
Civil war is never going to get touched for a reason I think you are missing. 

Current comic movies are not aimed at current comic readers.  They have been and are being aimed at those of us who read comics as children and grew up, not men and women that are reading them in their thirties.

Look at the big events the movies are starting on: The infinity gauntlet, days of future past, even the sinister six.  All of these things are from 20+ years ago, they are the storylines that 30-40 year olds grew up with.

If you are expecting to see the civil war on the big screen then I'd say you have another couple decades wait.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 27, 2013, 11:22:31 AM
Civil War means as much to the major media outlets as Secret Invasion, Avengers vs. X-Men, Heroes Reborn, Heroic Age or Avengers Disassembled - exactly fuckall. Super-hero crossovers of this type would be a huge failure for movies. They are hugely reliant on continuity and often very convoluted continuity at that, and thus reliant on the audience knowing at least some of the continuity. No movie studio is going to rely on that. Avengers really was an outlier even in the continuity it had with the other films but if you watch, it really doesn't require that you have seen any of the other franchises. Try telling a movie exec he needs to spend $300 million on a movie that requires a 5-minute recap OR the audience to have seen another movie or set of movies (that weren't direct sequels or prequels) to understand.

Crossovers are wet dreams for manchildren but they are both terrible narrative devices and terrible business.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 27, 2013, 11:40:43 AM


Crossovers are wet dreams for manchildren but they are both terrible narrative devices and terrible business.

But alien v. predator and freddy v. jason were such huge hits....


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on December 27, 2013, 12:34:53 PM
, people spent a lot of time talking about it in the comics world,

This right here is where you torpedoed your own argument.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 27, 2013, 01:06:52 PM
Merusk, try to finish reading a sentence before you comment on it.  The point is that both the comic world and the non-comic world cared more about the events in and around the Civil War books than about Secret Invasion, Avengers Vs X-men, or any of the others that Haemish listed.  The Death of Captain America, though a thoroughly annoying trick that has been done to death, was on CNN.com's front page.

Lakov_Sanite - Some of the movie stuff is updated versions of old stuff, but certainly not all.  Extremis (Iron Man III) came from a 2005-2006 storyline in the IM comics.  A lot of movie universe is based upon a balance of the Ultimates Universe and the traditional Marvel Universe.  Avengers II is capitalizing upon a VERY recent storyline name, even though the storyline from the movie and the comic series are unrelated.  They are pulling from everywhere - 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s... They're going to look at what makes the most financial sense.  Civil War, for all the reasons I mentioned, is one of several options that makes a lot of sense from a marketability perspective.  Also, it has the added benefit that you can have a lot of heroes without many villains, which is cheaper for Marvel/Disney (hero on hero action allowed them to have a lot of action in Avengers while cutting at least two villains that Whedon had in the original script). 

I strongly suspect that the big storyboard in Marvel headquarters that plots out future projects has Civil War on it, either in the column for projects in early development or in the column for future projects to do.  There is a certain sense in holding off on it until you get rights to more characters or until we're more invested in more characters, but I would not be surprised to see it in 2018.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on December 27, 2013, 02:04:56 PM
Merusk, try to finish reading a sentence before you comment on it.  The point is that both the comic world and the non-comic world cared more about the events in and around the Civil War books than about Secret Invasion,

My point is, no, they didn't.  You're delusional.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 27, 2013, 02:36:59 PM
Merusk, try to finish reading a sentence before you comment on it.  The point is that both the comic world and the non-comic world cared more about the events in and around the Civil War books than about Secret Invasion,
My point is, no, they didn't.  You're delusional.
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/06/15/captain.america/index.html?iref=hpmostpop (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/06/15/captain.america/index.html?iref=hpmostpop)
Fox News: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fstory%2F2007%2F07%2F01%2Fcaptain-america-buried-at-arlington-national-cemetery&ei=A-S9Utn4I8Td2QWmyIHABw&usg=AFQjCNHJwHSVOK8Zkq_Ju5ZVjDB4vKOYZw (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fstory%2F2007%2F07%2F01%2Fcaptain-america-buried-at-arlington-national-cemetery&ei=A-S9Utn4I8Td2QWmyIHABw&usg=AFQjCNHJwHSVOK8Zkq_Ju5ZVjDB4vKOYZw)
Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=avjxuPKYtGsw (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=avjxuPKYtGsw)

That was 4 seconds of internet searching for the death of Captain America.

While 99.9% of Foxnews qualifies as delusional, my statement does not.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on December 27, 2013, 02:40:31 PM
Er, it was the death og an iconoc character, with "America" in his name. Same thing happened when Superman died. And I didn't even know that the death of CA was related to Civil War in any case.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 27, 2013, 03:05:27 PM
Er, it was the death og an iconoc character, with "America" in his name. Same thing happened when Superman died. And I didn't even know that the death of CA was related to Civil War in any case.

This. The news media and the general public (the people movies are targeted towards) wouldn't even know or remember the name of the crossover unless it was "Death of (Insert Character Here)." Civil War means NOTHING to anyone that isn't a comics fan and that includes the movie producers.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on December 27, 2013, 03:13:43 PM
Merusk, try to finish reading a sentence before you comment on it.  The point is that both the comic world and the non-comic world cared more about the events in and around the Civil War books than about Secret Invasion, Avengers Vs X-men, or any of the others that Haemish listed.  The Death of Captain America, though a thoroughly annoying trick that has been done to death, was on CNN.com's front page.

As someone who isn't in the comic book world, I haven't heard of any of these things. I don't really care either; don't comics kill off their characters and magically resurrect them all the time anyway?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 27, 2013, 03:17:12 PM
Er, it was the death og an iconoc character, with "America" in his name. Same thing happened when Superman died. And I didn't even know that the death of CA was related to Civil War in any case.
There are plenty of summaries of the event available, if you care.  They all pretty much note Cap's death as the coda and many call it a cheap ploy to limit the ramifications of the storyline.

Most of them also note that the entire thing was meant to relate to real world political issues of the mid 00s - primarily, the conflict between security and freedom.  They were taking issues that dominated the news then (and continue to dominate the news today) and putting them in comic terms.  It was explicitly designed, according to the interviews surrounding the event, to draw the attention of the world outside comics.  I don't think it was as successful as they hoped.  

For the record, I didn't read it at the time.  All I saw was this extraneous news coverage.  I then read it in hardcovers about 2 years ago when someone oversold it to me.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 27, 2013, 04:03:53 PM
And it sucked wet farts out of dead pigeons.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on December 27, 2013, 04:06:00 PM
Ok, *now* this thread delivers.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on December 27, 2013, 04:23:16 PM
For the record, I didn't read it at the time.  All I saw was this extraneous news coverage.

You did it again. 

Also, fluff pieces in human interest/ arts aren't major coverage. They're filler for page clicks.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 27, 2013, 06:16:22 PM
For the record, I didn't read it at the time.  All I saw was this extraneous news coverage.
You did it again. 
Proved my point?  Yes.  I tend to do that when I take a position I can support.
Quote
Also, fluff pieces in human interest/ arts aren't major coverage. They're filler for page clicks
Whether there for clicks or to impart information - it was there.  Front page.  CNN.  Bloomberg.  Foxnews.  The label of human interest / arts does not make it any less 'major' coverage.

I'm done on this sub-topic.  Arguing it is pointless. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Der Helm on December 27, 2013, 06:31:21 PM
I'm done on this sub-topic.  Arguing it is pointless. 
How
about
a
nice
game
of
...
chess ?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on December 27, 2013, 06:38:37 PM
There are plenty of summaries of the event available, if you care.  They all pretty much note Cap's death as the coda and many call it a cheap ploy to limit the ramifications of the storyline.

Um. Look, I should be the target grahic for these people to get the buzz. I'm a 41 (would have been late 30s then) anti-social geeky guy who does not read many comics anymore but still has something of an interest in comics and other geekery. Fact is, I had heard about Caps death, but heard zero about it being in this big arc called "Civil War," or if I did at the time it was in such an offhand way that I don't remember hearing it at all. If someone like me had no idea it was part of it till an hour ago, then using Cap as an example is flawed. People were interested in Cap's temporary death, sure, but not really civil war and they never mentioned it as far as I remember.

I guess because it was in essence the concept was an unfocused mess. PEOPLE HATE MUTANTS but Spiderman, the Hulk and Deadpool are NOT mutants so they cool. Wat?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 27, 2013, 09:04:26 PM
Deadpool isn't a mutant? Huh I always thought he was originally or was the healing factor artificial? Yeah the whole mutant hating but we love giant rock guy and man l made out of deadly fire was always a head scratcher.  In a way I like the movie universes being seperate for this fact alone.  Having mutant racism in the same world filled with popular meta humans is a stupid stupid idea.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on December 27, 2013, 10:24:07 PM
No, he got his healing factor through the Weapon X program. Unfortunately the artificial healing factor massively accelerated a cancer he didn't know he had, which rampaged though his body and brutally scarred him. And it altered his brain chemistry by aggressively replacing dying brain cells, driving him totally insane.

If you want confirmation that he is not a mutant... *beware image may not be safe for sanity*



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on December 28, 2013, 05:42:26 AM
Quote
See above. It'd generate buzz. It is something big media can grab.

I don't think any of the plot at any level has anything to do with the public reception of the movies, nor do they need to generate buzz by pulling in comic storylines one thousandth as popular as the movies are.

I mean...what the fuck is The Avengers plot? Can anyone actually describe what happens in that movie? Loki allows himself to get captured for no reason then escapes also for no reason, then the Avengers fight him and some random aliens. I mean...it makes "Atlantis Attacks" look genius by comparison. The Avengers is Secret Wars 2 level of bad in terms of plot - nobody cares.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Furiously on December 28, 2013, 02:02:53 PM
Why the heck is it thar be spoilers instead of Thor be spoilers...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 28, 2013, 02:50:30 PM
Why the heck is it thar be spoilers instead of Thor be spoilers...

Probably the most important and astute statement in pages.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on December 29, 2013, 12:26:21 AM
YOu mean you've never heard of King Thar (http://www.comicvine.com/king-thar/4005-14650/)? You non comic gook you



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 31, 2013, 05:57:43 PM
Guardians Lineup Photo released. (http://i.imgur.com/DKBTXGZ.jpg)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on December 31, 2013, 06:38:27 PM
Guardians Lineup Photo released. (http://i.imgur.com/DKBTXGZ.jpg)

I'm more impressed with Rocket than anyone else.

Also apparently Warlock's cocoon was shown in Thor during the mid credits. I don't remember it at all.

I'm really hoping for a Captain Marvel movie in Phase 3, and I don't care if it's Mar-Vell, Carol, Monica, or a combination thereof.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MahrinSkel on December 31, 2013, 07:43:36 PM
You do realize that you're more likely to see him in the JLA movie than anything else?

--Dave (Captain Marvel, aka Shazam, is a DC character)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on December 31, 2013, 07:47:51 PM
You do realize that you're more likely to see him in the JLA movie than anything else?

--Dave (Captain Marvel, aka Shazam, is a DC character)

There are Captain Marvel's in both DC and Marvel Universe. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 31, 2013, 08:35:42 PM
And in fact, the DC one had to change it's name to Shazam! because of Marvel gained a trademark on "Captain Marvel".


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 31, 2013, 08:40:35 PM
You just got geek served?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on January 02, 2014, 04:52:06 PM
To make it even more confusing, there are actually several Captain Marvels in the Marvel universe, both Male and Female. Comics everybody!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 02, 2014, 04:55:08 PM
To make it even more confusing, there are actually several Captain Marvels in the Marvel universe, both Male and Female. Comics everybody!

Yeah. I just don't care to see Genis or Phyla, even though their names make me laugh.

Now a Cladus-Vell I would pay to see.  :grin:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on January 02, 2014, 05:44:30 PM
The only Captain Marvel you will see in a movie is Carol. You might get a tiny bit of Mar-Vell if they show her origin in any depth... but I can see them skipping over him entirely just to avoid any confusion with all the Kree blah blah etc.


The only question is if they'll stick with the modern Captain Marvel branding for her, or if they'll chicken out and put her back into the Ms. Marvel to ensure the cheetodust dollars. Her new fanbase and demographic vs. her old one, who will bring more eyeballs to the film.





Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on January 02, 2014, 05:48:18 PM
Guardians Lineup Photo released. (http://i.imgur.com/DKBTXGZ.jpg)

A green Na'vi; an extra from Pineapple Express; a Raccoon (?); Kratos, God of War; and one of the Ents from LoTR?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on January 02, 2014, 05:49:19 PM
Pretty much!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 02, 2014, 06:43:49 PM
Guardians Lineup Photo released. (http://i.imgur.com/DKBTXGZ.jpg)

A green Na'vi; an extra from Pineapple Express; a Raccoon (?); Kratos, God of War; and one of the Ents from LoTR?

Paging Alan Moore; but I hear he doesn't do "fun" any more.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on January 03, 2014, 05:53:03 AM
A green Na'vi; an extra from Pineapple Express; a Raccoon (?); Kratos, God of War; and one of the Ents from LoTR?

I for one am glad my safety is in the hands of that lot.

I think GOTG is really the First bite of the Marvel film making guys into heroes that are not well known, so it will actually be interesting how it turns out.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 03, 2014, 07:07:10 AM
A green Na'vi; an extra from Pineapple Express; a Raccoon (?); Kratos, God of War; and one of the Ents from LoTR?

I for one am glad my safety is in the hands of that lot.

I think GOTG is really the First bite of the Marvel film making guys into heroes that are not well known, so it will actually be interesting how it turns out.

Short answer, it's going to sink or swim entirely on weight of the movie alone and not be reliant on name recognition.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 03, 2014, 10:17:48 AM
I was actually wondering how they will market the film - with a strong emphasis on the ties to the other movies, or as more of a standalone film?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Furiously on January 03, 2014, 05:52:34 PM
Ironman and the guardian's of the galaxy....


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Soulflame on January 04, 2014, 08:12:41 PM
I think that's Rocket Raccoon, which I'm only aware of because he's in Marvel Heroes.  If I had to guess, green Na'vi girl is a martian.  Or is that DC?

The rest?  Not a fucking clue.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 04, 2014, 09:59:38 PM
From Left to Right: Gamora, Star-Lord, Rocket Raccoon, Drax the Destroyer and Groot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(2008_team)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on January 05, 2014, 06:10:26 AM
Pretty sure that's Burt Macklin not Star Lord.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 05, 2014, 09:52:39 AM
Pretty sure that's Burt Macklin not Star Lord.  :awesome_for_real:

You have no idea how much I wish that were the case.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Soulflame on January 05, 2014, 10:56:29 AM
That looks nothing like a giant flying turtle.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 05, 2014, 11:25:40 AM

Has anyone ever explained why second and third tier (ok, 4th tier) characters played such a big role from Annihilation to Thanos Imperative? I'm assuming it was deliberate (primarily to keep the story separate from the other books, and also to try to drum up interest in the less popular/known characters). I wish DnA were still doing Nova and GotG.

I also wonder what is the rationale behind the GotG calling themselves such, without the cosmic events happening and no Adam Warlock and Quasar.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 05, 2014, 03:30:22 PM
GoG has been around since the late 60s, as I recall. *shrug*

Not really weird that someone with "galaxy" in their name to be involved with matters intergalactic (planetary).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on January 05, 2014, 03:43:00 PM
Intergalactic, planetary, planetary, intergalactic.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 05, 2014, 04:04:28 PM
I can not type or say the word "intergalactic" without going straight into that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 05, 2014, 06:45:02 PM
GoG has been around since the late 60s, as I recall. *shrug*

Not really weird that someone with "galaxy" in their name to be involved with matters intergalactic (planetary).

Well sure but that doesn't really answer the question. The original team fought the Badoon. DnA's version literally tried to repair the universe, stop a war between two Galactic empires and defeat an alien invasion from another universe. From what I gather of the CU version, one of them stole something they shouldn't have, and now they are on the run.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on January 06, 2014, 09:22:44 AM
I'm not sure what the question is.

If you're talking about the Abnett/Lanning Guardians, I think it was just how they went about anchoring a "cosmic" story, by finding the "regular joe" characters who had relatable motivations and letting Galactus, his heralds, Annihilus, Thanos, etc. be more the stage on which the regular joes acted. In Annihilation they did a pretty bang-up job of taking characters who'd been around forever but who had always been sort of one-note folks and giving them personalties and motivations: Ronan, Super-Skrull, Drax, Moondragon, etc.  They finally took the next step with the Richard Rider Nova as well, making him grow up and go beyond being the Peter Parker-ish teenager he'd started as.

So when they got the nod to have GoG spin off out of Annihilation, I assume they just resolved to keep doing that--take 'cosmic' or 'space' characters and make them more interesting. Plus follow the standard 'team' book logic of putting characters together who would rub up against each other in all sorts of ways and have very different powers and skills. Dirty Dozen in space was the basic idea from the get-go. If you read the stupid team-up book that pretty much ended that entire era where they put all the cosmic big guns (Beta Ray Bill, Gladiator, Silver Surfer, etc.) together, you saw how boring it gets to have a bunch of dudes who can throw moons at each other hanging out together.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 06, 2014, 09:27:48 PM
It's not a big deal or anything but the question is basically why does this group call themselves GotG? I suppose that is something they become as the film progresses as opposed to the first 30 min or so; I just wonder how that will play out.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on January 06, 2014, 10:32:56 PM
In the movie, who knows? In the comic, it's taken semi-ironically at first, and they continue to meet cosmic players who are like, "Um, who are you guys?" but they also do operate on a pretty grand scale, if sometimes by accident. My guess is they'll play it the same way--ironically but they live up to the title when it's all done.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 06, 2014, 11:15:43 PM
It's not a big deal or anything but the question is basically why does this group call themselves GotG? I suppose that is something they become as the film progresses as opposed to the first 30 min or so; I just wonder how that will play out.

It's entirely possibly you are massively over thinking it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on January 07, 2014, 12:43:07 AM
It's not a big deal or anything but the question is basically why does this group call themselves GotG? I suppose that is something they become as the film progresses as opposed to the first 30 min or so; I just wonder how that will play out.

It's entirely possibly you are massively over thinking it.

It's also possible that they'll never actually call themselves that in the movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on January 07, 2014, 03:05:48 AM
Dunno about that.  They even managed to shoe-horn in 'Earths Mightiest Heroes' into the Avengers movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on January 07, 2014, 06:02:12 AM
I thought the clip at Comic-Con already has John C. Reilly as a Nova Corps cop saying, "These assholes call themselves Guardians of the Galaxy, that should tell you everything you need to know" or something to that effect, if I remember what was reported about it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 07, 2014, 06:28:23 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n5dkzMzrPI

~20 sec mark

eta: I just realized that that the symbols on the unis of those two guys look like Nova Corps. I know John C. Reilly was supposed to play Rhomann Dey but some site said Dey would be a SHIELD agent.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on January 07, 2014, 06:54:22 AM
As for Spider-man (FYI - Spider-man has a dash in the name... Stan Lee didn't want his name to look too similar to Superman)

Spider-Man also has a capital 'm' in his name. FYI.

Civil War as a storyline requires a lot of superpowered characters, which the Marvel Studios film don't have established in the universe (as indicated in "Agents of SHIELD"). It was also a story that starts off with heroes blowing up a school, and the Marvel films (again) lack the minor characters to put into that situation.

It could be worked around, but it would lack even the minor impact of the comic book series.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 07, 2014, 10:01:19 AM
I think this might be the third time in this thread someone corrected us on Spiderman.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 07, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
I prefer the Jewish Spiderman.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on January 07, 2014, 10:06:35 AM
Yes, the issue of Spiderman is very Spiderman vital to the Spiderman fabric of the Spiderman universe


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on January 07, 2014, 12:14:31 PM
The main reason civil war is not going to be top of any exec's list for filming is that it is a bad and widely disliked story. There is plenty of better shit to use.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 07, 2014, 12:32:37 PM
Yes, the issue of Spiderman is very Spiderman vital to the Spiderman fabric of the Spiderman universe

there's a certain... spidermanesque sensibility when it comes to spiderman comics that really can't be properly captured with the Spiderman cinematic endevour.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 07, 2014, 01:23:03 PM
Why isn't anyone talking about manspider in all of this? Or is it Man-Spider?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 07, 2014, 02:51:33 PM
The main reason civil war is not going to be top of any exec's list for filming is that it is a bad and widely disliked story. There is plenty of better shit to use.
Again, it isn't the quality of the story that matters.  They're use it for rough inspiration, but they'll massively rewrite it. 

What matters is whether the name has soom roots that the media (and to an extent, the general populace) can grab onto and use in their discussion.  It is the reason why they used 'Age of Ultron' as the title of the next Avengers movie, despite the storyline having more to do with things that went down in the first few years of the Avengers rather than 2013 (when the comics AoU took place).  I imagine that if they made Civil War now, it would focus on a battle between Cap and Iron Man (like the story from the comics) in which they battle over whether the emerging super heroes of the world have to register (unlike the comics, in which the heroes were not emerging).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on January 07, 2014, 03:40:53 PM
They won't use the story for Civil War anymore than they would for Age of Ultron for the same reason. Both stories were utter shit. And Age of Ultron has even less media presence than Civil War, that is if it was possible to have less than zero.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 07, 2014, 05:33:15 PM
I imagine that if they made Civil War now, it would focus on a battle between Cap and Iron Man (like the story from the comics) in which they battle over whether the emerging super heroes of the world have to register (unlike the comics, in which the heroes were not emerging).

There's some precedence for that in the movie/tv continuity, especially in SHIELD.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on January 07, 2014, 08:22:02 PM
I think this might be the third time in this thread someone corrected us on Spiderman.

I would of stopped doing it, but people keep getting it wrong.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 08, 2014, 01:38:42 PM
I think this might be the third time in this thread someone corrected us on Spiderman.

I would of stopped doing it, but people keep getting it wrong.  :why_so_serious:
I think we're all set on aRACHNOmALE now.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Soulflame on January 08, 2014, 02:00:30 PM
Wouldn't Arachno-Cis-White-Male-Oppressor be more accurate?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 08, 2014, 03:48:11 PM
Don't tell me the web shooters aren't just a phallic metaphor.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: tazelbain on January 08, 2014, 03:58:24 PM
He's homophobic too because we all know real web shooters would be in Spider-Bro ass.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on January 09, 2014, 11:59:55 PM
Don't tell me the web shooters aren't just a phallic metaphor.

(http://unsubject.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/spider-manwebmouth.jpg?w=343)

And bonus, because Google Images really delivered this time:

He's homophobic too because we all know real web shooters would be in Spider-Bro ass.

(http://unsubject.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/spider-man-and-jonah.jpg?w=200)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on January 13, 2014, 09:02:39 PM
Michael Douglas is Hank Pym.  Discuss.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on January 13, 2014, 09:59:34 PM
I'm guessing that means we're getting dark emo Hank Pym, with Paul Rudd being a more devil-may-care Ant-Man (Scott Lang, probably) who takes/is given the outfit and powers from Pym.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 13, 2014, 11:29:28 PM
I can't say I'm a fan of the decision to make Ant Man a (iirc) 60's hero but we'll see.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 14, 2014, 10:23:44 AM
A devil-may-care thief, directed by Edgar Wright seems pertty great to me.

Also, Michael Douglas is being directed by Edgar Wright for a Marvel movie. WHAT A WORLD WE LIVE IN.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Der Helm on January 14, 2014, 12:11:14 PM
I would of have
:mob:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on January 14, 2014, 06:04:25 PM
I'm calling foul.  7 days and a new page and you're grammar snaking!?  FUCKING FOUL!  You should be ashamed.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 14, 2014, 06:24:06 PM
I'm calling foul.  7 days and a new page and you're grammar snaking!?  FUCKING FOUL!  You should be ashamed.
It is more appropriate to spell out single-digit whole numbers.

I have no idea how they'll use this cast (Michael Pena in the flick, too?), but I'm curious to see.

My biggest concern is that they'll plan to have Pym play a continuing role - only to have Douglas kick it earlier than expected.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 14, 2014, 06:28:14 PM
The real question is if it's ant man, Antman, Ant Man, Ant-Man or Formicidae Man.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on January 14, 2014, 06:37:14 PM
ant-man for sure


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 14, 2014, 06:43:02 PM
This just got Amazing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ingmar on January 14, 2014, 06:44:36 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/6ZMdLpV.png)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 14, 2014, 06:55:48 PM
Throw your safety overboard and join our insect nation.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on January 15, 2014, 09:50:24 AM
Stand and Deliver!

 :heart:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 15, 2014, 10:53:12 AM
I'm hearing Pena is 60s era Ant-man, now.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 15, 2014, 11:50:21 AM
Hank Pym IS 60s era Ant-Man... so, not sure what you are hearing.

So, did 5 seconds of googling and the groupthink seems to indicate that Pena plays a villain.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1720482/ant-man-eyes-michael-pena-rashida-jones-roles.jhtml


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 15, 2014, 12:42:47 PM
I think he meant that someone in the movie will play a young Hank Pym in scenes set in the 60s, while Douglas will play Pym in the modern era; I've read there are going to be 3 actors playing Ant-Man so I figured Pena would be young Hank as well.

I wonder when/where they are going to place Janet.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on January 15, 2014, 04:32:53 PM
Throw your safety overboard and join our insect nation.

Thank you for reminding me of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2mmTDT6W7E)  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Der Helm on January 16, 2014, 07:02:12 AM
I'm calling foul.  7 days and a new page and you're grammar snaking!?  FUCKING FOUL!  You should be ashamed.
That is not a grammar mistake, that is a fundamental misunderstanding about how the English language works.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 18, 2014, 07:45:07 PM
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/abc-agent-carter-books-hayley-atwell-resurrection-duo-193727617.html

I thought the Agent Carter series had already been confirmed, but I guess it's official now.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on January 20, 2014, 07:57:57 PM
I know Sony has Spiderman's rights for movies, but do they hold it for TV too?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 21, 2014, 11:36:12 AM
I know Sony has Spiderman's rights for movies, but do they hold it for TV too?
The contract details are not public, but the general comments indicate that Marvel can't do any live action with any of the licensed characters, but retains the rights to pretty much everyone for animation purposes. 

There was an interview a while back in which someone at Marvel (Feige?) was asked what would happen if Marvel put an entirely CGI Spider-Man into Avengers II... and his response was very much a 'no comment' - something like, "That is not going to happen."  It sounded like he was passing a kidney stone while he said it.  If I had to guess at the behind the scenes discussion based upon his tone, there was someone that thought they might have a leg to stand on if they tried to do it, but that it would be a declaration of war and the benefit would not be worth the war that followed. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 21, 2014, 04:28:22 PM
A couple of (new to me) things:

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/captain-america-winter-solider-trailer-super-bowl-sunday-075300913.html

http://www.mstarz.com/articles/24946/20140117/ed-brubaker-calls-captain-america-2-winter-soldier-best-marvel.htm

Glad to hear there will be a new CA:WS trailer.

I suspect Brubaker is a bit biased, but I hope he's right.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 21, 2014, 04:43:20 PM
Tonely speaking, Captain America has the chance at being the best storytelling/themetic arc of any of the Marvel movies, for sure.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 21, 2014, 05:41:48 PM
Captain America in present times has almost more potential from a story telling perspective than can be accomplished.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on January 22, 2014, 05:06:55 AM

And here I was, thinking that people had missed it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Soulflame on January 22, 2014, 10:02:39 AM
I saw it.  At this point, I figure we're less than a decade of that being correct.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MediumHigh on January 22, 2014, 11:34:33 AM
Captain America in present times has almost more potential from a story telling perspective than can be accomplished.

I think because its been done before a half a million times by now. Mission Impossible, Bourne Identity, and a few other men in suits chase super spy across country movies. Very familiar territory + new character = success in hollywood.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 22, 2014, 11:41:11 AM
The difference is that you can use Captain America as a prism to view patriotism/nationalism and how it's changed. The first movie definitely had that simplistic view of 50s patriotism, while this second one looks to deal with more modern issues.

Mind you, we haven't seen the movie yet, and it could be utter shit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 22, 2014, 02:22:46 PM
...Mind you, we haven't seen the movie yet, and it could be utter shit.
No, Cowtain America is the one that is udder shit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 22, 2014, 02:36:07 PM
... what.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 22, 2014, 02:51:16 PM
... what.
Cow.... udder.... This was an old Marvel joke...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on January 22, 2014, 02:55:27 PM
 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 22, 2014, 03:08:27 PM
I have no idea (besides the pun) about what Marvel joke you are making.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on January 22, 2014, 06:43:05 PM
Maybe he was hanging out with Peter Porker, the Amazing Spider Ham?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 22, 2014, 07:13:17 PM
I believe you mean What If he was hanging out with Peter Porker.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 23, 2014, 07:00:40 PM
Not worth the effort to explain a running joke from the 80s....


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 23, 2014, 09:21:30 PM
Wow. Cool story, bro.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on January 24, 2014, 10:11:51 AM
Not worth the effort to explain a running joke from the 80s....

I'm from the '80's. They don't know what the fuck you are talking about anymore than I do.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 24, 2014, 02:20:40 PM
Not worth the effort to explain a running joke from the 80s....
I'm from the '80's. They don't know what the fuck you are talking about anymore than I do.
Not worth the effort... but: I was surprised not to find anything when I googled it, but back in the 80s they had stupid cartoony issues that featured characters like the aformentioned Peter Porker, the Spectacular Spider-ham.  Anthropomorphized versions of all the characters were featured.  Several characters had several representations.  One was a Captain America cow name Cowtain America and people pointed out in the letters to the editer section of one of the Cap Mags that Cap should not have female udders.  There were a few letters that followed responding to it that took the silly thing way too seriously.  When I do a quick goggle, I only see the Captain Americat. 



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 24, 2014, 02:32:17 PM
Was that really so difficult?

I am a child of that era and read comics all the time. I have never heard of Cowtain America. I had googled Cowtain America back when you first mentioned it, assuming it was something like that but couldn't turn up anything.

I'm assuming a fever dream/confusion with Captain Americat, which I barely remember now seeing it. http://www.comicvine.com/captain-americat/4005-8693/


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 24, 2014, 03:54:40 PM
Given the critical importance of this pressing issue...

Rumors indicate the Atwell led Carter series is headed forward with a significant budget.  I'm still scratching my head on why a 50's era series seems like a good idea.  It has all those troubles of needing to keep everything secret to make sure the current continuity makes sense...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on January 26, 2014, 09:30:55 PM
Because we are running out of nostalgia, and no-one wants to take the risk on a totally fresh idea anymore.

I'm betting 50/50 on a Gamera (Japanese flying turtle monster a la Godzilla) movie in the next 10 years.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on January 26, 2014, 10:09:48 PM
Given the critical importance of this pressing issue...

Rumors indicate the Atwell led Carter series is headed forward with a significant budget.  I'm still scratching my head on why a 50's era series seems like a good idea.  It has all those troubles of needing to keep everything secret to make sure the current continuity makes sense...


Old timey spy stuff is more fun then futuristic spy stuff is my guess. Like, how many 'old' movies would just be over in 5 minutes now that we all have cellphones.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on January 26, 2014, 10:33:00 PM
How many NEW movies would be over in 5 minutes if they remembered that digital files can be searched, copied and distributed in about as long as it took me to type this?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on January 28, 2014, 02:25:57 AM
Having to keep everything secret is a benefit for a tv show. Keeps the budget down.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 28, 2014, 06:04:57 AM
There's a rumor going around that Avengers will be partially set in South Korea and they are looking for a Korean actress to play the role of a villian.

This one hopes that "Korean" and "villian" are smokescreens.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 28, 2014, 08:19:17 AM
...
This one hopes that "Korean" and "villian" are smokescreens.  :awesome_for_real:
Why? If we want to treat people equally, any race, gender, etc... should be equally acceptable in a hero or villain role. This would only enter the realm of unjust, to me, if the role were to be propaganda with stereotypes defining the character... something I think Whedon would walk out before doing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 28, 2014, 08:58:07 AM
...
This one hopes that "Korean" and "villian" are smokescreens.  :awesome_for_real:
Why? If we want to treat people equally, any race, gender, etc... should be equally acceptable in a hero or villain role. This would only enter the realm of unjust, to me, if the role were to be propaganda with stereotypes defining the character... something I think Whedon would walk out before doing.

This one was hinting at what the actress' role may (or at least hoped to) be.  :-P

eta: sorry I forgot to link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_(Marvel_Comics) (ok this doesn't work because the link doesn't include the ")"  and I have no idea why. :crying_panda: )


GoTG has been on my mind a bit, and even though she was an Avenger I preferred her in Annihilation:Conquest and (to a lesser extent) GoTG.

It just occurred to me though how many green people are in the Guardians (total of 4 iirc).



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 28, 2014, 09:57:31 AM
Just give us a link or spoiler something, Raguel.. esssh.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 28, 2014, 10:43:04 AM
OK - I missed the reference.  My bad.

I just hope they never touch Eros/Starfox.  That character annoyed the heck out of me.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 31, 2014, 07:10:56 PM
OOC: Would you rather they retire IM for a while after Avengers III, or recast? This is assuming IM IV with RDJ is not going to happen.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on January 31, 2014, 07:28:21 PM
I think it's pretty much done for now. Last I heard there wasn't going to be any until at least after Avengers 3. As for recasting? I don't really care, as long as the product is good.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 31, 2014, 08:28:02 PM
They are limited to the number of movies they can make in a year, so while i hope to see RDJ in Avengers 2 and 3, I hope to see Panther or Captain Marvel (either of the first 3 will do) take his slot.

I've seen rumors/wishful thinking that Avengers 4 (if there is one) will have a New Avengers lineup. I'd like to see that, personally. The old guard semi-retires (to be rebooted/recast) and leaves Luke Cage in charge. Maybe have Carol, Monica, Quasar, Panther, and Doctor Strange in the mix, or keep the new kids Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver for a bit of continuity.

I'll have to find the story, but apparently Marvel is so jazzed about Winter Soldier they brought back the directors for CA 3. I really hope they knock this year's films out of the park.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on January 31, 2014, 10:39:01 PM
I really doubt they will add Black Panther in, if only because it would be so easy to fuck it up and make it horribly racist.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on January 31, 2014, 11:04:21 PM
I really doubt they will add Black Panther in, if only because it would be so easy to fuck it up and make it horribly racist.


They could recast him as an Asian.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 31, 2014, 11:10:30 PM
I really doubt they will add Black Panther in, if only because it would be so easy to fuck it up and make it horribly racist.
Neil Patrick Harris is...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on January 31, 2014, 11:11:55 PM
Like, every version of Black Panther I've seen has his nation with space age technology but everyone is still wearing grass skirts and using spears and shit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on February 01, 2014, 12:40:07 AM
Maybe it's super high tech disguised as grass skirts and spears!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 01, 2014, 12:55:52 AM
The noble savage has too much dignity for modern conveniences like pants.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on February 01, 2014, 01:40:39 AM
Like, every version of Black Panther I've seen has his nation with space age technology but everyone is still wearing grass skirts and using spears and shit.

That's not too terribly different from places like China and India, where you can find nice/advanced stuff but a lot of the country is still operating like it's 800 AD.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 01, 2014, 07:34:13 AM
In the comics, esp. the more recent ones, all of the spears and such are essentially just traditionalist window-dressing. It would be hard to do right in a movie, but comic-book Wakanda is actually a pretty interesting place.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on February 01, 2014, 08:35:39 AM
Yeah, in a movie it would most likely come off as weird, especially these days where people hunt for reasons to call something sexist and racist.

I read a polygon review of Bravely Default (If you ever find yourself writing "I read a polygon review" then you've already failed!) and a big point of the review was that the game included a character that was sexist, and thus was itself sexist. People are weird.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on February 01, 2014, 09:49:53 AM
If you've read Priest's BP you'll see a division of Wakanda: some of them are old school tribesmen and some of them are city dwellers of the most (or one of the most, if you count Atlantis and Attilan) advanced nation on the planet, and they pretty much hate each other.

I haven't read anything much after that period so I don't what's changed.  I think what separates Wakanda from the real world is: (a) they have a real pagan god, (b) they've never really been the victim of imperialism  and (c) they've had super smart, hyper-competent leaders for generations.  

So it may not resonate with a lot of people but I still want to see it, especially if it's like Priest's version (which incidentally is a lot like Kirby and Lee's version). I could see them sacrificing a good chunk of that though, but keep the tribesmen rivalry. Hopefully keep the pagan god stuff.

eta: one of the things I liked most about Priest's run was the White Wolf, but bringing him in may seem like they are trying to milk another Thor/Loki relationship.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 01, 2014, 11:45:58 AM
I read a polygon review of Bravely Default (If you ever find yourself writing "I read a polygon review" then you've already failed!) and a big point of the review was that the game included a character that was sexist, and thus was itself sexist. People are weird.

They gave the game an 8. And mentioned it as one bit that bothered them. That was a pretty big misrepresentation of the article.

Anyway, back to BP and Wakanda. If you're talking about a US production of a movie like this, and suddenly have people dressed with spears and grass skirts... that's going to have a heavy uphill fight with some heavy cultural weight attached to it. It takes a deft hand. A hand that Hollywood has not exactly excelled at.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on February 02, 2014, 09:55:10 PM
New Captain America trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpfOREC-eiI

I liked the first one better tbh. This one is more comic booky than thrillerish.

Read a rumor that CA will be forced to go to a shrink by the name of Dr. Sofen.  :drill:

Also, there's going to be a cameo in Guardians. Some people think it will be Iron Man. I hope it's Adam, Nova or Quasar (either one I guess) but none of those really qualify as major cameos, certainly not an established CU character.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on February 03, 2014, 04:48:11 AM
Cap, Black Widow AND Falcon!  Wooo!  Rogers not wearing the suit in many scenes....uh.  SHIELD has three helicarriers! Uh what?  I don't like that, there should be only one, the helicarrier is this universe's Enterprise.  Falcon looks cool, I hope they have a little red on him somewhere, always liked the red and white suit. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 03, 2014, 11:10:32 AM
Read a rumor that CA will be forced to go to a shrink by the name of Dr. Sofen.  :drill:

That means Dr. Faustus will be involved in this somewhere. I'm cool with that. Also, this trailer is awesome.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on February 03, 2014, 04:39:16 PM
Cap, Black Widow AND Falcon!  Wooo!  Rogers not wearing the suit in many scenes....uh.  SHIELD has three helicarriers! Uh what?  I don't like that, there should be only one, the helicarrier is this universe's Enterprise.  Falcon looks cool, I hope they have a little red on him somewhere, always liked the red and white suit. 

Starfleet had more then one ship  :why_so_serious:


Also do not make Falcon look anything like any of his comicbook looks, the fact they managed to make him look cool in the trailers is utterly astounding to me, since he's such a giant flying dork in the comics.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 03, 2014, 05:13:16 PM
It also appears that SHIELD has grown significantly after the attack on NY.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 03, 2014, 05:19:52 PM
I won't spoil what I've guessed based on the original Winter Soldier story.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on February 03, 2014, 05:23:38 PM
It also appears that SHIELD has grown significantly after the attack on NY.




Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 03, 2014, 09:28:00 PM
Actually, re: the TV show,



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on February 03, 2014, 11:56:33 PM
Actually, re: the TV show,




Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 04, 2014, 09:25:12 AM


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 05, 2014, 01:52:58 PM
They are doing casting for the new Fantastic Four movie and not only do we get a younger cast, with Michael B. Jordan playing the Human Torch, but apparently they are testing for a possible female Doctor Doom.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ard on February 05, 2014, 02:01:18 PM
Did a quick look on imdb, and it appears that Fox still has the rights, so expect this to be yet another abortion just to keep the rights.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 05, 2014, 02:34:14 PM
Did a quick look on imdb, and it appears that Fox still has the rights, so expect this to be yet another abortion just to keep the rights.
They're melding it with the X-men universe - they want to merge all of the rights that they have access to into a universe with the 'scope' of the MCU.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 05, 2014, 02:52:23 PM
What indication do we have that they are doing that at all, our of curiosity? The way they seem to be handling the X-Men stuff and Spidey (to a lesser extent) seem totally different than this project.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on February 05, 2014, 03:04:52 PM
Xmen already has the scope of the marvel universe for free. That's why they are trying so hard to get single character movies going, in the hope we'll all be impressed when they then put the xmen back together.

That said, f4 vs xmen kind of makes sense, if only as a last roll of the dice to get f4 some traction - as of today it's a D list franchise that they might as well sell back.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 06, 2014, 03:30:43 PM
A bunch of vague statements like the following are behind the linkage rumors: http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/x-men/28762/new-hints-of-an-x-men-and-fantastic-four-crossover-movie (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/x-men/28762/new-hints-of-an-x-men-and-fantastic-four-crossover-movie)

There has been no official statement that it will clearly happen, but the tea leaves are as clear as tea leaves can be.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 06, 2014, 03:41:59 PM
Quote
In a story over at The Hollywood Reporter, it's suggested that Fox is looking to create a crossover movie with the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises. Writer and producer Simon Kinberg is quoted as saying, "I have a lot of ideas on how to build those brands and do what everybody is thinking of these days: Be like Marvel."

 :awesome_for_real:

The general focus of both franchises seem so wildly different, but I guess Wolvie and Spidey HAVE been on Fantastic Four before.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on February 06, 2014, 03:43:57 PM
But will Captain America be on fire ?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on February 06, 2014, 05:46:58 PM
http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/guardians-galaxy-2-square-batman-superman/

Quote
An unnamed, but reliable source has reported that Guardians of the Galaxy 2 will be opening on May 6th, 2016...this puts the film in direct competition with Batman vs. Superman, which also opens that day

Well, no one can accuse Marvel of lacking in confidence. If the rumor is true they must really think they have a hit on their hands. If GoTG does well, will Warner Bros/DC or Marvel blink first? My bet is WB.

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/captain-america-sequel-lead-avengers-2-agents-h-124400592.html

Quote
Disney CEO Bob Iger has confirmed that 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' will directly tie in to 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' and ABC's 'Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D' TV show.

Not exactly surprising but I'm so hyped for CA:TWS.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on February 07, 2014, 05:49:14 AM
A bunch of vague statements like the following are behind the linkage rumors: http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/x-men/28762/new-hints-of-an-x-men-and-fantastic-four-crossover-movie (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/x-men/28762/new-hints-of-an-x-men-and-fantastic-four-crossover-movie)

There has been no official statement that it will clearly happen, but the tea leaves are as clear as tea leaves can be.

With Fantastic Four not coming out until next year, and X-Men: Apocalypse set for 2016, the earliest they'd realistically be able to do any sort of crossover movie would be in 2017. Even if things make it that far, where would they go after that? I can't see people get exciting about seeing an X-Men/Fantastic Four crossover movie every 2-3 years.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 07, 2014, 10:35:44 AM
They do not necessarily have to do a cross-over movie to establish they are in the same universe.  All they need to do is a quick cameo or cross reference.  I think any 'X-men versus FF' type tale would be 2018 or so...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 07, 2014, 11:05:23 AM
Given that we've compared it to what the MCU has done, that was sort of implied. I'm just not sure what threat they could weave through X-Men/F4 to tie everything together, which is what the MCU is doing. If they just want it within the same universe, they can just use a throw away line. That is not really the same thing as what the MCU is doing.

I really don't think I even want an X-Men/F4 movie. That sounds terrible.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 07, 2014, 11:36:07 AM
he new xmen movie already looks like it's suffering from WAY too many characters, expectations are not high.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on February 07, 2014, 12:24:45 PM
Another day, another rumor:

Paul Bettany to play Vision in Age of Ultron (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2553450/Superhero-Paul-Bettany-signs-Marvel-party-British-actor-star-The-Vision-new-Avengers-movie-Age-Ultron.html)

Oh and Ms. Marvel will be in it too.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 07, 2014, 01:09:14 PM

 :oh_i_see: Well...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on February 07, 2014, 04:20:01 PM
WB and Sony can try to do a shared universe but they'll fail.  Marvel has it baked into the recipe and those two are throwing shit on a wall to see what'll stick.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 08, 2014, 12:23:23 AM
There are dozens of storylines that cross X-men with FF in the comics.  They tried to boost every title's sales by crossing it with the X-men.  IIRC, Franklin Richards plays a major role in some facets of X-lore.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 08, 2014, 12:39:40 AM
There are dozens of storylines that cross X-men with FF in the comics.  They tried to boost every title's sales by crossing it with the X-men.  IIRC, Franklin Richards plays a major role in some facets of X-lore.

Random stories are not the same thing and you know it. We've been comparing it to what they are doing with MCU, not a 3 issue crossover.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 09, 2014, 02:41:59 PM
There are dozens of storylines that cross X-men with FF in the comics.  They tried to boost every title's sales by crossing it with the X-men.  IIRC, Franklin Richards plays a major role in some facets of X-lore.

Random stories are not the same thing and you know it. We've been comparing it to what they are doing with MCU, not a 3 issue crossover.
First - Avengers is the core movie of the MCU.  The closest comic equivalent to that movie is the beginning of Ultimates - which is a pretty random story.

Second - I don't know if the FF / X-men crossovers are all so inconsequential.  X-men vs. Fantastic Four is the obvious one, and you could modify a lot of those major cross-over events while excluding Spider and the Avengers (Secret Wars, Civil War, etc...), but they could also build something huge out of one of those random stories that barely hits upon both franchises or just work one franchise into a storyline that comes from the other's comic universe.
 
In the end, being able to put out 2-3 films a year between Wolverine, X-men, X-force, New Mutants, Fantastic Four, X-factor, Silver Surfer, etc... is going to be what they strive to do because they think they can make MCU type of money off of selling a combined universe.  It doesn't really matter whether there is a solid 'basis in comics' for it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on February 09, 2014, 04:05:59 PM
Your second point just seems to be "well if they do it right it could be good", which you could say about just about any idea. I get a feeling that when you heard about the direct to Sci-Fi channel Man-Thing movie back in 2005 you convinced yourself that if they adapted the right story it could be awesome and maybe they could set up some sort of crossover with that Blade TV series that was coming out the year after. Also, for fuck's sake stop suggesting that people adapt Civil War.

And as you point out, there are any number of X-men related franchises they could do if they want to build a shared universe (they're already doing an X-Force movie and have been trying to do a Deadpool movie for a while). Trying to shoehorn the Fantastic Four in there just because that happens to be another Marvel franchise they have the rights to doesn't really make any sense. A Wolverine appearance in a Fantastic Four movie might help sell some tickets but the FF aren't going to do anything to boost up the X-men franchises numbers. There's traditionally been very little overlap between these two franchises in the comics and there's not really a lot to draw on there. About the closest thing to an iconic moment between the two that there's been is when Wolverine fucked up the Thing's face and he had to wear that stupid fucking helmet for a while.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 09, 2014, 11:59:31 PM
First - Avengers is the core movie of the MCU.  The closest comic equivalent to that movie is the beginning of Ultimates - which is a pretty random story.

Second - I don't know if the FF / X-men crossovers are all so inconsequential.  X-men vs. Fantastic Four is the obvious one, and you could modify a lot of those major cross-over events while excluding Spider and the Avengers (Secret Wars, Civil War, etc...), but they could also build something huge out of one of those random stories that barely hits upon both franchises or just work one franchise into a storyline that comes from the other's comic universe.
 
In the end, being able to put out 2-3 films a year between Wolverine, X-men, X-force, New Mutants, Fantastic Four, X-factor, Silver Surfer, etc... is going to be what they strive to do because they think they can make MCU type of money off of selling a combined universe.  It doesn't really matter whether there is a solid 'basis in comics' for it.

I'm not even sure what your point is. I really don't even think we're far apart if we're "wishing". They could totally do something, sure. I'm not arguing to stick close to any sort of comic continuity.

However, The Avengers do well separately and together, both in the comics and in the films, and Marvel has built a very nice film universe around it. F4/XMen do not have anything like "avengers" to tie it all together. There's a shared threat that weaves through the films/universe. I'm just not sure I see anything that would work for the Fox side of things. Especially given how different these projects seem to be. ESPECIALLY given that the X-Men stuff seems rooted in just going with the First class cast from here on out.

Also. If your'e talking about the mind 80s Claremont FF4/XMen thing, that book was dumb. I really hope they don't do that.

And the last bit of what they are going to do, of course they are. No one is arguing otherwise.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 10, 2014, 07:41:39 AM
*shrug*

Time will tell.  I am pretty darn sure they're going to have them in the same universe, and that they'll do so meaningfully.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 10, 2014, 02:47:22 PM
You also seem to think someone should or would adapt Civil War as a movie. Your judgement would seem somewhat... suspect on the matter.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 10, 2014, 03:19:58 PM
I don't hate on Civil War as much as others, but without SHIELD, Cap and Iron Man, I'm not sure it makes anywhere the same amount of sense. The closest the X segment of the universe comes is Days of Future Past... and they're doing that already!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 10, 2014, 03:30:10 PM
If you were going to do some shared FF/X-Men thing in a movie, it would only make sense if it was something like the aforementioned Days of Future Past or Age of Apocalypse - and they are already doing both of those without any word on some kind of cross-movie continuity.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 10, 2014, 09:49:32 PM
*shrug* I guess we can ignore http://screenrant.com/x-men-fantastic-four-movie-crossover/ (http://screenrant.com/x-men-fantastic-four-movie-crossover/)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 10, 2014, 10:02:22 PM
If the days of future past movie is anything but a bloated mess of characters I will give them some credit for making a F4/xmen movie but as it stands even the avengers suffers from bloat for I don't know how in hell they expect to pull that off.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on February 10, 2014, 10:05:27 PM
But with Millar in consulting, what could go wrong?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 10, 2014, 10:14:28 PM
*shrug* I guess we can ignore http://screenrant.com/x-men-fantastic-four-movie-crossover/ (http://screenrant.com/x-men-fantastic-four-movie-crossover/)

Did you read the article? The title is fucking terrible.

Quote
"I keep seeing 'news' that X-Men & FF movies are crossing over. No, they're not. They exist in same universe but movies stand alone."
Quote
"I think you have to see some of these guys showing up in each other’s movies.”

So, sure, in the X-Men movie they need something from Reed, so he shows up for moment. that is far different than anything you were proposing for an Avengers like team up.

If you are still talking about a generic same universe thing, I haven't disagreed o that front even remotely, but you keep bringing up an X-Men/FF4 movie or some big project like Civil War. Even Millar seems to indicate that not happening.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 11, 2014, 12:38:20 AM
I think a lot of people read the contradicting statements in that article as backtracking after speaking out of turn - and once again, only time will tell.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on February 13, 2014, 10:28:40 AM
Isn't the plot of this "civil war" thing exactly the same as the overall xmen premise?

Which also leads on to a problem I see with putting anyone else in the xmen world, how the hell are F4 or whoever any different from any other mutant.

Just from a branding standpoint you might as well just call it the xmen universe and be done with it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 13, 2014, 10:36:17 AM
Isn't the plot of this "civil war" thing exactly the same as the overall xmen premise?

Ultimately, however, it is about controlling mutants, yes. There are some distinct differences, as the X-Men boils down to Muties vs Humans, where Civil War wasn't really a racial thing, as it were. There were Mutants/Supers on both sides.

Civil War was 1 on 1. X-Men Universe is 1 on 1 on 1.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on February 13, 2014, 02:40:08 PM
Isn't the plot of this "civil war" thing exactly the same as the overall xmen premise?

It makes more sense when you realize mutants are analogs for people who are gay. Born that way, can't help it but are hated for it. They're "Flawed!"

 Meanwhile the FF4 and others are normal people who were just in terrible accidents.  They're OK because they were only maimed. They were "normal" once.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on February 13, 2014, 03:45:04 PM
That's a modern interpretation. I am pretty sure I have heard Stan Lee say it was to tap into teenage angst.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: K9 on February 13, 2014, 06:05:18 PM
However, The Avengers do well separately and together, both in the comics and in the films, and Marvel has built a very nice film universe around it.

I'm trying to envision some films based around solo members of the X-Men that aren't wolverine and it's not going well. A cyclops movie? A storm movie? Those sound awful.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 13, 2014, 06:07:58 PM
However, The Avengers do well separately and together, both in the comics and in the films, and Marvel has built a very nice film universe around it.

I'm trying to envision some films based around solo members of the X-Men that aren't wolverine and it's not going well. A cyclops movie? A storm movie? Those sound awful.

Magneto and Xavier could have been a whole movie without the first class, kind of a wasted opportunity there.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on February 13, 2014, 06:10:23 PM

I remember a few good Storm-centric stories by Claremont back in the day, but I don't really care for Halle Berry so I'm in no hurry to see her in a stand-alone movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on February 13, 2014, 06:22:30 PM
That's a modern interpretation. I am pretty sure I have heard Stan Lee say it was to tap into teenage angst.

Conveniently Civil War and the X-men movies are modern stories.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 13, 2014, 07:58:16 PM
I hesitate to mention anything about Civil War as there seems to be some mistake that people think I adore the storyline - I just think it is something that they could translate to film and sell as it was one of their most marketable mass events. 

It covers a lot of ground, but the core issues was meant to reflect the battle between security and privacy that was being waged after 911.  If a trustworthy government has access to all our data, it can do a better job to protect us from threats.  On the other hand, that is major Big Brother territory - and many would argue government is one of the worst threats out there.

Do the heroes have to give up their anonymioty and be regulated?  Or do they have the right to secret identities and privacy.

There are a lot of ways that was reflected, and they used the conflict between heroes as the main point, but according to the articles I read about the storyline, that was the sell at the conclave where they planned it out.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on February 13, 2014, 10:01:00 PM
Except one of the main issues with Civil War is that it's not unreasonable to ask people who are more or less acting as law enforcement to register with the government. That's not really an invasion of privacy for the sake of security in the same respect that it's not unreasonable to require that people become cops rather than just let anybody who wants to put on a mask and go out and enforce Justice. Civil War's failing is that it shined a spotlight on tropes we've just agreed to ignore because, hey superhero comics. It makes sense to make superheroes register, and the writers put themselves in the position where they ultimately had to champion the wrong side because it's the status quo.

Edit: In fact the anti-reg side came across almost like an unintentional parody of the NRA. The only way to stop a bad guy with superpowers is a good guy with superpowers, and fuck no we shouldn't be subjected to registration or any sort of regulations or laws.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 13, 2014, 10:13:45 PM
The interesting thing about Civil War, to me, was how it was viewed very differently in different areas and by different groups of people.  Go back and read some of the articles about it.  There are a lot of people that think like Velorath, but there are a lot of people that disagree, too.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on February 13, 2014, 10:25:06 PM
They tried to portray it as more or less two equal sides at first, but they knew from the start they weren't going to keep registration around (because again, status quo). They ultimately had to stack the deck and make the pro-reg side look worse by having the Thunderbolts crippling people, having fake Thor kill the expendable black superhero, Cap getting assassinated after he turned himself in, etc., and they never made a reasonable case for why registration itself was bad.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 13, 2014, 10:36:45 PM
I side very much with jgusden on the interpretation side of things when it comes to Civil War.

However, I think a lot of it is a Rorschach test.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 13, 2014, 10:47:29 PM
He has a point in that all of it is based on super hero tropes and the entire arc had to be written to fit a fake world.  No amount of heroism would allow supers in the real world to get away with what they do, in one way DC's "gods amongst men" works because what the fuck can any government do to superman except try to make nice?  The marvel world however has so many low powered supers such that the world governments must be completely incompetent or all turning an unrealistic blind eye to vigilantes. 

Hey I'd love a world where we could let super powered people do what they want but if you think that would ever be the world we live in then I have a bridge to sell you.  So yes, any real world statements in civil war are diminished by having the result predestined before the argument even began due to fake world constraints.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 13, 2014, 10:58:53 PM
Civil War was not helped by the idiotic portrayals of established characters like Tony Stark and Reed Richards. What they did in those stories went so totally against 40 years worth of canon that it felt horribly forced... because it WAS horribly forced, horribly conceived. It also wasn't helped that the whole goddamn thing was a stretched out version of 3 pages worth of Marvel Team-Up style plotting - the part where the heroes fight before teaming up.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on February 14, 2014, 03:07:22 AM
They tried to portray it as more or less two equal sides at first, but they knew from the start they weren't going to keep registration around (because again, status quo). They ultimately had to stack the deck and make the pro-reg side look worse by having the Thunderbolts crippling people, having fake Thor kill the expendable black superhero, Cap getting assassinated after he turned himself in, etc., and they never made a reasonable case for why registration itself was bad.

It didn't really help Spidermans life.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on February 14, 2014, 05:27:15 AM
I don't think it was his choices in Civil War that got him stuck with JMS as a writer.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 14, 2014, 06:54:14 AM
If there was a completely separate comic universe called civil war where canon was built from scratch a la watchmen, I think it could have been something really great.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 14, 2014, 08:16:32 AM
This has become a huge theme in both comics worlds since the early 2000s (gee, I wonder if something happened then...)--basically, I see it as roughly equivalent to the awkwardness of superhero comics in relationship to WWII in the Golden Age. You had characters then who could have ended the war, but the war was going on. The characters were escapism, but you couldn't push the escapism to "Awesome! Superman just killed so many Nazis that you don't have to worry about D-Day anymore," because that would be too  :uhrr:.

Since 2001, both companies have been increasingly preoccupied with on one hand having superheroes do stuff that feels "real", up to and including dealing with terrorism, covert or secret government, the militarization of democratic societies, etc.--but they obviously can't have superheroes 'win' any of those struggles.

Marvel lately seems to be slipping a bit more into really just saying, "Our fantasy universe is not your fantasy universe" mode: the Avengers are overtly involved in galactic politics, the Roxxon Oil Company is importing ice from their mining operations on Europa, AIM has just gone from being terrorist-analogues to something way weirder, etc. But neither company is never going to get this completely settled--in comics or in film/TV-- because they can't.

One thing to remember about Civil War, though, is that Millar was openly pro-registration and kind of openly anti-superhero in the way he developed the main story--and making the analogies very specific to the Patriot Act-era building up of a more intrusive US government, with apparent sympathy for that idea. Thunderbolts was kind of Ellis' reply to Millar: you fucking moral idiot. If you took even a small smidgen of that into a future Avengers film, you'd have to decide how to play it. So far I would say that the films seem to be going with "SHIELD/its bosses/governments are untrustworthy dickbags, you'd be better off going with Thor, Iron Man, et al".


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 14, 2014, 11:37:04 AM
This is one of the main problems I have with a lot of the guys in control of Marvel's super hero output these days. They fucking HATE the very idea of super heroes. They think it's stupid... because it IS stupid. Bendis is particularly guilty of this. They hate the concept and all the silliness and handwaving that is required for this to function in a modern world. And it bleeds all over their work and affects it for the worse, IMO. Super heroes of the power levels talked about would fundamentally change the nature of the world - and if the universe refuses to acknowledge that (which it does because that's the way it's been done for decades), stories have to be manipulated so that things sort of work. And that means characters have to act out of character.

So either stop trying to root the Marvel universe in the real world. Don't make the president Barack Obama, make it someone like him. It's worked before, there's no reason it can't work now. That's one of the reasons I dig DC Comics at times - they don't even bother trying to place it in the real world where places like Gotham and Metropolis don't exist. They inhabit their own fantasy universe. So a lot of the bullshit pretzel logic that Civil War had to go through just doesn't exist. Now that doesn't necessarily mean the characters in DC are better, but they are usually more consistent in their characterizations.

Of course, I'm of the opinion Marvel needs another serious Crisis on Infinite Earths type of reboot and start again approach, but that's not happening.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on February 14, 2014, 04:05:36 PM
Brandon Flowers from The Killers said something to the effect that "Nirvana took all the fun out of rock and roll."  I see this is the case with comics too.  That's why the MCU is doing so well.  Super heroes are stupid, everyone knows they are stupid, but a lot of folks still like them.  And Marvel is having fun with them.  None of the MCU movies have been total grimdark, everyone has a quip here and there while saving the world.  Look at the Guardians; a freaking raccoon with a machine gun.  While 'DCU' flounders in grimdark, the MCU struts by in it's platform shoes with goldfish in them.

Sure GL tried, but something just didn't come together over there.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on February 15, 2014, 04:14:01 AM
This is one of the main problems I have with a lot of the guys in control of Marvel's super hero output these days. They fucking HATE the very idea of super heroes. They think it's stupid... because it IS stupid. Bendis is particularly guilty of this. They hate the concept and all the silliness and handwaving that is required for this to function in a modern world.

I think a prime example of that was the whole thing with whether or not Hulk ever killed anybody in his rampages. Obviously if you look at it with real world logic, of course it's reasonable to assume that at least some people have died due to the Hulk, but that would make the Hulk a lot less likable as a character and makes him hard to redeem or portray as a hero when he sometimes goes crazy and kills innocent people (which makes for a potentially interesting character, but probably not how Marvel want portray him given how recognizable he is to kids). So you just handwave that stuff away. It's comics. Hulk hasn't killed anybody. Of course that's not good enough for Bendis, so he does a story where it's mentioned that Hulk went on a rampage in Vegas that killed innocents including children, because fuck all that handwavy shit, we need to take these superhero comics seriously.

Then Greg Pak, eventually retconned it saying that the Hulk doesn't kill because Banner subconsciously runs calculations that enable Hulk to rampage while not killing anybody (not sure how they dealt with the Vegas stuff specifically). This of course was an enormously retarded explanation, but only became necessary because Bendis had to fuck with the character since he is just incapable of accepting these tropes. When I was doing some searches online just now trying to remember the specifics of all this, I saw someone refer to the Hulk not killing as "Superman's Glasses". That made me think that if Bendis worked for DC, I could actually see him doing a Superman arc eliminating the Clark Kent disguise because there's just no way that shit would actually fool anybody.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on February 15, 2014, 08:07:39 AM
Tony Soprano, Walter white, Dr Jekyll, MacBeth, are all relatable characters who do bad shit including killing innocents.

If you write well you can write past the hulk's issues. The avengers did a pretty good job, although they had the advantage of the hulk being nowhere near top of the bill.

Otoh if you limit the hulk to a poor misunderstood victim you get the last few attempts at a hulk film and everyone goes home bored.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 15, 2014, 09:22:23 AM
Comic books are not and should never try to be Shakespeare.  That's the point.

It's a different genre, a different form of fantasy and escapism.  People get cynical and they want things to be as grimdark and cynical as there are but those people should not be allowed to write every damn comic.  Preacher was far and away better than most dramas you'll see in movies and tv but it never started out as a super hero comic.  There are venues in comics for telling grimdark stories without fucking over children's heroes.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on February 15, 2014, 09:44:31 AM
Comic books are not and should never try to be Shakespeare. 

Not for nothing, but I hate when people do this.

Comic books are pretty much Shakespeare.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on February 15, 2014, 09:55:24 AM
Oh you.  Next you'll be saying Justin Bieber is Mozart.

Just because it's art for the masses or some such.  Geez.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on February 15, 2014, 10:06:35 AM
Oh God, No, I won't be saying that at all.

Though Mozart wouldn't get punched out in a fast food restaurant.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 15, 2014, 11:16:04 AM
I recognize shakespeare is probably the closest one to comics but replace shakespeare with breaking bad or sopranos then, they just are not a medium for gritty realism.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on February 15, 2014, 11:19:45 AM
Oh God, No, I won't be saying that at all.

Though Mozart wouldn't get punched out in a fast food restaurant.

I dunno, man.  The guy WAS kind of a douche in only the way a person exposed to fame from age 4 onward can be.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on February 15, 2014, 11:20:14 AM
Some people here need to see more Shakespeare.

If you think he wasn't writing fantasy and escapism then you weren't paying attention.

Almost any good performance art is fantasy and escapism. That doesn't excuse you from including relatable characters


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on February 15, 2014, 11:21:53 AM
To be fair to people here, I should add that there are few people on earth who wouldn't benefit from more Shakespeare when writing film critism.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on February 15, 2014, 12:42:30 PM
The Hulk stuff seems like a perfect example of editors not doing their jobs.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 15, 2014, 05:09:30 PM
I think it was a case of creative confusion--that "realism" was what would make comics, and comics movies, work.

Which, again, means nobody at DC or Marvel was paying attention when "The Incredibles" worked so well. Audiences will love the fuck out of a superhero movie that isn't ashamed of having superheroes--you just have to get the whole feel right, beginning to end, and have tons of heart and almost no fanservice continuity-wank.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on February 15, 2014, 05:48:21 PM
Tony Soprano, Walter white, Dr Jekyll, MacBeth, are all relatable characters who do bad shit including killing innocents.

If you write well you can write past the hulk's issues. The avengers did a pretty good job, although they had the advantage of the hulk being nowhere near top of the bill.

Otoh if you limit the hulk to a poor misunderstood victim you get the last few attempts at a hulk film and everyone goes home bored.

Tony Soprano and Walter White don't get to occasionally join the Defenders or the Avengers. Parents aren't going to pick up Breaking Bad comics for their kids expecting child-friendly entertainment and then have to explain to their kids that sometimes Walter White does stuff that results in the death of children and other innocent people.

Like I said, those kinds of characters are interesting, but they aren't the Hulk.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 16, 2014, 02:53:07 AM
To be fair, children aren't really the target demographic for comic books these days (man-children but not children). Comic book movies are going for an all audiences type of thing, however.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on February 16, 2014, 11:39:47 AM
Most comics these days sell like 30k copies or fewer. The target audience seems to be the smallish group of people who read comics in the 90s and stuck with them.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 16, 2014, 02:17:53 PM
comics are deader than uncle ben.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on February 16, 2014, 10:07:38 PM
They're a niche form now, that's for sure. Though they do sometimes still generate new characters who have potential to hold larger audiences in other media. Walking Dead is the most notable recent example of that but not the only one.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 17, 2014, 01:28:47 PM
Once you start writing for kids, you're buried by things established in that era.  Once you establish that glasses make a good disguise, you're stuck with it - even if the audience evolves into something where that would never be believed.  Once you start a policy against showing certain types of violence, you're stuck with it - even if the audience evolves to the point where not showing that violence is a bit odd.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on February 17, 2014, 02:26:58 PM
You don't have to show graphic violence in order to establish that actions of your characters can have problematic consequences. But if that is the conflict in your lead character, you have to have something act as the symbolic cost. I'm not saying the hulk has to kill bystanders, I'm saying for him to be interesting there has to be a cost, and even if that cost is civilian deaths, it doesn't stop him bring relatable.

Again, it comes down to decent writing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on February 17, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
I think being the Hulk costs plenty.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 17, 2014, 04:11:19 PM
His pants budget alone is a killer.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on February 17, 2014, 05:23:03 PM
I'm perfectly fine with the idea that the Hulk's rampages don't kill anyone, despite that obviously not making any sense. You can do a "realistic" take on the Hulk but that's just not the Hulk.

I also don't think you need any explanation about Banner calculations or some shit. "It's a comic book" is explanation enough.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 17, 2014, 05:32:05 PM
Or that superman generates an anti-gravity field thus enabling him to lift a battleship without splitting it in half or just punching a hole right through it? Yeah, comics don't need gritty realism at every turn, it's utter horseshit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on February 18, 2014, 08:26:49 AM
While that's true, him picking up lake Comooga still bugs me.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on February 18, 2014, 02:09:21 PM
While that's true, him picking up lake Comooga still bugs me.


I can't stop laughing. He picked up a lake?  (still laughing) that's retarded.  I'm glad I don't know the story because it's cracking me up and I'm sure knowing the details would make it less silly more annoying.

(still laughing)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on February 18, 2014, 02:12:54 PM
You've never seen Superman 3 ?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on February 18, 2014, 02:25:07 PM
No.  I'm not a Superman fan.  He just seems broken.  I don't hate him, he just seems like it's really hard to write a good story with someone that powerful.  Last Superman I felt motivated to see (and oddly, liked) was, coincidentally enough, the one with your General Zod (Superman II, I think).

Not even the lure of the ultra-violence in the latest Superman could break my ambivalence.  I figure at some point they'll put it on cable and I'll see bits and pieces of it then.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Stewie on February 28, 2014, 08:23:10 AM
New Avengers Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0jBF912xYY  :drill:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 28, 2014, 09:18:04 AM
It was "eh, kinda funny" until hawkeye and then I lost my shit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on March 12, 2014, 02:27:17 PM
Sounds like they have a plan to put in 'Mutants by Another Name' into the MCU according to a spoiler from someone that saw footage. 
 
QS and SW will be amongst the first in this 'alternate explanation'.  It will be interesting to see how many additional Mutants make it into the MCU... and if other mutants that have spent considerable time in the Avengers now - including Wolverine? - are amongst them.  Could be bait for a fierce financial battle.

I also noted that in Tuesday's S.H.I.E.L.D. episode they referenced several races of aliens - including Skrulls, a race many considered to be linked to the FF rights.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 12, 2014, 04:09:39 PM
It's easy to get around 'mutants' by just never using the word or saying their genes were manipulated by outside forces, very earth X.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: raydeen on March 14, 2014, 11:26:54 AM
New Avengers Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0jBF912xYY  :drill:

Awesome! I was totally expecting this though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEBMkDWxny8


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on March 14, 2014, 01:34:03 PM
I don't really understand why people believe Disney are barred from using the term 'mutant'. I've never seen anyone suggest this away from f13, and whenever I've seen any more informed article it has suggested that while the contract isn't public, 'persons familiar' have indicated it covers the xmen franchise in a non-specific way.

They can use scarlet witch or whoever because she is also in other franchises.

They probably could argue they could even use wolverine, though it would be a dumb idea for obvious reasons.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on March 14, 2014, 03:17:26 PM
Although the contracts are not public, there is a lot of evidence and informal talk stating that the word 'Mutant' (in the context of a label for a group of supes) is off limites in the MCU.  You'll see that they go out of their way to avoid it ... you'll see that very soon.  The mere fact that such an iconic Marvel word has not been used in MAoS or the movies is a pretty clear indication they can't use it.

They do play a bit loose with those restrictions.  They can't use Spidey or his key phrases - but they played around with it in the pilot what Skye has her own end for the phrase beginning, "With great power..."  I think the relationship between the studios is friendly and Marvel/Disney is going out of their way to keep it so.  They must be - else I think you'd be seeing a war pop up over rights.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on March 14, 2014, 03:37:03 PM

So there was a press screening for CA:TWS earlier this week. Everyone says it's amazing, perhaps the best Marvel movie yet. Someone talk me down from the hype.

With that much acclaim I'm almost positive it's a riff from not just TWS storyline but Fury vs. SHIELD (and possibly Nomad) as well. I wouldn't be mad though if it didn't include those things and was just a great movie.

http://screensavant.com/2014/03/12/captain-america-the-winter-soldier-early-reactions/


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: DraconianOne on March 14, 2014, 04:15:07 PM
Some of us still remember the initial reactions and tweets about The Dark Knight Rises...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on March 14, 2014, 06:46:32 PM
I've had high expectations for every Marvel film.  Some didn't quite hit my high expectations, but they were all close.  Even IM II and Incredible Hulk.

My high expectations for this film, however, have more to do with what they'll do for the S.H.I.E.L.D. show than for what the movie by itself will be.  I'm expecting that Season 2 of S.H.I.E.L.D. will be highly impacted by the events of the film... in a positive way. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on March 16, 2014, 03:47:16 AM
The Agents of SHIELD will have been upgraded from cleaning up the garbage of Thor: TDW to filing the paperwork following CA: TWS' events, I'm guessing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on March 16, 2014, 03:26:03 PM
The Agents of SHIELD will have been upgraded from cleaning up the garbage of Thor: TDW to filing the paperwork following CA: TWS' events, I'm guessing.
I'll be red in the face if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling the events of Cap II will influence the entire next season of SHIELD, if not the entire series.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on March 19, 2014, 05:32:44 PM


MCU's Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/03/18/avengers-age-of-ultron-marvel-reveals-new-scarlet-witch-and-quicksilver-concept-art/)

There's also concept art from the Avengers 2 featuring Hulkbuster vs Hulk. Looks awesome.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on March 19, 2014, 05:50:47 PM
They were displayed on the Marvel Universe show last night that was aired instead of shield.  Looked pretty good, and I liked the story they were laying out.  Apparently Avengers2 will cause yet another upheaval in continuity so they can start "Phase 3"  One of them made reference to an Avengers movie being a "Bookend" to each phase.  though the more they talked the more I realized they are, in fact, aiming for an Infinity Gauntlet storyline, which will just be  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on April 04, 2014, 04:48:38 PM
If you're curious how far the tenative plans stretch: 2028 - nearly 15 years.

Quote
There’s a map of films reaching far into the next decade on the wall of Feige’s office. “It’s like looking through the Hubble telescope. You go, ‘What’s happening back there? I can sort of see it,’ ” he laughs. “They printed out a new one recently that went to 2028.”

 http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/192489-kevin-feige-marvels-superhero-at-running-movie-franchises (http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/192489-kevin-feige-marvels-superhero-at-running-movie-franchises)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 02, 2014, 01:27:12 PM
Interesting article about Sony Entertainment / Spiderman

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303948104579533552594660962

Sony is banking hard on Spiderman 2 and sequels/spinoffs down the line. The studio head sounds like a retard tho, my favourite: "The studio recently selected its big summer bet of 2015: "Pixels," an action-comedy that combines videogame characters with actor Adam Sandler, a longtime favorite of Ms. Pascal. It is also fast-tracking a live-action comedy based on the Barbie doll."

So yeah ...

Buzz on this upcoming movie seems pretty lukewarm, if it disappoints maybe Sony will consider throwing in the towel and selling the license back to Disney/Marvel I am guessing for some cash + a revenue share of a few films or something. Sony overall is having a pretty rough go of it recently, could use the cash.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Soulflame on May 02, 2014, 02:10:01 PM
Adam Sandler is an immediate WILL NOT WATCH.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on May 02, 2014, 02:33:06 PM
...Buzz on this upcoming movie seems pretty lukewarm, if it disappoints maybe Sony will consider throwing in the towel and selling the license back to Disney/Marvel I am guessing for some cash + a revenue share of a few films or something. Sony overall is having a pretty rough go of it recently, could use the cash.
Saw some of it at a private event last night, unexpectedly.  From the bits I saw, I agree with the current reviews: It is a pretty good Spider-man in a pretty bad movie.  

They got the main character right, but the universe surrounding him wrong.  Spider-man's rogue's gallery of 60s and 70s designed villians is hard to do.  They failed. 

I think that Sony would be much better off licensing back the rights to Disney in exchange for a portion of revenue.  The contracts would be difficult to put together, but the character would benefit from shedding the universe they assembled around him and replacing it with the MCU.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on May 02, 2014, 05:57:09 PM
I don't think Marvel can make an offer that would be greater than the profit Sony would make from mediocre Spidey films.

If I were Sony I'd 'loan' out Spidey for an extended surprise cameo in one or two Marvel movies.  They would get some cash and could raise awareness to go see the next Sony Spiderman movie.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on May 03, 2014, 11:13:39 AM
Why on earth would Disney agree to that? They have more characters than they can use already.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 03, 2014, 11:28:24 AM
Not to mention disney does own spiderman in all but the movie version.  Disney has the new infinity marvel figures coming out and spiderman is one of them.  Movie popularity will only help the toy sales, it's essentially free advertising.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on May 03, 2014, 07:17:05 PM
I don't think Marvel can make an offer that would be greater than the profit Sony would make from mediocre Spidey films.

Yeah. These Spider-Man movies bring in like $600 million plus just in box office. So they must be making around $350 million in profit, before you even get into DVD / HBO / etc.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on May 04, 2014, 01:47:26 AM
If Spider-man were executed as well as IM was, it would dwarf the ASM and IM III numbers. The character is more popular than IM is. In the hands of a good caretaker,  it would rival or exceed Avengers.... not be less than half the box office. That is why it would make sense to license it back to the people that can cross promote it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on May 04, 2014, 02:00:46 AM
If Spider-man were executed as well as IM was, it would dwarf the ASM and IM III numbers.

You have absolutely no evidence to back that up. Quality is in no way an indicator of box office success. See the Star Wars prequels for proof.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on May 04, 2014, 02:47:57 AM
If Spider-man were executed as well as IM was, it would dwarf the ASM and IM III numbers. The character is more popular than IM is. In the hands of a good caretaker,  it would rival or exceed Avengers.... not be less than half the box office. That is why it would make sense to license it back to the people that can cross promote it.

The first couple Spider-man movies were well received and taking inflation and 3D upcharges into account they probably would have brought in somewhere between IM3 and Avengers. Those previous Spider-man movies were also done by Sony, who did not need Marvel's help to successfully make and market a high grossing movie franchise. To an extent, Marvel's current success only exists because Sony and Fox helped pave the way with Spider-man and X-men movies that did really fucking well at the box office. Unless Marvel is going to pay half a billion per movie in licensing fees to license Spider-man back from Sony, why the fuck would Sony ever want  to let go of the franchise until they manage to crater it completely somehow?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on May 04, 2014, 12:40:06 PM
If Spider-man were executed as well as IM was, it would dwarf the ASM and IM III numbers. The character is more popular than IM is. In the hands of a good caretaker,  it would rival or exceed Avengers.... not be less than half the box office. That is why it would make sense to license it back to the people that can cross promote it.

Not to ignore Haemish's point, but I wanted to add: I don't know if Spider-Man's personality and character, translated to the real world through an actor, has as much appeal as Iron Man's. We're talking a charismatic, love-to-hate, worldly "Genius, Playboy, Billionaire, Philanthropist" fighting terrorism and governments in the name of individualism (and Downey *sold* that character to the audience from Day 1) versus a struggling American teenager dealing with urban issues who just can't seem to get a break.

Comic Books reach a limited audience (appeals to American youth) which I believe would skew the perception of character popularity. The movie format reaches a far broader demographic of people in all countries and situations. I would argue Iron Man and what's possible with his characters and his stories is the more appealing character when you take everyone into consideration and not just comic book fans. The movie's box office is a correlation.

Finally: I'm not certain you understand the business realities behind the movies when you talk about licensing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on May 04, 2014, 01:21:11 PM
Haemish: There are a few things that influence box office.  Hype/popularity is one.  Quality is another.  The biggest hits tend to have both. 

Velorath: There were hard critics of the first SM trilogy, and the current series, from amongst comic fans and traditional fans of the character from other media.  IM was widely well received by fans, despite not being entirely true to the comic version of the character. 

In the end, it is simple math.  If Marvel, with their cross-licensing abilities and proven record with their own characters, can likely generate more income and better franchise building by controlling the character than Sony can do on their own, it all comes down to figuring out how to split that surplus.  Sony will demand to have net revenues in excess of what they think they could do on their own.  Marvel gets the rest.  It all comes down to negotiation.

Maven: Your argument is that most people will have an easier time relating to a genius, playboy, billionaire, philanthropist than a struggling American teenager that can't catch a break?  SM is the everyman character.  IM is the fantasy.  Historically, in every form of media, the track record of the popularity of the SM proves my point.  Heck, look at how they characterized the start of the Marvel Cinematic Universe - IM, Thor, Cap - even Hulk were all considered B-team characters before the movies.  SM and X-men were the golden geese.  IM's popularity sored only after Marvel knocked it out of the park. 

I'm not saying the comic book fans define the audience for these movies.  The media does.  However, if you look at the media (CNN -> AICN -> Colbert), they base their definition on the history of the characters.... in comics.  The comics are the nexus.

In the end, it is simple t me: 1.) Marvel/Disney has proven that it does a better job with the Marvel characters than any other studio.  2.) Quality is a major factor in revenue (as is the ability to cross promote).  3.) SM, as the most popular Marvel character, is the one with the most potential for revenue. 

That all boils down to a pretty simple picture.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on May 04, 2014, 02:12:15 PM
Maven: Your argument is that most people will have an easier time relating to a genius, playboy, billionaire, philanthropist than a struggling American teenager that can't catch a break?  SM is the everyman character.  IM is the fantasy.

No, my argument is that more people want the fantasy and to live through it in times of hardship and uncertainty (such as we're experiencing) than to be reminded of their realities. We consume entertainment to escape. Super hero films are the most popular and profitable movie format currently as a TREND -- it won't always be like this. Gifted but flawed NON-everymen, fighting epic scale battles. Movie Iron Man is the kind of person people want to get a drink with, have at your party (even if he hogs all the attention). You want to see him tackle macro issues far beyond everyday perception with cool tech or go toe-to-toe in an argument with a trickster god because he's just that damn smart. Movie Iron Man's best scenes were when he was out of costume.

Spider-Man is a more grounded character, for sure. It also doesn't mean that there aren't people that exist who want to read about their issues and to live vicariously in that character.

Focusing *explicitly* on a comic audience, yes, Spider-Man is the more popular character and likely to generate more revenue -- in comic books. In the movie world, comic popularity is something to consider for green-lighting, but isn't the sole indicator of revenue potential.

Also, a question: why would a company hand over control of a prized character (sure of its revenue potential) to a competitor when they can make movies with it on their own?

Edit: polished argument. Let me simplify this:

1. Comic books have an inherently limited audience (primarily American youth).
2. Movies have a much broader audience than comic books that includes most everyone.
3. Youth audiences like characters whose struggle they can relate to. (Parents, right? Gosh, it's tough to balance all of life's demands.) They do not have as much exposure to real world issues.
4. Older audiences (everyone else) who have grown past this can understand when larger issues, such as corporate warfare, government and politics, and philosophic exploration, are the dominant theme of the work.
5. Youth audience responds to cool, rebellious personalities.
6. Older audience responds to charismatic, saavy personalities.
7. Spider-Man and what his stories are about cater to a youth demographic. His character is used to explore local issues in a singular setting (New York)
8. Iron Man and what his stories are about cater to an older demographic. His character is used to explore larger issues across the world. (World is his playground)
Conclusion: The movie revenue potential of Iron Man is greater than Spider Man.

Edit: added character personality and its indicators on audience appeal.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on May 04, 2014, 02:59:07 PM

Velorath: There were hard critics of the first SM trilogy, and the current series, from amongst comic fans and traditional fans of the character from other media.  IM was widely well received by fans, despite not being entirely true to the comic version of the character. 

In the end, it is simple math.  If Marvel, with their cross-licensing abilities and proven record with their own characters, can likely generate more income and better franchise building by controlling the character than Sony can do on their own, it all comes down to figuring out how to split that surplus.  Sony will demand to have net revenues in excess of what they think they could do on their own.  Marvel gets the rest.  It all comes down to negotiation.

The first two Spider-man movies were incredibly well received with rotten tomatoes scores of 89% and 94% respectively. Domestic gross for Spider-man adjusted for inflation is $553 million and for Spider-man 2 $478 million putting them above every Marvel movie except for Avengers, and Spider-man 1 is only $40 million off from Dark Knight. Even without adjusting for inflation or taking 3D into account the first Spider-man trilogy are 3 of the top 5 grossing movies based on Marvel comics (http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=marvelcomics.htm).  ASM is #8 although Cap 2 might catch up to it, and taking worldwide numbers into account, it beats all the Marvel studios movies except for Avengers and Iron Man 3.

The simple math is that each Spider-man movie Sony has made has grossed between $700-800 million worldwide. There is no deal there that makes sense for either Sony or Marvel. Marvel would have to pay Sony close to those numbers for a deal to make sense to Sony, which is a massive risk for them to take. If the movie doesn't do well, they'd have to pay a shit ton of money to Sony anyway for the licensing. Even if Marvel were to make a movie that was as big a success as Avengers, Sony would walk away with half the money leaving Marvel with about as much as they've made off Cap 2. It's simple math but it looks like you didn't do any of it. Sony is still making big money off of Spider-man, and Marvel is making big money off all the characters they didn't license out.

Anyway, if Marvel had the Spider-man (and even the X-men) franchises back, how many Ant-man of Guardians of the Galaxy movies do you think we'd be getting?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on May 04, 2014, 03:44:13 PM
Here: http://ifanboy.com/articles/the-all-time-comic-book-movie-box-office-ranking-list/

What I noticed:
- Spider Man's numbers are strong, with the reboot much lower down. The first trilogy started with and maintained strength compared to Iron Man's box office.
- Iron Man started low as the audience had to be introduced to the character (argument for more popularity of Spider-Man). He's now at much higher popularity and familiarity, but it took repeated performances by Robert Downey and the support of the MCU to get there. IM3 featured more Downey as Stark time, less superheroics.

So there's merit in that if the current Amazing Spider-Man run is "executed well", it could beat Iron Man 3. At this point it feels like we're arguing the difference of 50 or 100 million dollars on two properties that both have huge revenue potential.

Taking what I wrote earlier into consideration, I additionally don't think the Spider-Man has as much revenue potential as Iron Man because Spider-Man doesn't have the *direct* support of other Marvel films like Iron Man had (it has passive support from successful comic book / Marvel films) ... but that was your point, wasn't it? If it was brought into the fold and integrated, it would have much higher revenue potential.

Downey as Stark is running out of steam -- a reboot is likely after Avengers 2 when Marvel Studios enters the next phase and he gets too old for the role. IM's revenue potential is more tied up in Downey than Stark.

Yeah, jgsugden, you're right about which character is more popular, but your views on the business side undermine your other points. The studio that can execute a better film is not relevant to which studio gets to make the film. That's business's call.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on May 04, 2014, 07:36:52 PM
....
Anyway, if Marvel had the Spider-man (and even the X-men) franchises back, how many Ant-man of Guardians of the Galaxy movies do you think we'd be getting?
Just as many, if not more.  Spider-man and X-men characters are already factored into the Marvel release strategy right now.... and now they have to factor in excess Sinister 6, Venom, Jubilee, and Wolverine's 8th cousin on his feral grandmother's side movies.

Yes, SM series I made a lot of money - but had a lot of critics, too.  If they'd nailed a few points better and had wider acceptance, they could have been higher numbers.  The biological web shooters, McGuire's insecure Spider-man (Parker insecure?  Yes.  Spider-man?  No), and the lack of the Gwen character ...  The character has a huge following and the movies were good (not great).  If you put the current SM in those movies, you might have had great movies, even.  Assuming they went an entirely different direction with SM III...

Maven said
Quote
The studio that can execute a better film is not relevant to which studio gets to make the film. That's business's call.
Yes - but the best business call is the one that generates the most net revenue - and the most net revenue can be generated by Marvel making the films.  The only question is whether they can reach an agreement on compensation that would get the rights back.

Regardless, given Sony's plans, and the initial box office numbers of this film, it doesn't look like that is going to have a chance to happen soon.  Maybe the rights can be licensed back around 2018 or 2021.  Mayybe.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on May 04, 2014, 08:59:51 PM
Yes - but the best business call is the one that generates the most net revenue - and the most net revenue can be generated by Marvel making the films.  The only question is whether they can reach an agreement on compensation that would get the rights back.

Denying your competition revenue and market share is also smart business.

Let's go from your premise that, of all the studios, Marvel Studios can make the highest-grossing Spider-Man film, which is a reasonable conclusion from an unsupported analysis. I'm sure you will also agree with me that Marvel wants that property back, now that is has its own film studio.

How is it relevant who can make the highest-grossing film? Why would Sony hand the rights back over? They aren't swimming in bankable, low risk intellectual properties. Sony (and everyone else on the planet) knows that Marvel wants the rights back. That makes the asking price that much higher to get it -- Sony's possession is to its own advantage and Marvel's detriment.

Edit: I'm arguing on Sony's behalf. But I failed to integrate why you're arguing this case in the first place (see below)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on May 04, 2014, 09:04:22 PM
You want Marvel to have the rights back to make a better quality Spider-Man film -- that's your desire -- but it feels like we're warping what's realistic to create a scenario where that's going to happen.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on May 04, 2014, 11:20:01 PM
Yes, SM series I made a lot of money - but had a lot of critics, too.  If they'd nailed a few points better and had wider acceptance, they could have been higher numbers.

Again, this has absolutely no factual basis in reality.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on May 05, 2014, 06:15:02 AM
Facts: bane of the visionary.  Why do you hate vision. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on May 05, 2014, 07:39:06 AM
He wasn't a very good Avenger.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 05, 2014, 09:09:39 AM
Right now SM is making decent money for Sony but there's a lot of weight on its shoulders. As the WSJ article mentions, Sony is banking HARD on it, not just this one, but they have 2 sequels planned, and 3 spin offs so this is a very critical film. Anyway, the opening weekend had a solid gross at 92$ million, we'll see what kind of legs it has.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on May 05, 2014, 10:07:33 AM
Yes, SM series I made a lot of money - but had a lot of critics, too.  If they'd nailed a few points better and had wider acceptance, they could have been higher numbers.

Again, this has absolutely no factual basis in reality.
I'm not sure what you find unrealistic - that a more broadly liked movie tends to generate more money than similar movies that are not so well liked, or that people were critical of biological web shooters, etc....  Either way, we clearly disagree.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on May 05, 2014, 10:07:45 AM
Yes, SM series I made a lot of money - but had a lot of critics, too.  If they'd nailed a few points better and had wider acceptance, they could have been higher numbers.

Again, this has absolutely no factual basis in reality.

It's best not to reply when he says things like that.

I think that sort of nonsense is driven by hugely inflated view of the value and quality of the comic book IP that he likes, as opposed to the value of 'half way decent filmmakers doing a thing'.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on May 05, 2014, 10:55:49 AM
SM is the everyman character. 

SM is the everyman character with awesome superpowers who married a supermodel.

Even the movie versions have the women just falling over themselves to be with him.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on May 06, 2014, 12:17:54 AM
SM is the everyman character. 

SM is the everyman character with awesome superpowers who married a supermodel.

Even the movie versions have the women just falling over themselves to be with him.
The everyman character usually rises up to get things the everyman reading/watching the story can't really get.  That is the nature of the everyman story - going from zero to hero.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on May 06, 2014, 05:10:30 AM
No... that's not it at all. The nature of an everyman hero is resolving problems using only his wits and the resources available to him that anyone around him would have access to. The thing that distinguishes him is that he isn't distinguished in some way, unlike a Hero's Journey prototype who has some special ability that sets them apart. I'm thinking roles as played by Harrison Ford and John McClaine pre-contemporary Die Hard.

Spider-Man is *not* an everyman hero. His super powers alone eliminate him from that classification. He's classified as a street-level hero. He helps the little guy when he isn't put on a team like the Avengers.

Now, he DOES deal with balancing everyday issues a teenager / young adult might deal with, such as his relationships, lack of money, student obligations, etc.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on May 06, 2014, 10:30:29 AM
You are absolutely technically correct.  No Super Hero is going to be a true everyman in the classic literature sense.  The presence of Superpowers is pretty much a nix to the idea of the true everyman.  There are a few everymen in comics (Rick Jones), but no heroes.

However, BEFORE Peter was biten, he was the everyman.  After being biten, as you point out, he continues to deal with the problems of everyday life.  The audience is intended to relate to his problems.  He is intended to be the Superhero version of the everyman.  You're intended to think, "If I had Superpowers, my life could be like his..."

My point was: This is different than Tony Stark.  The authors of Iron Man did not generally think the audience was going to relate to a rich tech genius that was a major cog in the military industrial machine.  He was intended to be a foreign character - it was pretty much the entire point of Iron Man.  Remember who was reading comics in the 60s and 70s and ask yourself what they thought of rich people that built weapons.  It wasn't until they started to break the character down in Demon in a Bottle that they tried to make his life relatable to the readers - and even then it was mostly envisioned that people reading would be familiar with his trials from seeing others, rather than themselves, going through similar issues.  Now, they've embraced a duality to them - you're supposed to despise his tendency to take control and impose his will while wishing you had the good things in his life.  With Stark, you're intended to think, "If I could choose to be a hero, I'd want to have his life, but I'd do it better."

Very different ways to relate to the character.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on May 06, 2014, 11:59:03 AM
Everyman super genius.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on May 06, 2014, 12:20:48 PM
I think you're taking advantage of shifting definitions based on your earlier ambiguity of meaning. I think we both agree Peter deals with everyday problems in his personal life, and I think we'll both agree on Spider-Man's popularity with audiences. The problems Peter faces in and out of costume are different though are often intertwined for more drama. Calling him an "Everyman Hero" is a bit messy from my perspective.

I'm not really talking about Iron Man anymore -- I agree with you that Spider-Man is closer to the common person, and that Stark's current popularity is a direct result of the Iron Man movies and not his comic book incarnation.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on May 23, 2014, 09:55:29 PM
Well Edgar Wright has stepped down from directing Ant-Man.  Not sure what to think about that.  I love Wrights work but I could see where he may have a problem sticking to whatever style and tone that Marvel wants for the film.  I bet if the movie was a stand alone and not hooked into the MCU there probably wouldn't have been any issues.  The cast is still solid though.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 23, 2014, 11:46:50 PM
Well Edgar Wright has stepped down from directing Ant-Man.  Not sure what to think about that.  I love Wrights work but I could see where he may have a problem sticking to whatever style and tone that Marvel wants for the film.  I bet if the movie was a stand alone and not hooked into the MCU there probably wouldn't have been any issues.  The cast is still solid though.


This is bad for two reasons: The first being that Wright is a great director who really fought for this movie and the second is that it means marvel isn't going to take any chances in tone and style of their films beyond ant man such as dr strange.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on May 24, 2014, 09:17:26 PM
This is a bit of a weird duck situation.  Wright wrote the film ~ 2006 when the MCU was just taking shape.  The story has been forced to evolve as the MCU evolved.  I'd have loved to see Wright direct this film, but I'm going to wait to see the new path before I get too worried.

I would be surprised if this did not result in a delay of the release date, though.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on May 24, 2014, 09:28:00 PM
I find it hard to care given that most of his movies are bad.

I also have trouble seeing it as trouble until I know more about why it happened. Remember the original director of Thor 2 was similarly fired / let go for "creative differences." In general Marvel takes the view that individual directors and actors aren't as important as the properties - a view I think is wise.

It seems silly to me to say this indicates that Marvel won't deviate in tone and style when Guardians is about to come out. Scott Pilgrim is stylistically out there but the rest of Wright's movies aren't, and tonally they aren't any weirder than James Gunn stuff.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on May 24, 2014, 09:34:36 PM
According to Latin Review,  A few weeks ago Marvel took Wright's script and had some in house writer's work on it.  When it came back Wright decided he didn't like it and walked away from the project. 

This also goes along with rumors that the project was in production limbo because of Wright taking too much time to get things going.

Marvel has had nothing but good relations with directors from past movies, so this is probably less of a "DOOM!" situation then it looks like.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on May 24, 2014, 09:37:50 PM
Right after I posed the above I saw that Goddard has left Daredevil and Whedon twitting something interesting... That changes my concern level.  If Wright, Goddard and Whedon are all taking positions along these lines, it says something substantial.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on May 24, 2014, 09:42:27 PM
Goddard leaving has more to do with him doing The Sinister Six then anything.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: SurfD on May 25, 2014, 02:30:33 AM
Right after I posed the above I saw that Goddard has left Daredevil and Whedon twitting something interesting... That changes my concern level.  If Wright, Goddard and Whedon are all taking positions along these lines, it says something substantial.

What was the Whedon tweet?  cant just cliffhanger us with that bit of news.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on May 25, 2014, 04:12:43 AM
Right after I posed the above I saw that Goddard has left Daredevil and Whedon twitting something interesting... That changes my concern level.  If Wright, Goddard and Whedon are all taking positions along these lines, it says something substantial.

The Marvel Studios has a history of treating its film talent just as well as it has treated its comic talent: at best with indifference, at worst with contempt. Marvel Studios underpaid (or did their best to underpay) directors and actors on the logic that "Who really cares who the actor is; people will come to see our IP".

To date, that worked out fine. The Marvel Studios movies have been immensely successful, creating great profile for the actors who signed up to multi-film deals. For actors who wanted that boost, or wanted the guarantee of regular blockbuster work that would turn into better paying work elsewhere, it was an acceptable deal.

Directors are easier to replace - if one wouldn't play ball, it was easy enough to find another who would.

However, now that Marvel Studios has been so successful, it's much harder for them to try to lowball pay and it also appears that they are less and less likely to give directors much control over their films.

If you want links about some of this, I wrote a blog entry in 2010 before a lot of the Marvel films came out (http://evilasahobby.com/2010/09/09/why-marvel-studios-needs-to-pay-up/); also before "The Avengers" was such a massive hit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on May 25, 2014, 05:54:38 AM
Right after I posed the above I saw that Goddard has left Daredevil and Whedon twitting something interesting... That changes my concern level.  If Wright, Goddard and Whedon are all taking positions along these lines, it says something substantial.

The Marvel Studios has a history of treating its film talent just as well as it has treated its comic talent: at best with indifference, at worst with contempt. Marvel Studios underpaid (or did their best to underpay) directors and actors on the logic that "Who really cares who the actor is; people will come to see our IP".

To date, that worked out fine. The Marvel Studios movies have been immensely successful, creating great profile for the actors who signed up to multi-film deals. For actors who wanted that boost, or wanted the guarantee of regular blockbuster work that would turn into better paying work elsewhere, it was an acceptable deal.

Directors are easier to replace - if one wouldn't play ball, it was easy enough to find another who would.

However, now that Marvel Studios has been so successful, it's much harder for them to try to lowball pay and it also appears that they are less and less likely to give directors much control over their films.

If you want links about some of this, I wrote a blog entry in 2010 before a lot of the Marvel films came out (http://evilasahobby.com/2010/09/09/why-marvel-studios-needs-to-pay-up/); also before "The Avengers" was such a massive hit.


That all somewhat conveniently skips over the fact that RDJ has been one of, if not the highest paid actor in recent years thanks mainly to playing Iron Man. Also, in regards to your blog post, replacing Terrence Howard and Edward Norton were both good calls. I'm also perfectly ok with replacing Goddard with Steven S. DeKnight on Daredevil. If Goddard wants to go focus on an unnecessary spin-off of an unnecessary reboot I guess we'll see what he can accomplish when he's not sucking at Whedon or Abrams' teats.

As far as the Wright thing goes, it's a shame since I really enjoy his stuff. That said, after 8 years of talk about this movie I not entirely surprised that ultimately things didn't work out.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 25, 2014, 06:07:22 AM
Right after I posed the above I saw that Goddard has left Daredevil and Whedon twitting something interesting... That changes my concern level.  If Wright, Goddard and Whedon are all taking positions along these lines, it says something substantial.

The Marvel Studios has a history of treating its film talent just as well as it has treated its comic talent: at best with indifference, at worst with contempt. Marvel Studios underpaid (or did their best to underpay) directors and actors on the logic that "Who really cares who the actor is; people will come to see our IP".

To date, that worked out fine. The Marvel Studios movies have been immensely successful, creating great profile for the actors who signed up to multi-film deals. For actors who wanted that boost, or wanted the guarantee of regular blockbuster work that would turn into better paying work elsewhere, it was an acceptable deal.

Directors are easier to replace - if one wouldn't play ball, it was easy enough to find another who would.

However, now that Marvel Studios has been so successful, it's much harder for them to try to lowball pay and it also appears that they are less and less likely to give directors much control over their films.

If you want links about some of this, I wrote a blog entry in 2010 before a lot of the Marvel films came out (http://evilasahobby.com/2010/09/09/why-marvel-studios-needs-to-pay-up/); also before "The Avengers" was such a massive hit.


That all somewhat conveniently skips over the fact that RDJ has been one of, if not the highest paid actor in recent years thanks mainly to playing Iron Man. Also, in regards to your blog post, replacing Terrence Howard and Edward Norton were both good calls. I'm also perfectly ok with replacing Goddard with Steven S. DeKnight on Daredevil. If Goddard wants to go focus on an unnecessary spin-off of an unnecessary reboot I guess we'll see what he can accomplish when he's not sucking at Whedon or Abrams' teats.

As far as the Wright thing goes, it's a shame since I really enjoy his stuff. That said, after 8 years of talk about this movie I not entirely surprised that ultimately things didn't work out.



RDJ got paid so much because marvel/disney needed him badly, he is the reason they have this movie empire.  They are sorta stuck in a weird place now though, people know marvel movies are big so they are going to expect big paychecks if they are an established actor/director and marvel is going to be reluctant.  Also the bigger name director the more control they will want but the better marvel does the less control they will want to give.  However if they can't secure big names behind their movies, the quality will definitely suffer.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on May 25, 2014, 11:36:31 AM
Right after I posed the above I saw that Goddard has left Daredevil and Whedon twitting something interesting... That changes my concern level.  If Wright, Goddard and Whedon are all taking positions along these lines, it says something substantial.

What was the Whedon tweet?  cant just cliffhanger us with that bit of news.

It was just a pic of Whedon holding up a cornetto.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on May 25, 2014, 12:27:10 PM
These movies don't need "big name" directors. Few movies do. Look at who is directing blockbusters these days - you have Michael Bay, then a bunch of people you've never heard of. Godzilla is Gareth Edwards. Captain America is the Russo brothers.

What these sorts of movies needs is a professional, competent steward. The Marvel movies with big-name talent behind them have been no better than the others. (I'm thinking specifically of Iron Man 3 and Thor - I couldn't even watch Iron Man 3, first Marvel movie I just turned off) Much of the movies are determined before there is even a script written. That's just the nature of these sorts of films.

If Marvel was aiming for high art then this might be an issue, but Marvel is producing people-pleasing consumer goods.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on May 25, 2014, 12:47:31 PM
They need good directors and good talent.  Look at all the bad super hero movies.  They just need good ones that can buy into the Marvel vision and bring it to life, like Whedon, rather than ones that need to make their own thing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on May 25, 2014, 12:49:21 PM
I don't often agree with Margalis but he's right here, as is Marvel.  People aren't going to see <big name actor> in a <big name director> movie. They're going to see a Marvel movie about a Marvel IP.

So long as Marvel keeps up with a good quality of directors, actors and writers that's enough to continue producing the same quality they have been they'll be in a good spot.  So long as the public isn't tired of superheroes.  The next movie could be put out with a lead actor who's a guy whose only credit are Downy commercials and as long as he's not incompetent and able to get in to character it'll be good.  How quickly we've forgotten the "Who?" of Chris Hemsworth.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on May 25, 2014, 02:03:16 PM
RDJ got paid so much because marvel/disney needed him badly, he is the reason they have this movie empire.  They are sorta stuck in a weird place now though, people know marvel movies are big so they are going to expect big paychecks if they are an established actor/director and marvel is going to be reluctant.  Also the bigger name director the more control they will want but the better marvel does the less control they will want to give.  However if they can't secure big names behind their movies, the quality will definitely suffer.

As others have said, they don't need big name actors or directors, just look at the people involved in the Winter Soldier. The Russos' prior directing experience outside of TV was "You, Me, and Dupree". The guys the wrote the screenplay had pretty much only done the Narnia movies before that. Even Chris Evans didn't have a huge amount of success (http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=chrisevans.htm) prior to doing these movies. James Gunn, the guy who wrote and directed Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't exactly have a stellar resume either.

Hell, it's not even like Edgar Wright was a big name director they needed to bend over backwards to hold onto. His highest grossing movie was Hot Fuzz which made $80 million worldwide. If I was one of the Marvel execs I'd probably be a bit worried that Ant Man would end up being another great Edgar Wright movie that nobody watched.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 25, 2014, 06:57:19 PM
These movies don't need "big name" directors. Few movies do. Look at who is directing blockbusters these days - you have Michael Bay, then a bunch of people you've never heard of. Godzilla is Gareth Edwards. Captain America is the Russo brothers.

What these sorts of movies needs is a professional, competent steward. The Marvel movies with big-name talent behind them have been no better than the others. (I'm thinking specifically of Iron Man 3 and Thor - I couldn't even watch Iron Man 3, first Marvel movie I just turned off) Much of the movies are determined before there is even a script written. That's just the nature of these sorts of films.

If Marvel was aiming for high art then this might be an issue, but Marvel is producing people-pleasing consumer goods.


Counterpoint, Nolan-batman


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on May 25, 2014, 07:32:03 PM
They need AT LEAST some range of aesthetics/directorial styles/approaches. A house style for every character, every movie, will get this killed immediately. I can see one "house Marvel" movie a year, not five. But five different movies in style and theme that happen to feature Marvel characters who might someday interact? I'm in.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on May 25, 2014, 09:28:17 PM
James Gunn posted this on his facebook page about the whole thing:



"Sometimes you have friends in a relationship. You love each of them dearly as individuals and think they're amazing people. When they talk to you about their troubles, you do everything you can to support them, to keep them together, because if you love them both so much doesn't it make sense they should love each other?

But little by little you realize, at heart, they aren't meant to be together - not because there's anything wrong with either of them, but they just don't have personalities that mesh in a comfortable way. They don't make each other happy. Although it's sad to see them split, when they do, you're surprisingly relieved, and excited to see where their lives take them next.

It's easy to try to make one party "right" and another party "wrong" when a breakup happens, but it often isn't that simple. Or perhaps it's even more simple than that - not everyone belongs in a relationship together. It doesn't mean they're not wonderful people.

And that's true of both Edgar Wright and Marvel. One of them isn't a person, but I think you get what I mean."


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on May 30, 2014, 03:25:50 PM
Word going around that Josh Brolin is "voicing" Thanos.  Which prolly means he's gonna be CGI Hulk-style.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 30, 2014, 04:15:27 PM
Word going around that Josh Brolin is "voicing" Thanos.  Which prolly means he's gonna be CGI Hulk-style.

I'm very much ok with this.  Thanos not looking like the huge fucking monster he is would bug me.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on May 30, 2014, 05:05:20 PM
Just an intersting conspiracy theory....

Bleeding Cool has a couple articles up that pretty much accuse Marvel of putting the characters they do not control in the movies in the can. 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/29/would-marvel-really-cancel-fantastic-four-to-snub-fox// (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/29/would-marvel-really-cancel-fantastic-four-to-snub-fox//)
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/23/reboots-guardians-and-no-more-mutants/ (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/23/reboots-guardians-and-no-more-mutants/)

I noted that the decision to replace Peter Parker with Doc Ock as Spider-man around the times of the new movies was an interesting choice....


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on May 30, 2014, 05:20:45 PM
The comics buying audience is so small these days that what Marvel does with its comics is pretty much irrelevant. The comics don't drive the movies and the movie successes don't rub off onto the comics.

The role of the comics when it comes to the movies is to build awareness and establish stories over a period of decades. Turning Peter Parker into Doc Ock for a year makes absolutely no difference. 99% of people watching the movies have no idea wtf is going on in the comics.

The FF has been considered a weak, troubled book for a very long time. The general consensus among comics pundits is that the series just doesn't work any more.

As far as leaving mutants off of covers and such - there has been a lot more crossover with X-Men and Avengers recently. There is a book that was about the Avengers and X-Men teaming up, and Wolverine was an Avenger. I think Spider-Man has also been more actively involved with the Avengers. So I don't buy that Marvel is trying to bury the Fox/Sony owned properties.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on May 30, 2014, 05:51:42 PM
I don't think Marvel cares too much.  Even if they got the properties back tomorrow, they already have a full plate with their current line up.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on May 30, 2014, 06:41:08 PM
I don't think Marvel cares too much.  Even if they got the properties back tomorrow, they already have a full plate with their current line up.
I'd strongly disagree.  If a magic wand was waved and they received the Fantastic Four, X-men and Spider-man rights back today, Marvel would be tearing up the plans they have spread out on their walls and looking for how they could incorporate those characters into their stable as quickly as possible.  If Spider-man reverted today, we'd see a Marvel run Spider-man on screen by 2019 - and yes, that is factoring in the very strong burn out factor for the overutilized character. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on May 30, 2014, 06:45:15 PM
Spider-man sure, but the FF? Nah.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on May 30, 2014, 07:53:37 PM
I don't think Marvel cares too much.  Even if they got the properties back tomorrow, they already have a full plate with their current line up.
I'd strongly disagree.  If a magic wand was waved and they received the Fantastic Four, X-men and Spider-man rights back today, Marvel would be tearing up the plans they have spread out on their walls and looking for how they could incorporate those characters into their stable as quickly as possible.  If Spider-man reverted today, we'd see a Marvel run Spider-man on screen by 2019 - and yes, that is factoring in the very strong burn out factor for the overutilized character. 

No offense but that doesn't sound like the Marvel Studios we have now.  Yes they would want them back, but why shoehorn them in right away.  Most of the viewing public wouldn't look at it as Marvel making their own Spidey movie.  It would be more like, Jesus Christ.. the third Spidey Reboot in 20 years? 

They would be better off doing what they are doing now, and then maybe in 10 years busting out another Spidey/X-men.  As popular as Spidey and the X-Men are.  They are making bank branding out new characters and they have faith with movie goers to keep doing that.  And seriously.. I am more than happy watching the Avengers, their solo movies, and upcoming things like Guardians then I am the other Marvel movies right now.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on May 30, 2014, 10:33:26 PM
They wouldn't need to do a full reboot.  Just let them cameo in other movies to establish they are around.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: SurfD on May 31, 2014, 01:48:13 AM
They wouldn't need to do a full reboot.  Just let them cameo in other movies to establish they are around.
Exactly this.   Having Peter Parker show up at a Tony Stark press conference to take photos for the Bugle, or name dropping / image dropping Exaviour's School for Gifted Youngsters / Baxter Building into upcoming movies would go a long way to easily establishing the existance of various people into the MCU without needing to throw out another character movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on May 31, 2014, 03:27:58 AM
Spider-man sure, but the FF? Nah.

Given that there are suggestions that the Inhumans are going to be added to the film stable, I'm pretty certain that Marvel would prioritise the Fantastic Four's inclusion if they could.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on May 31, 2014, 03:55:37 AM
That all somewhat conveniently skips over the fact that RDJ has been one of, if not the highest paid actor in recent years thanks mainly to playing Iron Man.

That's true, but only because he got in on the ground floor. He's the exception who got a better deal around Marvel needing him to play Iron Man (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/marvel-moolah-robert-downey-jr-avengers-iron-man-324639) and to act as the lynchpin for buiding up an eventual Avengers movie.

Quote
When Marvel’s Iron Man grossed a surprising $585 million worldwide in 2008, Downey’s reps at CAA and the Hansen Jacobson law firm renegotiated a deal to include what multiple sources say is a slice of Marvel’s revenue from future movies in which he plays Iron Man (one source puts it in the 5 percent to 7 percent range; another source disputes the percentage. Marvel and Downey’s reps declined comment).

As Marvel launched other hero pics that would lead up to Avengers, the studio struck hard bargains. Two sources say Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo all signed on for small upfront fees and ultimately will make about $2 million to $3 million on Avengers with bonuses. Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson, who signed deals to pop up in several Marvel movies, are said to be making about twice that for Avengers with bonuses.

In contrast, Downey picked up US$50m+ from "The Avengers". And then there's the talk that he renegotiated further after "Iron Man 3" when he was out of contract.

Yes, I know - I'd love to make US$2m from a single project too. But it's in context, RDJ is the only actor who's really making serious dollars from the Marvel films. Once Marvel Studios showed the films could be a success, they've played hardball with everyone else.

Which is working for now. But it also means that actors aren't likely to have much loyalty to Marvel Studios when it comes to contract renegotiation. Meanwhile directors (who get paid less than that) are finding that Marvel is increasingly binding their hands in terms of what they can do, which makes signing on to the pain of a blockbuster film even less worthwhile.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on May 31, 2014, 08:01:32 AM
Though now that those actors are known for the roles, their next contracts can be tougher negotiations.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on May 31, 2014, 08:21:37 AM
They're surely prepared for finding replacement actors for their characters, the question is whether they are going to do a piecemeal strategy or a clean slate one. I suspect the former because it would be bad business to bind yourself to the entire group of actors.

Downey's going to be the first one to get too old for the role (or have him acting as Tony and letting CGI take care of the action). We'll see what happens after Avengers 2 -- if Downey stars in an Iron Man 4, I expect him for Avengers 3, and that'll probably be it for him.

Downey did make an amazing deal and profited immensely from it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on May 31, 2014, 08:24:00 AM
When the multi film deals end Disney has plenty of other characters they can use instead, not even Iron Man has to be in every avengers episode. And honestly, who gives a fuck about Hawkeye?

For the actors the advantage of doing these movies is building their recognition levels so they rise up the pecking order for other movies. None were on the A List for pay before avengers, abd Downey only gets paid so highly because they didn't lock him in at the start.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on May 31, 2014, 12:22:08 PM
For the actors the advantage of doing these movies is building their recognition levels so they rise up the pecking order for other movies. None were on the A List for pay before avengers, abd Downey only gets paid so highly because they didn't lock him in at the start.

This. The actors will do their 2-3 movies, come out of it as bankable stars or at least as big enough names that they get plenty of other work and be a little richer in the bargain. Why wouldn't actors sign on for this? It's the perfect career move.

As for directors, there's no reason for an up and coming director NOT to do these films. Edgar Wright unfortunately doesn't NEED to do them - he's made a career off of smaller budget movies with more creative control. For guys that don't have that, taking a job on a Marvel movie means they'll likely get paid AND get more work either from Marvel or somewhere else because they were involved with a big budget success. Until the box office magic goes away (and it doesn't really show any signs of letting up for at least 2-3 more years), it's great work if you can get it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MahrinSkel on May 31, 2014, 02:49:58 PM
They're surely prepared for finding replacement actors for their characters, the question is whether they are going to do a piecemeal strategy or a clean slate one. I suspect the former because it would be bad business to bind yourself to the entire group of actors.

Downey's going to be the first one to get too old for the role (or have him acting as Tony and letting CGI take care of the action). We'll see what happens after Avengers 2 -- if Downey stars in an Iron Man 4, I expect him for Avengers 3, and that'll probably be it for him.

Downey did make an amazing deal and profited immensely from it.
He also did an amazing job, and Marvel profited immensely from it.  You could easily argue that the whole Marvel master plan has only worked because RDJ's Iron Man was such an awesome character, people were willing to transfer that perception to the rest of the stable.

Look at Thor and Captain America's first movies, or either of the attempts at Hulk.  Without RDJ knocking it out of the park, would we even be having this conversation?  Or would we be talking about how it would be cool if they stopped making one-off superhero movies and tied together the whole mileau, like X-Men but with more than just Wolverine getting a solo turn?

--Dave


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on May 31, 2014, 02:57:50 PM
Er, every time I hear people comparing Thor and Cap poorly to Iron Man, I really, really wonder what the fuck.

Both Thor and Iron Man were fantastic translations of comic guff to a mainstream audience.  I would argue that both the leads were just as good as RDJ, frankly, who really only had to play himself.  Again.

Hulk, of course, differs wildly and is a fair target.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Teleku on May 31, 2014, 03:37:08 PM
I actually liked the second hulk movie.  Not sure why it gets so much flak.  I mean, it wasn't like it was a really great movie or anything, but it also did a good job of channeling 'comic book hulk' onto the screen, and I mostly had fun following along.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on May 31, 2014, 04:07:56 PM
Yes, but  it was entirely confused in the focus, mostly due to the first one.  Also, Abomination wasn't really all that interesting really.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on June 01, 2014, 07:49:19 AM
Er, every time I hear people comparing Thor and Cap poorly to Iron Man, I really, really wonder what the fuck.

I find both "Thor" and "Captain America" to be very thin films, at least in terms of keeping my interest. I can certainly pick at "Iron Man" but RDJ and Jeff Bridges make that film a lot more interesting.

Marvel Studios' current strategy is great in the short term, and they've proved it works. Will they really be able to keep making films 10+ years into the future if they keep it up? I'm not sure they will. As I said, it reminds me of how they used to treat their comic book staff - "Screw you guys, you're work for hire, no-one cares who writes and inks Spider-Man provided the comics keep coming out." It's not a great way to keep talent on board.

OTOH, I do see them basically building in 'back-ups' for their characters. RDJ steps out, Don Cheadle can be War Machine in the Avengers. Chris Evans trying to push harder on a deal? Sebastian Stan can take over.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on June 01, 2014, 08:01:41 AM
Er, every time I hear people comparing Thor and Cap poorly to Iron Man, I really, really wonder what the fuck.

This.

And also, given everyone has rightly pointed out that IM2, IM3, and Thor 2 were all somewhere between not great and terrible, if you didn't like Captain America and Thor, you'd basically be saying Marvel have made 2 or 3 good films from 8 attempts.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Teleku on June 01, 2014, 08:05:42 AM
People have been pointing out that Thor 2 wasn't very good?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on June 01, 2014, 08:07:35 AM
The only way to solve this will be for everyone to list out which Marvel films they liked and which ones they didn't, and eventually we'll come to an amicable consensus.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on June 01, 2014, 08:36:03 AM
*plants his flag* I like 'em all!  Come at me bro's!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on June 01, 2014, 08:49:32 AM
A > IM > T > CA > CA2 >>>>>> IM3 > IM2 > T2


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 01, 2014, 08:51:00 AM
...wut?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 01, 2014, 08:55:05 AM
The only way to solve this will be for everyone to list out which Marvel films they liked and which ones they didn't, and eventually we'll come to an amicable consensus.

See, that's actually kind of my point.  Not a lot of people quote stats or box office or bums on seats or anything tangible.  It's usually 'I didn't like it as much' which, in the grand scheme of things, means fuckall.  Sure, none of the other stats mean much either (see:  Star Wars), but at least it attempts to compare like for like.

I would actually argue that both Thor and Cap were much more IMPORTANT films for the Avengers setup than Iron Man 1 or 2 ever was, since they had stuff that tied directly into the story, but whatever.  People LIKE RDJ despite his somewhat average acting chops on display in the Marvel films and that counts for more to most.  I didn't find Thor to be 'thin' at all, coming at it, as it did, in the Shakespearean Mould and I thought that for what should have been utter bilge, Captain America ended up being far cleverer and MUCH more endearing than one could ever hope for.  Also, everyone involved took it Seriously, which has helped every single Marvel Movie in the new mould.

If you look at the DC attempts and what the 'real' people have said off camera, you really get the feeling that the reason they Can't seem to do it, versus Marvel 'yes we can' is simply due to that fact ;  They hire people who want to do it Seriously, as opposed to the 'Hey, who here's been laid' crowd at DC.

Though if we're going to go on personal preference on actors, I would posit that putting that horrendous bitch in as Pepper Potts pretty much ruined all the Iron Man movies and Avengers.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on June 01, 2014, 08:56:13 AM
Liked:                                         
Hell Yeah!: A,  IM, T
Yeah!: CA, CA2
Worth seeing in the movies:  T2
Worth seeing: IM2, IM3

Didn't Like:
Doh:
WTF?!:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on June 01, 2014, 09:08:49 AM
Also, everyone involved took it Seriously, which has helped every single Marvel Movie in the new mould.

IM3?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on June 01, 2014, 12:37:35 PM
Of all the Avengers-tied Marvel movies, I enjoyed them all but the weakest were clearly IM 3 and Thor 2. At least IM3 had RDJ hamming it up as Tony Stark while Thor's most redeeming feature was Tom Hiddlestone's Loki. The other films were really good with Winter Soldier being a little better than Avengers, IMO.

The thing about the Thor and Captain America movies is that they should not have worked. The first Thor movie I especially give a lot of credit because I thought there was NO WAY those characters would make a translatable film that non-geeks liked that also didn't utterly piss off comic geeks and Thor fans. But it did, which is why the second felt so bland in comparison. I enjoyed it but it was mostly forgettable save Loki's bits. Captain America is a character that can so easily be badly written and badly played into the most boring Boy Scout in the world, but thanks to the framework set up by Brubaker (and to a lesser extent Mark Waid) in the previous decade's worth of Captain America's books, it wasn't. The directors and screenwriters took the material they were basing it on very seriously and it showed.

You don't have to be a fan of the comics to make good comics movies. You just have to respect that the material is being made into a movie for a reason - it's popular because there have been some stories told over the years that people like. You don't have to cater to the geeks and the nerd rage, but treating them with disdain is a sure fire way to make a movie that appeals to no one.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on June 01, 2014, 12:48:10 PM
The only way to solve this will be for everyone to list out which Marvel films they liked and which ones they didn't, and eventually we'll come to an amicable consensus.

See, that's actually kind of my point.  Not a lot of people quote stats or box office or bums on seats or anything tangible.  It's usually 'I didn't like it as much' which, in the grand scheme of things, means fuckall.  Sure, none of the other stats mean much either (see:  Star Wars), but at least it attempts to compare like for like.

Box office-wise Cap 1 and Thor 1 weren't particularly successful. Even without adjusting for inflation or 3D or taking into account the growth of the worldwide market, Cap's worldwide numbers are right around those of X-men Origins: Wolverine and Fantastic Four. Adjusted for inflation, Cap 1 was about as successful domestically as the first Hulk movie. Thor 1 was only marginally more successful than Cap 1.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 01, 2014, 01:02:24 PM
Ouch !

 :grin:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on June 01, 2014, 02:21:39 PM
The only way to solve this will be for everyone to list out which Marvel films they liked and which ones they didn't, and eventually we'll come to an amicable consensus.

See, that's actually kind of my point.  Not a lot of people quote stats or box office or bums on seats or anything tangible.  It's usually 'I didn't like it as much' which, in the grand scheme of things, means fuckall.  Sure, none of the other stats mean much either (see:  Star Wars), but at least it attempts to compare like for like.


Box office-wise Cap 1 and Thor 1 weren't particularly successful. Even without adjusting for inflation or 3D or taking into account the growth of the worldwide market, Cap's worldwide numbers are right around those of X-men Origins: Wolverine and Fantastic Four. Adjusted for inflation, Cap 1 was about as successful domestically as the first Hulk movie. Thor 1 was only marginally more successful than Cap 1.

Marvel took the risk with those movies.  They knew they weren't going to be box office smashes, but look at how much the sequels brought in.  Even X-Men didn't bring in huge money when it came out.  Also don't forget those movies led to Avengers and that shit made bank.  The Amount of money that Avengers made alone would have funded 8-9 Marvel movies.  I guess the real test now is how Guardians does.  It'll be interesting to see if the goodwill that Marvel has with moviegoers will get them into the theaters.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on June 01, 2014, 10:46:27 PM
"Avengers" being as successful as it was took pretty much everyone by surprise. Up to that point, Marvel Studio's success was based on how well the Iron Man films did, with "Thor", "Hulk" and "Captain America" not reaching that level.

Also, I enjoyed IM3 for the fact that it's done something new and interesting with the Marvel characters, and that it's a Shane Black film. "Thor 2" (and "Thor", for that matter) were enjoyable for Loki above all else.

"GotG" is indeed the acid test for Marvel Studios. Will Han Solo: The Movie bring people in to watch it?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: SurfD on June 02, 2014, 12:12:01 AM
I am willing to bet that a big chunk of their momentum with the movies may revolve around the fact that, at this stage in the game, pretty much everybody with a functioning brain knows that they are deliberately building each movie to tie into a larger overall storyline, so even though they are different movies, with different characters, many people may go to watch them just to see what the next building block in the story shapes up to be.   It's like Marvel has distilled the essence of attraction of sequels down, and then spread it through the entire MCU.  As long as they dont fuck up somewhere major, that alone will have enough draw to keep them rolling in enough cash to keep the whole ball rolling for years to come.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on June 02, 2014, 12:27:39 AM
At this point Ant-Man may be the hiccup in the machine.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 02, 2014, 03:23:39 AM

Also, I enjoyed IM3 for the fact that it's done something new and interesting with the Marvel characters, and that it's a Shane Black film.


Can you expand on this ?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 02, 2014, 10:52:22 AM
I think Marvel has blown Sony, Fox, Paramount, etc... out of the water in terms of telling great Comic Book movie stories.  I used to have high praise for Raimi's Spider-man and for the first 2 X-films, but when I rewatched them fairly recently, they felt very flat compared to what Marvel has achieved.  The X-films and Raimi's Spider-man get a lot of things right, but the things that they get wrong are the things that Marvel would never accept. 

Historically, Marvel's biggest sellers have been the mutant books.  The biggest solo character was Spider-man.  That was why other studios bought up the rights to those characters and are holding onto them for dear life.  The only reason the Avengers side of things is so big right now is that Marvel has handled it very well in the movies.  If Marvel had a chance to get back mutants, Spidey or FF, there should be no doubt it would be a game changer for them and they'd immediately start folding them into their plans.  As their plans take years to go from inkling to release, it would be 2018 (at the earliest) before a film was released if they obtain the characters today - but there is no doubt they'd cut the current plans off the walls at Marvel's office and revise them to include the characters that have been at the core of their long term success.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 02, 2014, 11:46:51 AM
First class and DOFP are both solid films, you can argue amazing spider man, dc movies all you like but at least this next gen of x movies are doing it right.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on June 02, 2014, 12:59:19 PM
I couldn't watch IM3. It was super boring and the cinematography was awful. It looked like a made-for-TV movie in many ways. The entire thing also had a very been there, done that vibe.

If they make another IM they really need to shake things up. Have something happen in the first few minutes that changes the status quo.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on June 02, 2014, 06:02:20 PM
I couldn't watch IM3. ...... The entire thing also had a very been there, done that vibe.

Completely agree - and I don't really understand why people are surprised after 3 movies that this is the case, or think that Thor and CA will be in any different state, or even that  the avengers will stand up to it if they don't swap some characters out.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 02, 2014, 06:56:01 PM
I couldn't watch IM3. ...... The entire thing also had a very been there, done that vibe.

Completely agree - and I don't really understand why people are surprised after 3 movies that this is the case, or think that Thor and CA will be in any different state, or even that  the avengers will stand up to it if they don't swap some characters out.
 
Cap 3 has things they can wrap up though and the ending of Thor 2 leaves the way open for a MUCH better movie than the second.  The iron man movies while not bad were very villain of the week with no real running thread between them.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on June 02, 2014, 10:17:10 PM
With Thor you can pretty much do anything with alternate dimension, space, whatever. He can go on an adventure that can be almost anything.

All the Iron Man movies take place in the same basic locale with the same characters. That's a big part of why they feel samey. The first 30 minutes of IM3 is him in his mansion, messing with his robots, talking to Jarvis, talking to Gwyneth Paltrow - stuff we've all seen before.

Cap 1 and 2 took place in different time period, and Thor fairly different locales.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 02, 2014, 10:48:31 PM
Agreed but what I'm saying is if there were some over-arching theme to iron man 1-3 to tie them all together it would have done wonders but even after the second one I'm not sure if they knew there would ever be a trilogy.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2014, 03:37:32 AM
They also didn't tie into The Avengers at all and it stuck out like a sore thumb, especially the 3rd one.  It was one of the main complaints.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on June 03, 2014, 09:42:26 AM
I read the link as being RDJ was sad because he saved the world and decided to stop being iron man.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 03, 2014, 10:28:12 AM
First class and DOFP are both solid films, you can argue amazing spider man, dc movies all you like but at least this next gen of x movies are doing it right.
First class and DoFP are fine, but the problems that are there are things that Marvel has been very good at avoiding.  I could break it down in details, but I'd best summarize it as:  The thing the MCU has that the X-films lack is the soul of the comics.  There are just too many little things that are off in the X-films that they nail in the MCU.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on June 03, 2014, 11:17:57 AM
They also didn't tie into The Avengers at all and it stuck out like a sore thumb, especially the 3rd one.  It was one of the main complaints.

The third Iron Man was full of Tony having PTSD from the stuff that happened in Avengers.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2014, 01:30:37 PM
Yeah, sure, mentioning 'hey shit happened to me' is one thing :  I'm talking about the links that tied it into the greater Universe, like, oh, I dunno, a Terrorist threat to kidnap and murder the president and where was Shield ?  Where were all his Avenger mates when his house was being shelled to fuck ?  Why was this guy suddenly running solo (and being quite crap at it).

And other problems, like what the fuck was up with him recharging a fucking arc reactor with a car battery.  (Sorry, sorry, sorry, I just can't get over how fucking shitty that movie was, the battery bit in particular...)

Look at Cap 2 and Thor 2 and the tie in was far, far, far greater and worked much better because of it, even if the story on Thor 2 was technically weaker.

Iron Man 1, 2 and 3 are not only divorced from the greater whole far too much, they're also quite divorced from each other.  If you'd moved from Iron Man 1 to 3 without watching 2, would you have missed ANYTHING ?  Explanation as to why Pepper is in charge, maybe, but that's it.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. You've got me monologue-ing.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on June 03, 2014, 01:53:42 PM
The Avengers were busy saving a cat from a tree.

These movies do have that problem in a way the comics don't. In the comics "they were busy doing something else" actually works because the busy people are busy in their own books, or even if they aren't the idea that they are busy is plausible because there's just so much going on in such a sprawling universe.

The world of the movies is much tighter and more focused - there aren't a million other established threats that could be keeping the rest of the Avengers occupied.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2014, 01:57:19 PM
If you want to look at it purely through that lens :  Where the hell was SHIELD ?

And don't give me 'they were too busy being HYDRA'.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 03, 2014, 01:59:40 PM
I'm not even talking about the movie universe, i just wish the iron man movies had some sort of internal continuity.  Each iron man movie can be viewed independently of the others and nothing is lost.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2014, 02:04:05 PM
Yeah, that's what I said.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on June 03, 2014, 02:15:28 PM
To be fair, Thor wouldn't have been available in IM3 because he was off world. The others and SHIELD... yeah, you got a point. It's one I can handwave away with "comics" but I can see where it'd be an issue. Of course, the problems with IM3 were bigger than that (and I say this as someone who enjoyed IM3 despite its flaws).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on June 03, 2014, 03:24:53 PM
While IM3 has many flaws, the weirdest to me was how they handled the Mandarin. They seemed to set him up so very well, right until they provided the twist and what?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2014, 03:46:04 PM
Ach, that wouldn't have been so bad except for the smooshing of extremis and Mandarin.  Having them BOTH be the same guy was a bit shitey.

If Killian had been the Mandarin mastermind in the background, you'd have been ok with it, since it would make sense as an 'update' (even tho it's a bit white-washy).  However, having him be the Mandarin and also the head of AIM and also the Extremis Firebreathing Nutjob was a little...much.

Hey ho.  Bad film was bad.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 03, 2014, 04:24:30 PM
We have not yet seen the Mandarin, but they have established he exists.  I imagine that if we see him, it will either be:

1.) In IM IV - in 2020 (first IM post RDJ) or so,
2.) In MAoS - he'd be a good foe for the agency for a season, or
3.) In Avengers III as a member of the Masters of Evil.

I think they wasted Extremis, but the Mandarin twist was fine in my books.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2014, 04:28:48 PM
Killian was The Mandarin.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 03, 2014, 04:32:42 PM
Killian was The Mandarin.
No.  Killian claimed to be the Mandarin in the film ... but it is 100% established in All Hail the King that Killian was not the Mandarin.  Interviews with Feige, the writers and director of the short and IM III also confirm that the intention was that the real Mandarin was out there in the world... and would not be happy about Slattery's portrayal.

http://marvel.wikia.com/Marvel_One-Shot:_All_Hail_the_King (http://marvel.wikia.com/Marvel_One-Shot:_All_Hail_the_King)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2014, 04:34:37 PM
Still bullshit.

Ironically, bullshit that makes IM3 an even bigger pile of bullshit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 03, 2014, 04:45:21 PM
Still bullshit.

Ironically, bullshit that makes IM3 an even bigger pile of bullshit.

I dunno, isn't ret-conning bad decisions the most comic booky thing they can do?   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 03, 2014, 04:48:30 PM
Still bullshit.

Ironically, bullshit that makes IM3 an even bigger pile of bullshit.
I think there is a wide gap between bullshit and IM III, but I was very disappointed that it did not come close to my very high expectations.

Personally, I think IM III's problems is why Wright is off Ant-man.  IM III failed to reach full potential because it was more of a sequel to Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang than it was a sequel to prior Iron Man movies.  Black made one of 'his' movies, and it did not fit in correctly with what Marvel was trying to do.  They tried to compromise, and what they ended up with were some tensions in the film where the Marvel style and the Black style didn't mesh - and they couldn't get them to play together.

The way I'm reading Wright's departure, especially after Gunn's comments on the subject, is that Marvel looked at what went wrong with IM III and saw it going on again in Ant-man.  If they made Wright's film, it would not fit with the MCU or their future goals for the character.  They took the script and had it rewritten to keep the Marvel feel and preserve their goals for the character - at the expense of what made the film a Wright film (and seemingly failed to take it in a good direction).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 03, 2014, 04:52:43 PM
Still bullshit.

Ironically, bullshit that makes IM3 an even bigger pile of bullshit.
I think there is a wide gap between bullshit and IM III, but I was very disappointed that it did not come close to my very high expectations.

Personally, I think IM III's problems is why Wright is off Ant-man.  IM III failed to reach full potential because it was more of a sequel to Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang than it was a sequel to prior Iron Man movies.  Black made one of 'his' movies, and it did not fit in correctly with what Marvel was trying to do.  They tried to compromise, and what they ended up with were some tensions in the film where the Marvel style and the Black style didn't mesh - and they couldn't get them to play together.

The way I'm reading Wright's departure, especially after Gunn's comments on the subject, is that Marvel looked at what went wrong with IM III and saw it going on again in Ant-man.  If they made Wright's film, it would not fit with the MCU or their future goals for the character.  They took the script and had it rewritten to keep the Marvel feel and preserve their goals for the character - at the expense of what made the film a Wright film (and seemingly failed to take it in a good direction).

Now THAT is bullshit.  Black's style had nothing to do with that trainwreck of a script.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2014, 04:56:37 PM
Still bullshit.

Ironically, bullshit that makes IM3 an even bigger pile of bullshit.

I dunno, isn't ret-conning bad decisions the most comic booky thing they can do?   :why_so_serious:

Needs more Cable.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on June 03, 2014, 05:39:02 PM
Shane Black didn't write a good movie, then he didn't direct it well either. I don't think that has much to do with a clashing of styles.

He and his writing partner were on an episode of The Q & A Podcast. (I think that was the podcast) It sounded like they got to do pretty much what they wanted - they just failed. The ideas that they had just weren't good and weren't well-executed.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 03, 2014, 05:51:45 PM
...Now THAT is bullshit.  Black's style had nothing to do with that trainwreck of a script.
I love KKBB.  That is my first example of an underappreciated movie whenever someone talks about them.  

However, the stylistic elements of KKBB do not mesh with the rest of the summer blockbuster that is IM III.  They did not mesh - and Marvel knew it.  There were a lot of interviews prior to the movie discussing how Marvel guided him.... read between the lines and you get a pretty clear story.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/apr/19/shane-black-iron-man-3 (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/apr/19/shane-black-iron-man-3)
http://www.movieweb.com/news/exclusive-shane-black-and-kevin-feige-talk-iron-man-3 (http://www.movieweb.com/news/exclusive-shane-black-and-kevin-feige-talk-iron-man-3)

Bonus: Dr. Strange has a director - and I like the direction it might go so far.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/marvels-dr-strange-hires-director-scott-derrickson-exclusive-1201173055/# (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/marvels-dr-strange-hires-director-scott-derrickson-exclusive-1201173055/#)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on June 03, 2014, 06:00:35 PM
I would laugh my ass off if Ben Kingsley's character IS the Mandarin posing as not-Mandarin to get a read on the competition first-hand.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 03, 2014, 08:21:50 PM
I did not realize Black had a writing credit on IM3 but I still hold that the directing style was not the issue, it was a script that was filled with terrible decisions top to bottom.  It was redeemed only by cool action and RDJ as not being terrible but whose idea was it really, to have an iron man movie where he's never in the suit?  I get that this was about not needing the suit to be iron man but you'd think they could save that for the third act.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on June 03, 2014, 08:49:20 PM
I would laugh my ass off if Ben Kingsley's character IS the Mandarin posing as not-Mandarin to get a read on the competition first-hand.

That was my hope as well.  He'd be the LAST person they suspect now.  As for not enough Tony in the suit I agree.  I realize they were saying TS is the superhero, not the suit, but I wanted more IM.

I enjoy IM3, but it just doesn't jell totally. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 03, 2014, 11:10:16 PM
And Pepper saving the day with Mary Sue extremis bullshit was beyond dumb.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: SurfD on June 03, 2014, 11:41:54 PM
I would laugh my ass off if Ben Kingsley's character IS the Mandarin posing as not-Mandarin to get a read on the competition first-hand.
Appearently, if we take the Marvel One Shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_One-Shots#All_Hail_the_King_.282014.29) minis as MCU cannon, Kingsley's charcter is not the Mandarin, and interestingly enough, Aldrich Killian wasn't either! (regardless of what he claimed in IM 3.)

So we may see an actual Mandarin with special rings yet.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2014, 04:00:31 AM
Bloodworth day again.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2014, 04:02:50 AM
I did not realize Black had a writing credit on IM3 but I still hold that the directing style was not the issue, it was a script that was filled with terrible decisions top to bottom.  It was redeemed only by cool action and RDJ as not being terrible but whose idea was it really, to have an iron man movie where he's never in the suit?  I get that this was about not needing the suit to be iron man but you'd think they could save that for the third act.

And the suits were utter bullshit too.  65 really cool suits, all of which appeared at the end and pretty much did fuck all except explode.  The coolest suit fell into bits at every point throughout the film and frankly the telekinetic BULLSHIT may have looked good, but was actually fucking retarded.

Also, The Silver Centurion (my favourite suit EVER) wasn't really silver enough, didn't look as cool as it should have and Killian tore it into fucking bits the minute it was on the screen.

GAH THIS MOVIE MAKES ME ANGRY.

And what the FUCK was up with the Cisco Internet Van Scene.  What the almighty FUCK.  Ok, Mexican Scott Baio line was funny, but JESUS WEPT.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Father mike on June 04, 2014, 11:24:58 AM
It was a massive product placement that they didn't have the decency to even thinly lamp-shade.

just like the "Oracle Grid" in IM2.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2014, 04:11:03 PM
Refresh my memory, what was the Oracle Grid again ?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Father mike on June 04, 2014, 04:49:51 PM
It was nothing!   :awesome_for_real:

Originally, Oracle had a huge product placement that consisted of every time Jarvis looked up something or did something cool, there would be a line of dialog about "accessing the Oracle Grid", or "Need more computational power -- to the Oracle grid!"  Needless to say, this got incredibly grating very rapidly, so they cut a lot of it out (down to one reference, maybe when Stark was modeling the atoms from the map?) and had the final fight in the Oracle-branded bioshphere.

There was a reference to it in IM3 when Stark was looking at the map for the suspicious explosions, "Jarvis, access the Oracle grid" or some such.   It's not a thing you would notice unless you play product placements Bingo.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 04, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
I think most of us get it, now, but here is the breakdown of the Mandarin twist after factoring in everything we know:

Killian's Extremis experiments were making people blow up.  Realizing that these explosions were going to draw attention, he came up the idea of covering it up with a fake terrorist.  He had some people do some research and hired an actor to play the role of his terrorist.  His researchers based the terrorist character on various rumors and stereotypes - primarily on the vague rumors of the Mandarin.  They give the actor some surgery and tats, and have him claim responsibility for all the explosions.  Iron Man busts it up, Killian is killed, and the actor goes to jail.  The real Mandarin decides that he has some nefarious use for the actor that pretended to be him and busts him out.  Now we get to see if they pick up on the thread they've dangled ... and unless it is in MAoS, it doesn't seem to be something that will happen soon.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 05, 2014, 03:13:38 AM
Here is the breakdown factoring in everything we know.

Writers and directors went wildly off message with their own personal brand of bullshit.  The head heidyins at Marvel thought 'wait a fucking minute, we okayed this, but it's actually all bullshit and we might actually wanna use Mandarin at some point because what the fuck else we going to do with Iron Man, bring Blacklash back ??'   So they ginned up another wee short full of their own bullshit and fed it to fucking morons.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: SurfD on June 05, 2014, 03:18:40 AM
Eh, I wouldnt be that harsh.

I mean, the Ten Rings were an established terrorist group, mentioned by name, in IM 1.  It isn't too hard of a stretch to accept that Killian latched on to them as a cover front for his own shit.   It would be much like some shady group in America creating their own Fake taliban network an using it to cover up things they were doing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 05, 2014, 03:34:28 AM
My point being 'stretching' shouldn't even be at fucking issue here.

In everything else there's been a plan and a long game.

They dropped the ball here, don't try to cover it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on June 05, 2014, 03:56:53 AM
My point being 'stretching' shouldn't even be at fucking issue here.

In everything else there's been a plan and a long game.

They dropped the ball here, don't try to cover it.


The plan was "we've been setting up the Mandarin, but the box office numbers in China are rapidly growing and if our villain is a raging racial caricature they won't let us release there". In that respect they didn't drop the ball regardless of what some of us comic fans think. The focus they put on the Chinese market for IM3 (touting that they had made a special version with added scenes for China) got them $121 million compared to the combined $23 million the first two movies made in China. Mentioning in the One Shot that there is an actual Mandarin is just throwing comic fans a bone and I'd be very surprised to ever see him show up in the movies (unless they once again drastically change him).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 05, 2014, 04:01:44 AM
I'm not a comic fan, really.

But that's an interesting take on it though.  Hadn't considered that. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on June 05, 2014, 05:07:12 AM
At the time of im1 I'm fairly sure there was a hope, not a plan.

10 rings in the first film was likely just part of the nerd reference sprinkling all these films get after the actual story is locked in.

IM3 is just a bad film with some funny bits. It happens.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 05, 2014, 07:20:02 AM
Dude.  The presence of a real Mandarin is laid out in IM III, but it isn't a single line of text.  You have to put the facts together... and everything Velorath said is true as well. 

Lack of faith is common, but in this case, it is not deserved.  The plan was always to have this be a fake Mandarin while a real Mandarin lurked in the background. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on June 05, 2014, 07:52:27 AM
My problems are simpler - when Sir Ben is playing the Mandarin he does a really good job of it (in the short time we see that).  Who are they going to get to be a better Mandarin then Sir Ben?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 05, 2014, 07:52:35 AM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Teleku on June 05, 2014, 08:50:55 AM
At the time of im1 I'm fairly sure there was a hope, not a plan.

10 rings in the first film was likely just part of the nerd reference sprinkling all these films get after the actual story is locked in.
I went to the Marvel movie panel at Comicon in....2005 or 2006, can't remember exactly.  Anyways, the big announcement that Jon Favreau made on stage was that the Mandarin was going to be the villain in the film.  Though I guess that didn't work out.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 05, 2014, 10:41:54 AM
...I went to the Marvel movie panel at Comicon in....2005 or 2006, can't remember exactly.  Anyways, the big announcement that Jon Favreau made on stage was that the Mandarin was going to be the villain in the film.  Though I guess that didn't work out.   :awesome_for_real:
That is also confirmed in some of the special features.  Mandarin was planned to be the original baddie, but Favreau was uncomfortable with the traditional characterization of the Mandarin, and backed off.  He replaced the Mandarin with Obadiah Stane as the major villain, but kept the 10 Rings organization in the film to set up the Mandarin in a sequel once they knew how to do him.  Mandarin was also discussed for IM II, but Favreau was still uncomfortable with the idea.  He did, however, also include the 10 Rings organization in IM II - if you look carefully at the neck ink of the guy that hands Vanko the travel documents that get him to Monaco.  I don't recall if it is the novelization or something else, but it is also hinted that the group that Hammer hires to break Vanko out in Monaco is the 10 Rings.

If you dig into the other junk that goes along with the movies - comic book 'preludes' and novel adaptions, there is a lot more Mandarin. 

If you watch IM I, the leader of the 10 Rings cell fondles a ring.  In the novel adaption of IM I, it is spelled out that this is a 'fire ring' that belongs to his (nameless) master. 

There is a comic book 'prelude' to IM III in which War Machine is lured into a 10 rings trap.  They try to steal his armor.  They fail, but they are able to scan it. 

It is all out there. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on June 05, 2014, 11:14:25 AM
Mandarin will be an alien, and thus his overtly racist portrayal from the comics won't be racist as all. It'll be speciest... or xenophobic. Or something.

Fuck it. Just bring in Fu Manchu.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on June 05, 2014, 12:24:28 PM
'The Mandarin' is nothing of the sort, he is actually Mongolian and English, not Chinese at all.  Fucking Brits with gaudy rings ruin everything!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 05, 2014, 12:29:12 PM
You leave my ring alone mate.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on June 05, 2014, 12:55:27 PM
At the time of im1 I'm fairly sure there was a hope, not a plan.

10 rings in the first film was likely just part of the nerd reference sprinkling all these films get after the actual story is locked in.
I went to the Marvel movie panel at Comicon in....2005 or 2006, can't remember exactly.  Anyways, the big announcement that Jon Favreau made on stage was that the Mandarin was going to be the villain in the film.  Though I guess that didn't work out.   :awesome_for_real:

Well there you go then, a left over nerd reference from an earlier script rather than pure bone throwing. I'll buy that sooner than some convoluted reference to film Disney were planning to make 20 years later.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on June 05, 2014, 01:28:36 PM
You leave my ring alone mate.

lol,  :heart:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 05, 2014, 02:32:59 PM
...I'll buy that sooner than some convoluted reference to film Disney were planning to make 20 years later.
The Marvel movie plan only covers the next 14 years... don't exaggerate.  ;D

I'd be shocked right now if Feige didn't know where the Mandarin will next appear.  I'm betting that he may make his first appearance on S.H.I.E.L.D. next year.  If IM IV is not announced to come before Avengers III, which would be a shock to everyone at this point, I'm betting they use the setup from th movies and one-shots on TV. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 06, 2014, 08:04:32 AM
...I'll buy that sooner than some convoluted reference to film Disney were planning to make 20 years later.
The Marvel movie plan only covers the next 14 years... don't exaggerate.  ;D

I'd be shocked right now if Feige didn't know where the Mandarin will next appear.  I'm betting that he may make his first appearance on S.H.I.E.L.D. next year.  If IM IV is not announced to come before Avengers III, which would be a shock to everyone at this point, I'm betting they use the setup from th movies and one-shots on TV. 

I don't dislike you so take this in the spirit in which it's intended but every time your fanboy overcomes your common sense I laugh.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 06, 2014, 08:28:50 AM
Ditto.

Well, kinda.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 06, 2014, 03:43:23 PM
You find it funny when I'm a 'fanboy', I find it hilarious when people hold to their pessimism despite facts that show them to be wrong...  We both enjoy the forums.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on June 06, 2014, 04:03:01 PM
The giggle hits just keep coming.

The Facts.  Did Schild advertise for someone to take over the WUA role ?

The dude quoted your own 'betting supposition' and you're going on about 'THE FACTS'.

Like a retard.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 06, 2014, 07:00:57 PM
Dude. Don't give me high ground by using retard as an insult. Not cool.

I was referring to the history above in this thread where some people claim there was obviously no plan... and there is evidence of the plan available with 5 seconds of Google search.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on June 07, 2014, 02:43:59 AM

Also, I enjoyed IM3 for the fact that it's done something new and interesting with the Marvel characters, and that it's a Shane Black film.


Can you expand on this ?

Sure.

In spite of everything said previously here, I thought what they did with the Mandarin was clever. It wasn't something that was seen coming and was a genuine departure from the comics.

That Marvel Studios now wants to walk it back perhaps shouldn't surprise me.

Also, IM3 was the first Marvel film to show a character reacting psychologically to all the superhero-size things that happen in the movies. Stark isn't in control of everything (including himself) in IM3 and is stripped back somewhat, which means he has to be more resourceful.

And as I said, I like Shane Black films. Having Stark banter with goons was something I enjoyed.

It's not a perfect film of course, but narratively it's a long way ahead of pretty much every other Marvel Studios film other than "Captain America: Winter Soldier".


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Soulflame on June 08, 2014, 10:46:18 PM
If the Mandarin in IM3 wasn't the real Mandarin, it wouldn't surprise me much.  I speculated a bit with my wife at the end of IM3 that he was not, in fact, the real Mandarin.

If I'm not mistaken, the Mandarin is one of IM's primary antagonists.  For them to wrap him up in one movie, as a fake, seems unlikely.  Particularly since there were references to him in the first two movies, where he was the driving force, way in the background, that got things rolling for IM to deal with.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on June 08, 2014, 10:53:42 PM

I guess I'm the only one who's more upset over AIM than Mandarin. HYDRA pretty much has that niche covered in the MCU, so I guess it's not a big deal.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on June 09, 2014, 02:50:52 AM
I gave zero fucks about AIM, Extremis, or the Mandarin, but thought Tony Stark forgetting he had an arc reactor strapped to his chest (despite this being iron man's signature power) was fucking stupid. Also, the 8 year old was fucking stupid. Also, the incompetent bodyguard stark suddenly cares about was fucking stupid. Also, Stark being all screwed up from Avengers despite nothing bad happening to him was fucking stupid. Also, the throw away 'meh, I fixed myself' at the end was unearned and fucking stupid. Also, realising they had forgotten to give the antagonist a plan other than 'be nasty to Tony' then throwing something together with a couple of lines of dialog at the start of the third act was fucking stupid.

But it did have a few good lines.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Soulflame on June 09, 2014, 03:20:26 PM
He carried a nuclear weapon out of NYC that was almost a one way trip into some other space where he would have certainly died.  As it was, he just barely made it back through, and the only thing that saved him from certain death was the Hulk catching him.  On top of having his tech and building used to open a hole in time and space that allowed an alien species to shoot the fuck out of NYC.

I think some PTSD is warranted for all of that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 16, 2014, 02:45:41 PM
IM III starts with Stark having been working on suits for 3 days without sleep according to Jarvis.  When he has his first anxiety attack in the movie, he thinks he is poisoned and runs to Jarvis for a diagnosis.  That shows he had not experienced such an attack prior to the start of the movie - which takes place several months after the events of Avengers.  Yes, the events of the Avengers have messed him up and given him some sleepless nights and bad dreams, but things didn't really peak until the time of IM III and his stupid decison to play with his toys instead of sleeping.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on June 16, 2014, 04:36:15 PM
When he has his first anxiety attack in the movie, he thinks he is poisoned and runs to Jarvis for a diagnosis.  That shows he had not experienced such an attack prior to the start of the movie - which takes place several months after the events of Avengers.

I hadn't considered that! Man, I love little insights like that -- it shows a close analysis of small moments can have illuminating information about what's happening. But with the movie going so fast at times, you almost forget about it before we're on to the next scene.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 16, 2014, 05:25:24 PM
I don't think they did a bad job saying he had some sort of PTSD.  I do think that after getting blown up and becoming a POW, while having dfeadly shrapnel in your chest might be a touch more traumatic than floating in space.  After IM1-2 it just didn't make a whole lot of sense to be that shell shocked.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 16, 2014, 06:21:40 PM
I don't think they did a bad job saying he had some sort of PTSD.  I do think that after getting blown up and becoming a POW, while having dfeadly shrapnel in your chest might be a touch more traumatic than floating in space.  After IM1-2 it just didn't make a whole lot of sense to be that shell shocked.
It is more than floating in space - he grabbed a nuke and drove it through a hole in space.  He also fought aliens, watched thousands die, probably was indirectly responsible for killed hundreds of people (unless you think that a Leviathan crashing into buildings was casualty-free), and he - for the first time in his life - had someone he really cared about and gave his life meaning that he was going to leave behind when he died on the farside of the universe.

His reaction did not bother me.  Nor would it have bothered me if he started off IM III without being phased by the events of Avengers. 

However, there is a lot of stuff in IM III that really bothers me.  They didn't seem to have a grasp on whether the arc reactor generated energy or was melely an electro magnet.  They did not understand how long it'd take for his armor to fly from Tennessee to Miami.  His armors were amazingly fragile in the movies - to the point that you wonder why he didn't die a hundred times over in the prior 3 movies. 

When you put the PTSD next to all those problems in IM III, it does not register for me.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 16, 2014, 06:26:19 PM
When exactly did "thousands die" in the avengers?  There is zero mention of casualties in the movies at ALL.  To the point where it would be ridiculous to assume so many people are dying because we would rightly so, freak the fuck out and after avengers, seems like nothing really changed all that much for regular joe sixpack.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on June 16, 2014, 06:36:48 PM
His inductive reasoning must be confusing Metropolis with New York. I'm sure it wasn't causality-free, and the Marvel Universe New York likely has unrealistic evacuation efficiency for moral convenience (Disney, ho!), but the damage and scope of the destruction felt far more contained than in Man of Steel. Dozens of deaths, tops, and, also, unwitnessed by Tony at any point since he was a bit busy the entire sequence.

Getting inside Tony's head for a bit, any inadvertent deaths he might have caused (and the way these movies work, the heroes performing heroics are shielded from the consequences of performing heroics) would have been the cost of doing business -- he tried his best. Losing out on contacting Pepper though? That would have fucked him up good because it was far more personal, and would have motivated the closer ties he developed with Pepper.

He got a second chance, but he's still Tony.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 16, 2014, 10:12:54 PM
They did not show the death up close and personal, but it was obviously there - and it had to rank in the thousands.  Watch that sequence again.  Notice the Leviathan crashing into buildings... the scores - if not hundreds of unchecked aliens... the chaos that people in their attempts to flee would cause...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on June 17, 2014, 12:22:31 AM
There's a few deleted scenes showing the aliens rounding people up to vaporize and shit, then Cap swoops in and manages to save a bunch of people from being vaporized. Not sure if that counts or not, since they were edited out of the movie proper.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on June 17, 2014, 01:28:20 AM
They did not show the death up close and personal, but it was obviously there - and it had to rank in the thousands.  Watch that sequence again.  Notice the Leviathan crashing into buildings... the scores - if not hundreds of unchecked aliens... the chaos that people in their attempts to flee would cause...

The logic of the entire situation serves the action set-piece, not real world logistical considerations. Saying "thousands of people would die", absolutely agree with that for any real world equivalent disaster scenario, but we're talking the Marvel movie universe where such tragic concerns exist in the background where they go unacknowledged and do not exist *because they aren't important to the story or the action*. This is fodder for a Cracked article that takes movies too seriously.

That's why I feel Man of Steel's Metropolis destruction was so shocking -- it was just so obvious because of the level of destruction taking place that hand-waved elements of superhero movies such as causalities became apparent and conflicted with that consequence-less innocence of superheroism. Avengers' presentation didn't create moral conflict in its cool superhero fights. Man of Steel's fights felt brutal and visceral.

I think that's one problem with what is being attempted here: lack of recognition that this is a movie -- entertainment. The incidentals are besides the point of the entertainment unless they serve a narrative purpose. The script writer would have attributed Tony's PTSD more to personal circumstances and his own direct actions (Pepper, trauma from nearly dying, realization of intergalatic threats and what's at stake) rather than inductive consequences the audience might not even acknowledge except from Fridge Logic, though that doesn't mean we can't fill the empty space with such theorizing. If a line existed to acknowledge the death toll and a small scene to explore how the characters feel about it, all this would be moot.

I feel like I'm validating the opinion while invalidating it at the same time!

That's why I appreciated the analysis of Tony's first panic attack -- I didn't understand that he hadn't encountered it before (or maybe I did and forgot), but now it totally makes sense based on the lines.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 17, 2014, 06:42:32 AM
If anyone died during the avengers then the movie itself invalidated their deaths because all the news clips at the end of that movie were "Oh look, stan lee! Superheroes! 'murica!"  They were not "Tragedy struck as we mourn hundreds of deaths, thousands more wounded" 

You can always infer deaths in big action movies.  Some movies will just gloss over it and keep going, some will address it minimally but marvel is very flatly stating "nope, didn't happen"


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 17, 2014, 11:01:02 AM
I'm sorry, but - NO.

Aliens come to Earth to kill or enslave all of us.  They pop into our sky through a wormhole with giant monsters, blasters and advanced tech.  Thousands die in minutes... but a plucky band of heroes cuts off their portal and ends the threat?

No, the news would not read, "THOUSANDS DIE IN TRAGEDY!"  It would read, "WORLD SAVED BY HEROES!"  The mourning for those lost would come, but we'd be celebrating that all was not lost before mourning those that were.  Sure, TMZ would have a different angle, but screw them.

As for taking things too seriously - perhaps.  However, there are pretty darn good reasons why people seeing a city destroyed in a movie wouldn't overlook the real death toll that would be involved.  The Avengers might just be a movie, but not everything we've seen in the past 25 years has been 'just a movie'.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 17, 2014, 11:33:04 AM
 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on June 17, 2014, 11:33:21 AM
:facepalm:

What are you arguing for? What do you believe is important to relate when telling a story through film?

Is there an Avengers novelization that has the space to get beyond the comic book simplicity of its source material?

Equating Avengers / Marvel films with other movies which have different restrictions and narrative priorities is not a premise I accept. Exploring the consequences of collateral damage isn't what's important to these films unless it becomes a thematic priority to do so.

Bob Iger's acquisition of Marvel is part of his larger strategy to bring compatible intellectual properties into Disney's catalog, a catalog which has as its foundation a certain view of the world that glosses over everyday, realistic things like foul language and cataclysmic death tolls. Disney's world view is a form of escape into a higher, simpler, *appealing* ideal of life.

The Avengers, as a *Disney* film at this point, are going to focus on what we are entertained by and appeal to things like love, family, sentimentality (We'll add 'cool' to that). That is why, *within the context of the film*, it is reasonable to argue that "everything turns out OK! Nobody was hurt!" even though real world logic dictates that this would not be the case based on the available evidence.

Star Wars has the room to be darker, but it is going to be like the destruction of Alderaan -- "This is tragic and horrific!" -- something everyone just *gets*, establishes the stakes, how evil the bad guys are and what they are capable of, and we move on with the plot. There is an emotional simplicity to motivate characters to action and define sides.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 17, 2014, 11:36:02 AM
The point was that using iron mans PSTD as a plot device in IM3 was stupid because new york wasn't much of a big deal compared to all the other shit he'd already gone through.  Followed by gus filling in holes with fan fiction.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on June 17, 2014, 11:43:24 AM
More directed at gus than you Lakov. I disagree on Tony's PTSD, but I'm willing to agree to disagree here.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: DraconianOne on June 17, 2014, 05:00:51 PM
If anyone died during the avengers then the movie itself invalidated their deaths because all the news clips at the end of that movie were "Oh look, stan lee! Superheroes! 'murica!"  They were not "Tragedy struck as we mourn hundreds of deaths, thousands more wounded" 

You can always infer deaths in big action movies.  Some movies will just gloss over it and keep going, some will address it minimally but marvel is very flatly stating "nope, didn't happen"

They didn't show people being massacred because, you know, comic book film watched by kids - but there were civilians being caught in explosions, Chitauri firing indiscriminately into a packed office building and then later on a couple of them about to drop a grenade into a building full of people (the scene with the waitress just before Capt A. jumped in and saved the day - watch it again; the grenade is armed before CA arrives).  If you can't infer massive casualties from that or the brief glimpse of an entire building collapsing Twin Towers style or the wide shots of fires and explosions all across the city then, well, I don't know what to tell you.

And the newscasts at the end? In between the scenes of people saying "Thanks Avengers" are shots of people at a missing persons wall, candle light vigils, "disaster averted, cleanup begins", senate calling an emergency session, the white house calling the invasion a "global catastrophe". So, yeah, they made out what happened in New York was kind of a big deal and yeah, they inferred the human cost of the event.

Sorry if you actually wanted to see thousands of people being slaughtered and genocide in action - I don't think it was that type of film.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 17, 2014, 05:08:08 PM
Don't pile on the blinders bandwagon.  Can it be assumed there were casualties? Sure.  Can it be reasonably assumed this was some massive tragedy? Not from any of the evidence presented in avengers or any of the movies following.  Oh, natalie portman slugged loki, wow she must have been pissed but after that it's all good.  Loki, you know, the person who supposedly engineered the slaughter of thousands? 

 It's a comic book, I get it and what that means is the hulk is gonna rampage through downtown and not randomly kill innocent bystanders.  That's what being a comic means, it doesn't mean they don't SHOW the hulk killing people, it means he simply doesn't.   Superman failed by making the disaster so massive you couldn't really handwave it away and say nobody died but you sure as hell can with the avengers.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on June 17, 2014, 05:11:29 PM
In the Avengers at least they showed them trying to minimize casualties as much as possible and trying to keep the chaos contained to as small an area as possible.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on June 17, 2014, 05:12:59 PM
Sorry if you actually wanted to see thousands of people being slaughtered and genocide in action - I don't think it was that type of film.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you can't show anyone dying because it's not that kind of movie then it's not the kind of movie in which people die.

This is similar to the conversation about the Hulk rampaging. Sure, in real life Hulk rampages would kill people. So in The Avengers how many innocent people has Hulk killed? The logical answer has to be in the thousands, right? But the answer in movie logic is "don't worry about it." Logically when GI Joe fights Cobra people would die no? But it's a cartoon, so nobody does.

It wouldn't make sense to have a Very Special Episode of GI Joe where a Cobra guy is like "man, think about the hundreds of Joes we've killed!" because that didn't actually happen. Sure, it should have happened - but it didn't.

If people dying in The Avengers is too much of a downer and can't be shown the implicit message of the movie is that people didn't die, or if they did you're not supposed to worry about it. Given that it doesn't make sense to later go "what a tragedy!" when at the time it was portrayed as a fun romp.

"Remember NY! Remember NY" Remember what? The Avengers kicked some ass, made some jokes and struck some cool poses.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: DraconianOne on June 17, 2014, 05:50:28 PM
Don't pile on the blinders bandwagon.  Can it be assumed there were casualties? Sure.  Can it be reasonably assumed this was some massive tragedy? Not from any of the evidence presented in avengers or any of the movies following. 

(http://i.imgur.com/0ghTt5G.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/xAB7UJJ.jpg)

Is a global catastrophe not the same as a massive tragedy then?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 17, 2014, 06:09:49 PM
Those images are kinda proving my point, all full of thank you letters, captain america stalker montage?  Yeah, real heartache there.    If you wanna nitpick catastrophe you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel because I would think just having aliens invade earth, come down and wreck half the buildings in new york certainly counts as a catastrophe.

It's a comic, people didn't die.  Stop trying to add gritty realness where there is none.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on June 17, 2014, 08:40:50 PM
Yeah.  It's not like anyone thanked the rescue workers at the Twin Towers profusely.

It's a super-hero movie.  That don't want to focus on the negative.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen in the background.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on June 17, 2014, 09:31:51 PM
If the death is too much of a downer to include then how can you make another entire movie about it?

"I'm super sad about all those people who died, even though we never showed them dying, never acknowledged them dying, and we wasted time telling corny jokes as they were dying. But still, super broken up about it!"

You can't get PTSD over something jokey that has no emotional impact. That's the problem (or just one problem) with IM3 and with all this "remember NY" shit. Nothing particularly exciting happened in NY for anyone to remember, it was just another jokey super hero escapade. This week aliens invade NY, next week dinosaurs time travel to modern day and attack Berlin.

Now that Thor 2 happened are people also supposed to remember that time some space Elf almost destroyed the universe? "Remember London!" Hey guys, remember how a different set of space aliens almost destroyed the Earth in a different way, and the rest of the Avengers didn't even bother to help because that's actually a completely pedestrian event in comics?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on June 17, 2014, 09:45:31 PM
Sorry if you actually wanted to see thousands of people being slaughtered and genocide in action - I don't think it was that type of film.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you can't show anyone dying because it's not that kind of movie then it's not the kind of movie in which people die.

This is similar to the conversation about the Hulk rampaging. Sure, in real life Hulk rampages would kill people. So in The Avengers how many innocent people has Hulk killed? The logical answer has to be in the thousands, right? But the answer in movie logic is "don't worry about it." Logically when GI Joe fights Cobra people would die no? But it's a cartoon, so nobody does.

It wouldn't make sense to have a Very Special Episode of GI Joe where a Cobra guy is like "man, think about the hundreds of Joes we've killed!" because that didn't actually happen. Sure, it should have happened - but it didn't.

If people dying in The Avengers is too much of a downer and can't be shown the implicit message of the movie is that people didn't die, or if they did you're not supposed to worry about it. Given that it doesn't make sense to later go "what a tragedy!" when at the time it was portrayed as a fun romp.

"Remember NY! Remember NY" Remember what? The Avengers kicked some ass, made some jokes and struck some cool poses.

The GI Joe comparisons are't exactly accurate because people do die in Marvel movies (you could make a good-sized list) they just don't show civilians dying during large scale battle scenes. For all the destruction in this year's Godzilla movie, I don't really remember seeing too many explicit civilian deaths either (again, aside from the ones that impacted the story). I would guess that this is more for the purposes of not getting an R-rating and not making children terrified rather than to imply that nobody was killed.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on June 17, 2014, 10:13:29 PM
For all the destruction in this year's Godzilla movie, I don't really remember seeing too many explicit civilian deaths either (again, aside from the ones that impacted the story). I would guess that this is more for the purposes of not getting an R-rating and not making children terrified rather than to imply that nobody was killed.

It's less about showing people dying and more about the tone just not jiving with the idea that a bunch of people died.

The final battle in The Avengers is largely played for laughs. The way Loki is treated afterwards it's less like he tried to take over the Earth and kill and bunch of people and more like he stole a cookie from a cookie jar. The movie doesn't take itself particularly seriously, which is not a bad thing, but then it doesn't make sense to retroactively pretend that these were emotionally-scarring events.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on June 17, 2014, 11:43:49 PM
No denying that. Thor's "He's adopted" line for instance was in direct response to Black Widow pointing out that Loki had killed 80 people in two days. The tone does intentionally soften the seriousness of the events. Of course we're talking about this in regards to Stark's PTSD in IM3 which also isn't always taken entirely seriously so I'm not sure that what IM3 was going for was a big tonal change from Avengers.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 18, 2014, 12:38:31 AM
... Can it be assumed there were casualties? Sure.  Can it be reasonably assumed this was some massive tragedy? Not from any of the evidence presented in ...
Where have I heard words like these before?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on June 18, 2014, 04:49:49 AM
Of all the Avengers, Stark is the only one without combat training.  Maybe that pushed his PTSD along.  Maybe his snark during the Avengers hid his terror, remember this guy, until recently, drank, whored and invented, he didn't get his hands dirty.  Then he has to fly thru a space-rift alone, knowing he's going to die and he can't even call his girlfriend.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 18, 2014, 06:16:31 AM
Of all the Avengers, Stark is the only one without combat training.  Maybe that pushed his PTSD along.  Maybe his snark during the Avengers hid his terror, remember this guy, until recently, drank, whored and invented, he didn't get his hands dirty. 

Sure that's pretty reasonable, if you ignore iron man one and two.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: SurfD on June 19, 2014, 01:14:10 AM
Of all the Avengers, Stark is the only one without combat training.  Maybe that pushed his PTSD along.  Maybe his snark during the Avengers hid his terror, remember this guy, until recently, drank, whored and invented, he didn't get his hands dirty.  

Sure that's pretty reasonable, if you ignore iron man one and two.
Except that in both IM 1 and 2 Stark spends pretty much the entirety of both movies operating largely under the delusion that he is pretty much invincible, which is re-inforced by the fact that he never really runs into a truely "serious" threat in either of them.

In 1, other then the brief bit at the very beginning where he is completely at the mercy of the terrorists, it is pretty painfully obvious that he completely outclasses any threat posed to him.  For all intents and purposes he is a tin-god playing at combat for kicks, like in the scene where he goes back to the middle east for payback and basicly mops the floor with an entire enemy company effortlessly.    That was all the suit at work. Tony was pretty much just along for the ride, flying high on the confidence that his technology was so superior to anything else that danger was a non issue.   Even the Ironmonger fight at the end of the movie was more of a barroom brawl then an actual "combat" situation.

Much the same with IM 2.  Stark relies pretty heavily on the knowledge that he has the superior tech to carry him through stuff.

Also, both of the first two movies are more of a "personal" thing then a "global" one.   His capture and escape are personal developments leading to his new outlook for Stark Industries, and his conflict with Stain over controll of the company is basicly entirely personal as well.   IM 2 is much the same way.   His conflict with Vanko is pretty much completely over personal matters, same with Justin Hammer, only its more "business personal" then "personal personal" with Hammer.

Then you hit Avengers, where Stark is slapped in the face with things like Thor and Loki, guys in goofy looking Medieval armor who can fight toe to toe with his current top of the line tech without effort, and things like there being Alien Armadas from other galaxies with Tech that likely WAY outclasses anything he has, and that is likely to come as a pretty big shock to the guy who previously stood on the pinnacle of the Tech Totem Pole on earth.   Add in to that a full blown alien invasion over Newyork putting Stark in a stiuation that makes the Drone Armor Fight from IM 2 look like a video game shooting galllery, and I think Stark might have some valid reasons for having a bit of PTSD in IM 3.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 19, 2014, 12:31:22 PM
You could argue this stuff all day and anyone that is stubborn (for example; everyone on f13) will not budge from their current view. 

Dr. Strange is looking like it may trend highly towards the early years.  I have a feeling this movie is going to be more enjoyable in Colorado and Washington.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on June 20, 2014, 11:15:51 PM
Stark's behaviour in IM1 is directly linked to his abduction and near-death experience body.

IM2 has him dying from alloy poisoning. (This only really makes him more of a jerk, but everyone accepts that Stark is a charming jerk, so there's not a lot of character impact there. Plus all the time that was lost grounding the audience for the Avengers film.)

IM3 has him suffering PSTD. I could make a case that PSTD hitting him at that point is actually not just about what happens in the Avengers, but what has happened to him in summary from his near death experience, but that would be skimmed by most.

The difference between Marvel and DC films right now is that DC films want to show the impact of the character's behaviour, where Marvel has generally gone for the Rule of Cool and ignored the implications. Which has led to people saying how much Marvel makes sure their properties are "fun" where DC doesn't.

But then, I would have preferred that IM1 used this scene as the introduction of Tony Stark as Iron Man - and show that Stark is actually in some kind of danger in wearing the armour -  and not the meet cute with Pepper Potts that the film actually had:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0pU7_tQljY


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on June 21, 2014, 12:33:17 PM
...
The difference between Marvel and DC films right now is that DC films want to show the impact of the character's behaviour, where Marvel has generally gone for the Rule of Cool and ignored the implications. Which has led to people saying how much Marvel makes sure their properties are "fun" where DC doesn't. ...
I would not say that the impact of a character's behavior is not something that Marvel worries about.  That is a big issues on MAoS, the ramifications of Stark's introduction of new technology was the core of Iron Man II, Thor is almost always focused on his responsibility to Asgard,

I would say that the difference is that Marvel focuses on a story while DC focuses on story elements.  DC is too worried about adding drama, adding humor, adding action, etc... to worry about how they fit together.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Trippy on July 18, 2014, 04:27:33 PM
New Thor discussion moved here:

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=24314.0


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 19, 2014, 01:10:20 AM
This is the updated Marvel schedule with the 5 new dates announced.  I'm assuming we will get the rest of the details at Comic-Con.

August 1, 2014 - Guardians of the Galaxy

May 1, 2015 - Avengers 2

July 17, 2015 - Ant-Man

May 6, 2016 - Cap 3

July 8, 2016 -  Doctor Strange(Rumored)

July 28, 2017

November 3, 2017

July 6, 2018

November 2, 2018

May 3, 2019


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 19, 2014, 05:21:44 AM
This is the updated Marvel schedule with the 5 new dates announced.  I'm assuming we will get the rest of the details at Comic-Con.

August 1, 2014 - Guardians of the Galaxy

May 1, 2015 - Avengers 2

July 17, 2015 - Ant-Man

May 6, 2016 - Cap 3

July 8, 2016 -  Doctor Strange(Rumored)

July 28, 2017

November 3, 2017

July 6, 2018

November 2, 2018

May 3, 2019

You missed May 5, 2017 (three movies that year). Presumably one of those dates will be for Avengers 3 which essentially leaves 5 unknown. I'd be surprised to see any of them announced at Comic-Con, and would expect to see maybe one or two announced around the time of Avengers 2 when they want to start laying out their plan for Phase 3.

Edit: Thor 3 would be a fairly safe bet as well. Also if GOTG is a hit they'd likely want to get a sequel out before 2019 so that could account for another slot. From this year's Comic-Con I'd expect maybe a formal announcement of Dr. Strange with some possible teases about the plot. Possibly the full name of Cap 3 as well.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 19, 2014, 08:08:12 AM
Quote
Also if GOTG is a hit they'd likely want to get a sequel out before 2019

James Gunn has said as much on the Adam Carolla podcast, that if GOTG is a hit then the sequel is going to be the next movie he makes.  So likely it'll be a 2017 release.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on July 19, 2014, 03:59:37 PM
I'll be sad if one of those isn't Captain Marvel.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 19, 2014, 06:13:20 PM
My somewhat random guesses:

July 8, 2016 -  Doctor Strange

May 5, 2017 - Hulk

July 28, 2017 - Guardians of the Galaxy 2

November 3, 2017 - Thor 3

May 4, 2018 - Added later. Avengers 3 could end up here instead now.

July 6, 2018 - Avengers 3

November 2, 2018 - New series (would guess either Black Panther or Inhumans, but could be any number of things)

May 3, 2019 - Iron Man 4 or Cap 4


While Avengers is usually a May release, 2017 seems too early and 2019 seems too late. I can only assume that with May 2018 currently not on the list that one of the Star Wars spin-offs will be taking that date. So looking at a 2018 release, the weekend following the 4th of July seems like a better bet than November and that would close out Phase 3 with 7 movies.  Thor's not a strong enough franchise to get the May 2017 release and GOTG 2 seems like a better fit for an end of Summer movie like the first one. Thor's last release was in November, and 2017 seems about the longest they'd want to wait between Thor 2 and 3.  With two new series already being introduced with Ant-Man and Dr. Strange, it would seem unlikely for a third that quickly and again, May tends to be an important date so they'd probably be looking for something more established. Assuming Hulk once again has a strong part in Avengers, May 2017 would seem like a good date to build off that in a solo movie.

That leaves the last couple dates. Any series left that would be getting a sequel is likely too strong for an early November release so I would expect a new franchise there. Kevin Feige has seemed pretty excited in the past about the possibility of doing the Inhumans. Black Panther seems like another strong possibility. As Fordel illustrates, there are a lot of people out there who really want to see a Ms. Marvel movie, although most of the rumors I've seen in regards to it actually happening seem to involve a lot of wishful thinking. May 2019 is another summer tent-pole release. Cap 2 is still currently the top grossing movie domestically this year, and if Cap 3 remains strong, I can see them wanting to do a Cap 4. This is also around the time they'll have probably wanted to decide what they're going to do with the Iron Man solo franchise (assuming that isn't actually the May 2017 release).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on July 19, 2014, 07:47:57 PM
One of those may also be a Black Widow movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 19, 2014, 08:18:55 PM
If Guardians hits it off, I wonder what the chances are for a Nova movie. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 19, 2014, 08:49:57 PM
The current plan for most years is one srwiel and one new character/team per year... don't anticipate so many sequels.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 19, 2014, 09:27:17 PM
The current plan for most years is one srwiel and one new character/team per year... don't anticipate so many sequels.

Big movie studios don't generally stop making sequels to extremely successful franchises in order to focus on trying something new. Also if they do one sequel and one new movie a year they'd quickly get to a point where there would be 5-6 years gaps between the first movie and a sequel. At that point you're churning out a bunch of characters and then not taking the time to develop them any further after that.

Edit: Also, I'd expect that any new Hulk movie wouldn't really be like a sequel to the last one and it would serve more as that year's new series, leaving my list of guesses with one new series each for 2016-2018.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 19, 2014, 09:44:47 PM
I'm guessing they're thinking hard about the first round of films post-Avengers 3 that will probably feature recasts of some of the major characters. Evans has made it clear that he's out after his contract and I assume RDJ too.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 19, 2014, 10:25:03 PM
I'm guessing they're thinking hard about the first round of films post-Avengers 3 that will probably feature recasts of some of the major characters. Evans has made it clear that he's out after his contract and I assume RDJ too.


Which is why they introduced Falcon.. Obviously he's the new Cap in Cap 4.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 20, 2014, 12:11:58 AM
The current plan for most years is one srwiel and one new character/team per year... don't anticipate so many sequels.

Well as for guardians the director has flat out said that should the movie do well(which by all indication it will) the big wigs want him to go right into the sequel as his next movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on July 20, 2014, 01:52:34 AM
As Fordel illustrates, there are a lot of people out there who really want to see a Ms. Captain Marvel movie, although most of the rumors I've seen in regards to it actually happening seem to involve a lot of wishful thinking.


She's a Captain now dammit!   :-P


I bet we see a Captain Marvel movie before a Wonderwoman one... which is kinda sad thinking about it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 20, 2014, 04:44:59 AM
I'm guessing they're thinking hard about the first round of films post-Avengers 3 that will probably feature recasts of some of the major characters. Evans has made it clear that he's out after his contract and I assume RDJ too.


I would imagine if enough of the new characters are hits, they can replace Iron Man and Cap movies. Iron Man without RDJ would likely put up numbers more in line with the other Marvel stuff. If he's gone there's not a huge financial need to keep the franchise going if they have other stuff that's doing well. Cap would probably continue to do similar numbers to what it's doing now with Bucky or Falcon taking over so they could keep that going if they wanted. Maybe it's wishful thinking here but I feel like if Ant Man, Dr. Strange, GOTG, and whatever other new stuff comes out between now and Avengers 3 does well, you have A3 essentially be a send off for Iron Man, Cap, Thor, and probably Hawkeye and Black Widow as well. At that point you're still potentially left with Ant Man, Dr. Strange, Falcon, Winter Soldier, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Vision, maybe Hulk, for future Avengers movies, and theoretically the characters from the Netflix stuff as well.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 20, 2014, 03:48:39 PM
I'm still puzzled a bit that they haven't gone harder at Black Panther, who I think is movie-ready if they do a mash-up of Priest and Hudlin's takes on the character.

On the other hand, once they get out of the "Cap's Kooky Quartet" era of the old comics, they're in for trouble as far as characters who can sustain films. Hercules is out of the question for all sorts of reasons.

Black Knight and Swordsman, I don't see it.

Moondragon, Mantis, everyone from that era, no fucking way.

Captain Marvel/Ms. Marvel: could work, they're probably getting her set up now.

She-Hulk: probably not.

Starfox: no fucking way, ever. Date-Rape-Man, not going to happen.

Some of the New Warriors characters like Justice or Firestar, probably not.

Maybe Luke Cage and Iron Fist if their series does well. Or Daredevil or Jessica Jones, ditto.

At a certain point they're out of characters--so I think they'll have to go for James-Bond-style recasts and keep doing films now and again about the Big Three.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on July 20, 2014, 03:59:13 PM
If they do She-Hulk it will be some kind of TV/Netflix thing, where its just like her current comic, being the lawyer for superheroes.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 20, 2014, 04:30:35 PM
I'd like to see Wonder Man! 

Also you could do a Hawkeye film which allows you to bring in Mockingbird. 



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 20, 2014, 04:44:40 PM
On the other hand, once they get out of the "Cap's Kooky Quartet" era of the old comics, they're in for trouble as far as characters who can sustain films.

They're probably at least a decade away (Avengers 5) before they need to start worrying about that too much, and by that point audiences may well have stopped caring about the MCU anyway. That May 3rd, 2019 date will be the 20th movie over the course of 11 years.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Numtini on July 20, 2014, 07:39:56 PM
Quote
I'll be sad if one of those isn't Captain Marvel.

My guess is they wait for a Wonder Woman movie, which DC will fuck up completely, and they'll crush with Carol.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on July 20, 2014, 07:59:33 PM
Quote
I'll be sad if one of those isn't Captain Marvel.

My guess is they wait for a Wonder Woman movie, which DC will fuck up completely, and they'll crush with Carol.

So it's never happening then  :sad:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Furiously on July 21, 2014, 02:20:10 AM
Moonknight could be pretty awesome as a movie.

I think the bigger problem for Marvel Studios is villains, in that ones with name recognition are tied up in other studios.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 21, 2014, 03:06:02 AM
I'm not convinced there are any comic book villains with meaningful name recognition outside of lex luthor, various Batman villains, and possibly venom.

Name recognition with comic book fans doesn't count, you're going to pay to see the film anyway.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: rk47 on July 21, 2014, 03:22:14 AM
Dr. Footdive is pr. popular.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 21, 2014, 08:54:39 AM
Dr. Footdive is pr. popular.

I have no idea if that is some obscure crap that comic book fans understand or an autocorrect error.

Not that they really need name recognition.

Iron Man and Thor had next to none. They worked because they made a good film.

Name recognition only matters if your film is bad.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 21, 2014, 01:49:29 PM
Pretty much, yeah. Though it helps to pick a villain that a good actor and script can really light up and make a draw in his/her own right, which takes both a good concept AND not following the comic overly literally, since most comic-book villains have at best one-dimensionality. See: Loki, who not only is better in the films than most of the comics, but whose cinematic portrayal has helped spur an interesting revision of the character in the comics.

I don't really hold out a heck of a lot of hope for Thanos in that respect, but we'll see soon enough.

Kang the Conqueror might have some potential in a future Avengers flick.

Some version of a villain team, Masters of Evil-ish, could also work if they pick the right 2nd-stringers (Absorbing Man, Taskmaster--people with fun powers who don't need ridiculous amounts of backstory).





Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 21, 2014, 03:11:38 PM
Yeah, it would be cool if they started introducing characters for an eventual Masters of Evil and possibly Thunderbolts. Zemo, Goliath, the Enchantress, Skurge the Executioner, Beetle, Fixer, Screaming Mimi are all decent characters and would be easy to introduce in the MCU without too much set up.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on July 21, 2014, 03:22:08 PM
I'm not convinced there are any comic book villains with meaningful name recognition outside of lex luthor, various Batman villains, and possibly venom.

Name recognition with comic book fans doesn't count, you're going to pay to see the film anyway.

Dr. Doom, The Red Skull, Dr. Octopus and Magneto were recognizable villains and why they were used for movies. Of those, Marvel holds the rights to one.

Remember that the Fantastic Four were licensed off prior to Marvel Studios because they were a publicly recognizable property, like Spiderman and the X-men.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Simond on July 21, 2014, 03:24:13 PM
I still want a Nextwave movie. Or TV series. Or cartoon.
Whatever.  :drill:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 21, 2014, 04:38:59 PM
I'm not convinced there are any comic book villains with meaningful name recognition outside of lex luthor, various Batman villains, and possibly venom.

Name recognition with comic book fans doesn't count, you're going to pay to see the film anyway.

Dr. Doom, The Red Skull, Dr. Octopus and Magneto were recognizable villains and why they were used for movies. Of those, Marvel holds the rights to one.

Remember that the Fantastic Four were licensed off prior to Marvel Studios because they were a publicly recognizable property, like Spiderman and the X-men.

As a non-comic following geek I had only heard if Dr Doom prior to the film and had a vague idea he was a Spiderman villain. Seriously, these guys have no recognition outside of comic fans.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 21, 2014, 05:07:51 PM
There has been exposure outside comic books.  There were animated series on TV showing various Marvel characters since the 80s.  A lot of people that have never read a comic book know who a lot of these characters are... but I think that is a bit irrelevant.  The name brand of a villian can be established through the promotion of the movie.  All that matters is if the hero is of interest.  And, if GotG does well, they may very well establish that they don't need name brand heroes in order to sell Marvel movies.

I made a list about 3 years ago of potential Marvel MCU movie franchises and the list exceeded 100 options.  It included things like Thunderbolts, Namor, Ka-zar, etc...  but if they can get this much anticipation for Guardians of the Galaxy, everything on that list is not out of the realm of reason.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 21, 2014, 05:09:51 PM
I think this is the most hyped I've been for a Marvel movie since Iron Man. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on July 21, 2014, 05:17:22 PM
My friend, who hasn't read a comic in his life, texted me today, totally excited about GoG. 

If you knew this guy, you'd be as stunned as I am.

This movie is going to be HUGE.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 21, 2014, 05:17:43 PM
I think this is the most hyped I've been for a Marvel movie since Iron Man. 
I was really hyped until I saw the 17 minute preview.  It didn't disappoint, but it did curb some of the idea of what this movie could potentially be.  Now, I'm expecting a fun movie, but I do not believe it has a chance to be one of my favorite Marvel movies.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 21, 2014, 05:18:37 PM
Dr. Doom, The Red Skull, Dr. Octopus and Magneto were recognizable villains and why they were used for movies.

They were used for movies because they're deeply ingrained in the series they come from, not out of some notion that audiences are going to go see a Spider-man movie because Doc Ock is in it. The only time I can ever think of that the general audience was excited to see the villain of a comic book movie was the Joker in The Dark Knight (even prior to Ledger's death). People don't know who Klaw is, but he'd likely be used in a Black Panther movie because he ties into the character's origin.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 21, 2014, 05:32:30 PM
I think this is the most hyped I've been for a Marvel movie since Iron Man. 

Farscape was one of my favorite tv shows of all time, I cannot express my hype for gotg in words.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 21, 2014, 05:36:00 PM
Nice extended clip for GotG here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzI-U1Fh9zc)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on July 21, 2014, 05:37:52 PM
I'm not watching any more clips.  I'm there Day One, stop bouncing the rubble!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on July 21, 2014, 06:46:19 PM
I dunno, I think some folks had some weird shelter bubble they were living in.  I didn't buy a comic until I was a sophomore in HS and stopped shortly thereafter when I discovered girls liked me and I knew this stuff.

Maybe watching Spiderman & His Amazing Friends when I was ~9 influenced me more than I thought.  IIRC there was also a Fantastic Four cartoon for folks in my age range that I saw reruns of.

This is all anecdotal on all parts anyway, so fnar.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 22, 2014, 06:13:27 AM
Who has the rights to Namor? I'd thought maybe he got bundled in the FF deal. I could see Namor working out if he's handled right. (See: no wings on ankles, and put some clothes on.)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 22, 2014, 09:32:20 AM
Who has the rights to Namor? I'd thought maybe he got bundled in the FF deal. I could see Namor working out if he's handled right. (See: no wings on ankles, and put some clothes on.)


Feige has said that there are multiple holders and that the chances for Namor are very slim.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 22, 2014, 12:00:33 PM
Namor is one of those characters that has been around forever that has lingered because he fills a large role in the Marvel Universe - but that noody really likes.  I think that is the biggest reason he won't surface on film.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 22, 2014, 12:03:50 PM
Namor vs the Isle of Garbage!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Furiously on July 22, 2014, 01:32:40 PM
Dr. Doom, The Red Skull, Dr. Octopus and Magneto were recognizable villains and why they were used for movies.

They were used for movies because they're deeply ingrained in the series they come from, not out of some notion that audiences are going to go see a Spider-man movie because Doc Ock is in it. The only time I can ever think of that the general audience was excited to see the villain of a comic book movie was the Joker in The Dark Knight (even prior to Ledger's death). People don't know who Klaw is, but he'd likely be used in a Black Panther movie because he ties into the character's origin.

I want my white gorilla! The man ape.  But seriously, how can you do Wakanda without coming across like a racist scumbag? 

Heroes for hire, now....that could be an awesome movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 22, 2014, 01:44:17 PM
The Black Panther will never get a movie for the same reason Apache Chief won't.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 22, 2014, 02:05:59 PM
They could get Michael Cera to play Black Panther.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 22, 2014, 02:09:42 PM
Black Panther will likely be announced at Comic Con this year.  They've been building towards it for several years - including having a spot in Africa highlighted on a SHIELD board back in IM II.  He was in consideration to have a movie early in second phase once upon a time, but they went another direction.  I think they're going to announce all of the films in those slots they 'reserved' this year - and they'll include Dr. Strange, Black Panther and maybe even the Inhumans.

As for racism: Most early non-white non-male characters for DC and Marvel were exploitation characters.  The root of the characters tend to be offensive to modern sensibilities.  However, you can tweak them to make them less offensive.  If you portrayed the Wakandan military in a similar way to the armies at the start of the second Thor movie, it might make more sense.  For example, their advanced technology could enable them to have personal defense shields that brush aside bullets, but are able to be pierced by weapons that have countermeasures, which require the weapons to be the size of spears, etc...  However, you don't need to have grass skirts, cliche tribal war paints, and non-sensical stereotyped lines that pain the sensibilities.  

Honestly, the outlandish nature of the Wakandan stuff is much easier to revamp and modernize than the baggage that came with Luke Cage.  

And Apache Chief was modernized in the new Young Justice animated series.... they stripped out the most offensive aspects, but kept the root of the character the same.  They could do the same for a movie - if the character did not kind of suck.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 22, 2014, 03:07:28 PM
And people say my star wars theory was stretching....


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 22, 2014, 03:37:48 PM
And people say my star wars theory was stretching....
Probably because your theory was not backed up by a lot of publicly available comments easily found via a Goggle search?   


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 22, 2014, 03:50:09 PM
We are going to get a female lead Marvel movie before we get Black Panther.  There are rumblings about so many different Marvel movies coming out, but it comes down to where are they gonna fit it in?  Right now I don't think there is much room for another new character set til after phase 3.  They are probably going to announce one new character movie at SDCC and I bet it's Black Widow.  I'd like to see a Hawkeye/Black Widow movie though or a Hawkeye one in general.  They have to make Renner happy somehow.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 22, 2014, 03:54:41 PM
Saying "we were thinking of doing the movie but decided to do something else" is a long ways away from ever green lighting it. The agents of shield connection actually hurts the movie theory because they are likely NOT going to tease something in the tv show for upcoming movie properties.

Literally the only thing we heard from the dr strange movie, which HAS been greenlit, was a name drop in captain america 2.   What you seem to be saying is that a brief mention of a country of wakanda which features in more comics than just black panther on a tv show set in that universe is all but confirmation?

From here: http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/marvel/31383/kevin-feige-on-black-panther-female-superhero-movie  and posted today...

Quote
And then the conversation turned to the long-mooted Black Panther movie, and a possible superhero film with a female lead. Is Marvel open to both of those?

"I think we could, it’s a matter of when", Feige said. "It’s a matter of what are those dates, it’s a matter of juggling multiple, successful franchises. Is there a downside to managing multiple, successful franchises? I believe we’re figuring out that there is, which is having the time to do them all. So, at what point do we hold back a franchise or have three or four years between parts of a franchise in order to introduce new ones? Or do you introduce new ones within the body of the films? We’re looking at all those things right now".

They are likely going to announce Dr Strange casting this weekend but Black Panther isn't even on the radar, it's firmly in the "maybe, one day" category which means jack and shit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 22, 2014, 04:49:25 PM
Let's let time tell, shall we?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on July 22, 2014, 05:14:17 PM
Moondragon, Mantis, everyone from that era, no fucking way.

Actually I hope they are in GoTG eventually. I think they are too similar to each other, unless you make Mantis a pure precog. I would prefer Mantis but Moondragon makes more sense, depending on what movie Drax is like. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on July 22, 2014, 05:17:51 PM
According to the question on Jimmy Kimmel's Guardians of the Galaxy stuff last night, Drax was originally killed by the Moondragon - which would lead me to believe she will be mentioned in some manner.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on July 22, 2014, 08:31:21 PM
According to the question on Jimmy Kimmel's Guardians of the Galaxy stuff last night, Drax was originally killed by the Moondragon - which would lead me to believe she will be mentioned in some manner.

Is it ok if I NERD RAEG? :why_so_serious:  ehh as long as she's in the sequel, I guess.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 22, 2014, 09:17:00 PM
Priest and Hudlin's takes on Black Panther were anything but racist--Hudlin opened up his run with a recap of the history of Wakanda that included the Wakandans slaughtering a group of Afrikaner mercenaries who tried to conquer them in the 19th Century--basically he turns Wakanda into an Afrocentric dream, high-tech before the West, never colonized or conquered, etc.  And it kind of works. I think if they keep with that--a small, deliberately isolated African country that's very secretive; keep the Panther as the strong, silent, reserved type that's he's typically been in the comics, it could really work.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 23, 2014, 11:10:24 AM
A ways back we discussed whether Marvel had always intended for there to be a 'real Mandarin' out there beyond the false one in IM 3: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/22/could-we-see-the-real-mandarin-is-red-skull-dead (http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/22/could-we-see-the-real-mandarin-is-red-skull-dead)

The set up for it is clearly there early in IM 3...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 23, 2014, 11:01:40 PM
Apparently Marvel has added May 4th 2018 to their list of releases now as well.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 23, 2014, 11:09:27 PM
6 movies in 2 years, that's crazy.  but it's probably movies to fill in more characters before they pop out Thanos at us. 

Also rumor is that RDJ is up for an Iron Man 4 if they can get a deal done.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Soulflame on July 23, 2014, 11:10:21 PM
Awesome.  RDJ just seems the perfect actor to play Tony Stark to me.  I hope we get one more movie with him, before they move on to another actor/character.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on July 23, 2014, 11:17:31 PM
If I were Marvel, and I was wanting to secure Iron Man as a character, I'd get a blood sample of RDJ, clone him, and spend the entirety of his youth educating him in acting and feeding him a steady diet of women and alcohol.

Marvel has no moral compunction against cloning! And they'll get a solid 20-30 years of Iron Man films right there.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: taolurker on July 24, 2014, 12:04:40 AM
Since iron man is just a CGI suit, they could just get RDJ do do voiceover work, and pay him billions for it. Couple of images of him inside with Jarvis screen overlay. Iron Man appearance in movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 24, 2014, 12:24:50 AM
I really like this poster for some reason, I want one for my wall.

(http://i.imgur.com/Kpk0TkV.jpg)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on July 24, 2014, 04:48:43 AM
Needs more Garrett Morris.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 24, 2014, 09:43:48 AM
It is a pretty sweet poster.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: taolurker on July 25, 2014, 01:04:18 AM
The Black Panther will never get a movie for the same reason Apache Chief won't.

(http://i.imgur.com/MjdarQj.jpg)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on July 25, 2014, 02:11:42 AM
Is that real? Because, shit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on July 25, 2014, 02:13:25 AM
The original source was tumblr, so probably not. Who knows though!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 25, 2014, 02:23:42 AM
The Marvel panel isn't til Saturday.  Plus they wouldn't announce their full schedule of movies like that.  They would save some for future comic-cons.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 25, 2014, 02:29:35 AM
As well as what you said, world war hulk stretches believability a little too far.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: taolurker on July 25, 2014, 04:41:24 AM
Friend of mine who was at ComicCon posted it. I can only assume it's real.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 25, 2014, 04:47:01 AM
It's not.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: taolurker on July 25, 2014, 04:57:53 AM
Yeah, he just messaged me back that it was speculation and from reddit a week ago.. He was trying to bait all of us watching his posting from SDCC.

BTW, not that it makes a difference or is on topic, but he was right about the Firefly cast and Firefly MMO.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 25, 2014, 12:09:48 PM
I'm really certain from hints they've already made that Avengers 3 is NOT Civil War. That storyline scarcely makes any sense in the Marvel Cinematic Universe anyway. There's not enough superheroes for it to work and the idea that the Tony Stark we've seen so far in the MCU would side with a restrictive government totally doesn't add up. Plus it's not like there's any unlicensed people with totally secret identities running around anyway in the MCU so far. Government already knows who every single "superhero" is and four out of the six of them have actively worked for or with SHIELD in its pre-Cap 2 incarnation.

I also don't see War of Kings making much sense without heavy adaptation for Guardians 2.

They're clearly setting up Thanos to be the big Foozle for one or more future films, so I'd expect that to be Avengers 3/Guardians 2 or both.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on July 25, 2014, 01:13:33 PM
Starlin's arc on Adam Warlock would work plot wise for GotG. Not sure if it would work story wise or a good fit for the cinematic universe, but I want to see it anyway.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 25, 2014, 04:36:46 PM
Civil War does not need to be about secret identities - the core is about the heroes being under the control of the government.  That is the key element - registration and submission to regulation.  There are good arguments for maintaining a more controlled environement with more safety, and opposite arguments for preserving freedom.

I could totally see an Avengers 3 where Tony Stark sides with Coulson in his effort to bring the rising number of Superheroes into line with S.H.I.E.L.D.  If you look at it, a potential foundation for that is there in Avengers 2 information that has leaked...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 25, 2014, 05:33:10 PM
There are good arguments for maintaining a more controlled environement with more safety, and opposite arguments for preserving freedom.

There is no argument for preserving the freedom to anonymously administer vigilante justice, because Texas and Florida aside, we don't have the freedom to begin with.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 25, 2014, 06:19:31 PM
I also doubt Coulson is coming back to the big screen in anything but a cameo.  As said before it would take up too much of the movie just to explain it to fans who don't give a shit about the tv show.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 26, 2014, 03:44:53 AM
Gunn has signed on to write and direct Guardians 2.  I am assuming that is probably the newest date they added.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 26, 2014, 07:33:43 AM
I also doubt Coulson is coming back to the big screen in anything but a cameo.  As said before it would take up too much of the movie just to explain it to fans who don't give a shit about the tv show.

It would less time than it took to explain Bucky.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 26, 2014, 09:01:32 AM
Coulson isn't even going to be in the second movie in a bit part and suddenly he'll be introduced as a major character in some kind of civil war storyline?  Please let's not indulge in rampant marvel fanfiction here.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 26, 2014, 12:21:29 PM
It will be amusing to see the reactions people have after today's upcoming announcements.  I'm looking forward to them.

The best possible news?:  It is almost assuredly just wishful thinking, but the Max Landis' quickly deleted tweet from mid-May and the potential cancellation of Sinister Six per Latino Review's Mayimbe - as well as the increased number of MCU films per year - and Sony's financial issues.... It'd be nice to see those add up to Spidey coming home.  However, most likely just a Landis joke (he does a lot), Sony realizing Sinister Six was a horrible idea, MCU stepping up with the resources from recent success and Sony sucking - all unrelated.

Worst possible news? May 5, 2017 - NFL Superpro, the Movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 26, 2014, 08:08:02 PM
Reading blog of the panel now, lots of ant man talk.  Evangeline Lily to play Pym's daughter and yellow jacket confirmed villain. 

Interesting note, the abomination from the incredible hulk movie was shown in a villain montage.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 26, 2014, 08:20:47 PM
Interesting note, the abomination from the incredible hulk movie was shown in a villain montage.

Not sure why that would be odd.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 26, 2014, 08:22:45 PM
So far the last hulk movie was never formally acknowledged as being part of the avengers universe.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on July 26, 2014, 08:23:48 PM
I think Avengers sort of implied it had happened.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on July 26, 2014, 08:25:28 PM
So far the last hulk movie was never formally acknowledged as being part of the avengers universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBJMq-isHU4 ?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 26, 2014, 08:26:29 PM
So far the last hulk movie was never formally acknowledged as being part of the avengers universe.

Aside from the Tony Stark cameo, the One Shot "the Consultant", footage from the movie being shown when Stark opens the research Coulson gives him in the Avengers, a reference to the Abomination in Agents of Shield, and it's inclusion in the Phase 1 box set?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 26, 2014, 08:35:20 PM
Don't all whip your epeens out at once now.  Also Elizabeth Olsen just said now the MCU has magic and "mutan....mutated people"  with the scarlet witch.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on July 26, 2014, 08:39:22 PM
Don't all whip your epeens out at once now. 

(http://i.imgur.com/6Za3C9O.gif)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 26, 2014, 08:42:37 PM
https://twitter.com/_RyanTurek/status/493209269135634432


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 26, 2014, 08:43:39 PM
July 28th 2017 = GOTG2

Annnnnnnd, that's it.  No doctor strange, no black panther.  Basically, shit we already knew.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 26, 2014, 08:50:45 PM
Don't all whip your epeens out at once now. 

(http://i.imgur.com/6Za3C9O.gif)
(http://www.pictureshack.us/images/3991_epeen.gif)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 26, 2014, 08:53:56 PM
Also Evangeline Lilly has signed on to play Hope Van Dyne, Hank Pym's daughter, in Ant-Man.  P


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 27, 2014, 03:49:38 AM
July 28th 2017 = GOTG2

Annnnnnnd, that's it.  No doctor strange, no black panther.  Basically, shit we already knew.

What would they say about Dr. Strange at this point? They only announced a director last month and haven't done the casting yet.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 27, 2014, 07:49:44 AM
Oh it's pretty much what I expected really.  They aren't gonna start naming new properties when ant-man and ultron don't even have trailers yet.  Though some people were expecting a LOT more....... :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 27, 2014, 10:24:07 AM
I think they may just be having trouble landing the lead for Dr. Strange.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on July 27, 2014, 12:29:20 PM
Joaquin Phoenix rumored. Right look, wrong voice?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on July 27, 2014, 02:51:33 PM
Wrong on both counts. Too bloated, too lilting.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 27, 2014, 03:01:43 PM
Marvel "rumors" are generally terrible.  It starts as a bunch of fans wanting something to be true(black panther) then gets repeated ad naseum as fact online and voila, it's a confirmed "rumor". 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 27, 2014, 04:14:26 PM
After the awesome response to Rocket Raccoon, Marvel has announced Squirrel Girl to be their first female led Marvel movie.  Summer Glau has signed on to play the lead role of Doreen Green the Squirrel Girl.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on July 27, 2014, 07:36:57 PM
I'll kickstart that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on July 27, 2014, 10:30:41 PM
*snort*

Mind you. who am I kidding, I'd probably be first in the queue.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 28, 2014, 12:16:39 PM
That would be better on Netflix.

I was surprised not to see Black Panther announced, but I still expect it to be one of the next announced films for all the previously stated reasons.  It might be the film that follows GotG II...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 28, 2014, 04:26:01 PM
Well with Caps shield broke, they have to get more Vibranium from somewhere.  It can be a Wall Street type thriller as Shield and Black Panther haggle over prices.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 28, 2014, 04:54:11 PM
Well with Caps shield broke, they have to get more Vibranium from somewhere.  It can be a Wall Street type thriller as Shield and Black Panther haggle over prices.

Very real possibility that shield is from a dream sequence.  Even though I still think a BP movie is pure fanwank right now it still wouldn't be the next movie since dr strange being greenlit is a known fact even if casting is still up in the air. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 28, 2014, 05:08:09 PM
Oh I don't even want a BP movie to tell you the truth.  (I must be racist) 
I just think there are better characters that need a shot first.  Hell I'd love a Moon Knight movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on July 28, 2014, 06:07:59 PM
Why?  Because instead of Black Panther's totally black costume you want to see Moon Knight's totally WHITE costume?!  Why not go ahead and have MK burn a cross on someone's yard while you're at it!

RACIST!




Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 28, 2014, 06:14:06 PM
Don't get me wrong I'd be totally down for BP but by all past experience we will know if the project is greenlit way before it's ever officially announced yet people online somehow expect BP to appear out of the fucking aether.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 28, 2014, 06:23:36 PM
A BP movie is something Feige has said they're developing. Obviously they're constantly developing any number of projects that may never see the light of day, but it at least leads one to believe that they don't see it as something that's too inherently racist to make as some people here seem to think.

But yeah, anybody who was expecting a huge number of announcements at comic-con needs to understand that's not how the movie industry generally works.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 29, 2014, 12:32:13 PM
... Even though I still think a BP movie is pure fanwank right now...
Feige: “In terms of Black Panther, it’s absolutely in development, and when you have something as rich as Wakanda and [Black Panther's] backstory – and clearly, Vibranium’s been introduced in the universe already – I don’t know when it will be exactly but certainly we have plans to bring him to life someday.” 

http://screenrant.com/black-panther-movie-development-update-phase-4-5/ (http://screenrant.com/black-panther-movie-development-update-phase-4-5/)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 29, 2014, 01:11:02 PM
Your link is from last year and the link I posted in reply to your ridiculous theory two pages ago is from last week.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/marvel/31383/kevin-feige-on-black-panther-female-superhero-movie

Quote
And then the conversation turned to the long-mooted Black Panther movie, and a possible superhero film with a female lead. Is Marvel open to both of those?

"I think we could, it’s a matter of when", Feige said. "It’s a matter of what are those dates, it’s a matter of juggling multiple, successful franchises. Is there a downside to managing multiple, successful franchises? I believe we’re figuring out that there is, which is having the time to do them all. So, at what point do we hold back a franchise or have three or four years between parts of a franchise in order to introduce new ones? Or do you introduce new ones within the body of the films? We’re looking at all those things right now".

So BP is still up in the air or possibly going to be introduced in another franchise and not stand-alone.   In either case, once these movies are greenlit we know about it long before they are ever officially announced, you know this.  So we all know dr strange is in the works even if it's not been announced, the same can't even be said for BP.  

Fiege basically said BP is on a drawing board somewhere as an idea along with squirrel girl no doubt.  All of their available properties are certainly in some stage of development. The most likely scenario taking both those quotes together is that they wanted to do a BP movie but decided it would be best if he is introduced within an established franchise, perhaps cap3(shield repair).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 29, 2014, 02:33:42 PM
Can people explain to me the perception that the character is racist? Because honestly he's really never been in the comics, all the way back to Kirby & Lee. There's a bit of the "ancient lost kingdom at the heart of Africa" trope going on, but it's the most respectful version of that trope that I can think of--usually that's a kingdom that gets discovered by a white explorer and ends up being inferior to the white explorer (basically, Avatar) The Panther's personality has always been Sidney Poitier in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner--the only racially charged thing about it is that he's a little too perfect at almost everything.

Is it just that a black African character with "Black" in his superhero name seems like it's gotta be racist?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Numtini on July 29, 2014, 02:53:16 PM
I don't find any of it racist, though the Wakanda tropes are problematic, but I'm pretty sure it will be an enormous shitstorm if they make a movie out of it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 29, 2014, 02:54:56 PM
The biggest "racist" thing is the name.  When you think of Black Panther in the US you usually think of this:

(http://missrosen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/312a_43.jpg)

And not a Marvel comic book character.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 29, 2014, 06:16:12 PM
I don't think anybody over 40 is going to remember the Black Panther Party. And the Panthers themselves kind of liked the character.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Numtini on July 29, 2014, 06:25:22 PM
Race is just a third rail. Love the character, but if I was an investor...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ingmar on July 29, 2014, 06:31:44 PM
Can people explain to me the perception that the character is racist?

He's a black guy from the jungle who is often depicted with a tooth necklace and occasionally even a spear. I mean, you're right, he's miles and miles from being the Diablo 3 Witch Doctor, but I think there are elements to the character that are going to resonate in an unfortunate way to Americans no matter what they do. Comic books can, when done well, do the kind of nuance that is demanded in handling this kind of material; I'm skeptical that a comic book movie can overcome it. Nobody's going to make a talky, subtle Black Panther movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 29, 2014, 06:44:14 PM
I don't personally see it as a racist character but as said above it's the perception which makes it hard to get a movie greenlit.  The more I think about BP the more I believe he's going to be introduced in another property, doing so takes a lot of steam out of any reservations the suits might have.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 29, 2014, 08:39:27 PM
Can people explain to me the perception that the character is racist?

He's a black guy from the jungle who is often depicted with a tooth necklace and occasionally even a spear.

He's also often depicted as the ruler of an African nation that is one of the most technologically advanced in the MU (and thus is naturally treated as a diplomat when he enters the U.S.), who dresses in a suit and tie as a man of his status generally would, and puts on a Batman-esque costume equipped with long claws on the gloves to fight crime. There's no reason to imagine that they would use the most potentially offensive depictions of the characters instead of the most respectful ones.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on July 30, 2014, 04:26:02 AM
So, Deadpool test footage.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 30, 2014, 05:50:20 AM
So, Deadpool test footage.

I'm not gonna watch it.  They'll either make the movie or they won't but I refuse to get my hopes up. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on July 30, 2014, 07:37:09 AM
Fox owns Deadpool so I'd go with "Not happening."   I imagine this is someone's attempt to generate buzz and push it past his stodgy 60-something exec who's vetoed the project before.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on July 30, 2014, 09:52:21 AM
I saw the Deadpool test footage and it was SO SPOT ON CORRECT. Fucking hilarious, and any studio exec who looks at that and thinks "I will never make this movie" should be shot.

Of course, then we'd be left without any studio execs because I'm sure they all take one look at that footage and shit themselves. They have no idea how to sell that to an audience large enough to make a profit on a movie that would need at least a $100 million budget. Not to mention how it would "taint" Fox's other movie franchise characters like X-Men and Wolverine. I mean, he kind of works in the comics sort of, but when he's paired with other characters from the MU, he sticks out like a sore thumb. We'd be more likely to get a fucking Ambush Bug movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Surlyboi on July 30, 2014, 09:56:22 AM
I'd pay for a fucking Ambush Bug movie too.

That said, the high res footage is Fucking. Glorious. R rated is the only way it would work too, but the only appeal is comic book nerds and frankly, that ain't gonna sell enough tickets.

Then again, Scott Pilgrim got made, so who the fuck knows?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 30, 2014, 10:31:41 AM
Ok I caved.  It's everything I want in a deadpool movie, which only increases my sadness because this will never EVER get made.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Numtini on July 30, 2014, 10:52:18 AM
Wow, that was perfect.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on July 30, 2014, 06:51:52 PM
The first couple lines were the most original lines of dialog I've heard in recent memory. Ryan Reynolds was the perfect delivery vehicle.

I was thoroughly impressed. It was made by Blur Studios, who I view as an extremely talented group of artists and IIRC has output other quality trailers.

It was fantastic and, more important to me, *different*.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on July 30, 2014, 06:54:28 PM
Now they just need to get Patrick Stewart to play Deadpool's inner voice.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on July 30, 2014, 06:59:50 PM
The first couple lines were the most original lines of dialog I've heard in recent memory. Ryan Reynolds was the perfect delivery vehicle.

I was thoroughly impressed. It was made by Blur Studios, who I view as an extremely talented group of artists and IIRC has output other quality trailers.

It was fantastic and, more important to me, *different*.
Also known as: more reasons it will never get made


Imagine what it looks like after being run through focus groups. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on July 30, 2014, 08:55:15 PM
The test footage is great because it's all of 2 minutes or whatever. Hour plus of that will not be as entertaining.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on July 30, 2014, 10:02:00 PM
Syfy is reporting a trademark filing in line with what Marvel has done for various film and tv presentations of characters for another of their characters... Squirrel Girl.  I''m thinking she may make a nod-nod wink-wink in one or more of the Netflix series.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 30, 2014, 10:10:18 PM
If they're expecting Big Hero 6 to do well, I could see them thinking about doing Squirrel Girl as an animated movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 31, 2014, 01:22:12 AM
Can people explain to me the perception that the character is racist?

He's a black guy from the jungle who is often depicted with a tooth necklace and occasionally even a spear.

He's also often depicted as the ruler of an African nation that is one of the most technologically advanced in the MU (and thus is naturally treated as a diplomat when he enters the U.S.), who dresses in a suit and tie as a man of his status generally would, and puts on a Batman-esque costume equipped with long claws on the gloves to fight crime. There's no reason to imagine that they would use the most potentially offensive depictions of the characters instead of the most respectful ones.

Basically 'Coming to America' with lycra?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: NowhereMan on July 31, 2014, 01:53:15 AM
Basically 'Coming to America' with lycra?

I could see BP done as more of a political thriller type, foreign delegate coming to the UN with a Hydra type conspiracy appearing and him getting caught between SHIELD and compromised US/UN groups and figures. The problem with that, while I think it would work with the character, is coming a bit too close to the Cap 2 plot. It would seem the best way of involving BP as a head of state of an African country, lots of potential for higher level political stuff combined with Batmanesque double life plot elements.

That said it's pretty clearly a 'maybe we'll do that one' level of development so far. I'd honestly expect the whole comic movies to thing to have died down quite a bit before it actually gets made.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on July 31, 2014, 03:33:13 AM
The test footage is great because it's all of 2 minutes or whatever. Hour plus of that will not be as entertaining.

I'll take a short film. I enjoyed Thomas Jane's Dirty Laundry, I think we could do with more Marvel vignettes to explore properties that would be difficult to take to the big screen. Hell, maybe Youtube Advertising Money would be enough to justify production.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on July 31, 2014, 03:57:59 AM
One thing we all need to accept is that the MCU people have no plans to make a political thriller. Or any type of thriller.

I agree it would be cool. But there is a formula. 60 minutes of straightforward character background and exposition, then 60 minutes of explosions. All the talk of MCU entering other genres is just bullshit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on July 31, 2014, 04:22:47 AM
Well Guardians of the Galaxy is arguably a different genre. But yeah, if you mean that they aren't going to do a political thriller in the respect that they won't do a movie that's 2 hours of dialogue involving real world politics, of course they aren't. I'm not sure that Cap 2 is particularly far off of some of Tom Clancy's stuff though (from what admittedly little I know of it).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 31, 2014, 10:55:12 AM
I think there's been some pretty decent genre/style range between different MCU films. Is Cap 2 completely a "political thriller"? Well, no, but then no superhero story could be, really. Does it invoke/borrow from political thrillers? Yes. Could another MCU film eventually do the same? Sure. Etc.

The point about the BP film, if they do one, is that they need to have it NOT be primarily set in Wakanda, because the urge at that point to trot out a billion dumb tropes about Africa will be irresistable. This was what happened recently when DC did an "African Batman" book--the idea was fine but every single fucking story was a "What I read in the newspaper last week about Africa" kind of thing.  When Wakanda shows up, it needs to be a place that the plot touches base for just a while, establishes the Panther in his own setting, and then moves on. It's why Priest's semi-reboot of the Panther was so good--it put him outside of Wakanda but made use of the African background to tell some good stories.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 31, 2014, 05:52:51 PM
Also showing an accurate portrayal of modern day Africa might be too fucking depressing for a comic book movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on July 31, 2014, 09:45:07 PM
Iron Man has a significant amount of action set in pseudo-Afghanistan, which I wouldn't exactly think would be an uplifting, fun choice for a superhero movie, and yet...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: NowhereMan on August 01, 2014, 04:59:44 AM
I could see the whole thing touching off with an international incident/terror attack in Wakanda and BP going to the UN in response. Also when I said political thriller I was thinking far more along Cap 2 lines, having some sort of political intrigue and an isolated character trying to break the conspiracy. Although in that case I think you could split it quite well with T'Challa doing the talking and plotting parts and then donning the BP costume for sneaky-sneaky, fighty-fighty parts with the last act being a big action set piece maybe involving shootouts in the UN building and stuff getting blown up a lot.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 01, 2014, 08:59:15 AM
Works for me.

The big question they'd have also if they want him solo is how to develop his supporting cast and enemies. Ulysses Klaw as a kind of Tiny Rowland-style corporate villain desperately trying to get his hands on vibranium works fine, plenty of good but also comic-book resonances with real-world stories. Could be tied into Stark Industries in some way so that there's an interesting link to either Howard or Tony Stark by the time the whole plot is done. I think they have to stay away from the Wakandan-origin bad guys like Killmonger and Madame Slay.

Could also be a chance to introduce the "real" Mandarin and the Ten Rings organization, which might fit into a vibranium-centered plotline pretty well.

I also love Christopher Priest's idea in the comics that the Black Panther originally joined the Avengers to spy on them, worrying about what a group of superhumans might do vis-a-vis Wakanda's independence and secrecy, but that the more he saw of them, the more comfortable he became with their moral character.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on August 01, 2014, 10:59:19 AM
I am wondering where the Mandarin payoff will be... I keep coming back to either MAoS or Avengers 3 (if Master of Evil themed).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 01, 2014, 11:44:36 AM
They are setting Thanos up big time for avengers3 so there is simply no room for Mandarin in the same movie and if they do try and cram him in it will be a terrible disservice to both those villains.  Considering RDJ has not ruled out iron man4 completely they are likely going to reserve Mandarin for that franchise.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on August 01, 2014, 11:54:22 AM
They are setting Thanos up big time for avengers3 so there is simply no room for Mandarin in the same movie and if they do try and cram him in it will be a terrible disservice to both those villains.  Considering RDJ has not ruled out iron man4 completely they are likely going to reserve Mandarin for that franchise.
They are setting up Thanos.  There is no guarantee it will pay off in Avengers 3.  It certainly could, but they could also keep him in the background for a decade before the big payoff.  He reportedly signed a contract for a lot of films. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on August 01, 2014, 01:36:36 PM
I am wondering where the Mandarin payoff will be... I keep coming back to either MAoS or Avengers 3 (if Master of Evil themed).


And I'm still fairly sure it will not happen at all because China is way too big a market for them now.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 01, 2014, 01:58:57 PM
Marvel past and future video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cInu82fWFfQ)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on August 01, 2014, 03:11:40 PM
...And I'm still fairly sure it will not happen at all because China is way too big a market for them now.
And there are a lot of ways to do the Mandarin that would not be offensive.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 01, 2014, 03:21:14 PM
They are setting Thanos up big time for avengers3 so there is simply no room for Mandarin in the same movie and if they do try and cram him in it will be a terrible disservice to both those villains.  Considering RDJ has not ruled out iron man4 completely they are likely going to reserve Mandarin for that franchise.
They are setting up Thanos.  There is no guarantee it will pay off in Avengers 3.  It certainly could, but they could also keep him in the background for a decade before the big payoff.  He reportedly signed a contract for a lot of films. 

Deep breaths man, we love marvel too but think rationally.  They aren't gonna tease Thanos now to have him be the main bad guy a decade from now.   So far Marvel has been pretty consistent in how their movies operate with regards to teasers and releasing information.  It's the same reason we haven't heard an official word on dr strange and are just now barely getting shots of antman which hasn't even been filmed yet.  Avengers 3 is a couple years away as it is and Thanos will need pay off before moviegoers forget him.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on August 01, 2014, 03:22:24 PM
...And I'm still fairly sure it will not happen at all because China is way too big a market for them now.
And there are a lot of ways to do the Mandarin that would not be offensive.

It's not a matter of offensive.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on August 01, 2014, 03:30:08 PM
...Deep breaths man, we love marvel too but think rationally.  They aren't gonna tease Thanos now to have him be the main bad guy a decade from now.   So far Marvel has been pretty consistent in how their movies operate with regards to teasers and releasing information.  It's the same reason we haven't heard an official word on dr strange and are just now barely getting shots of antman which hasn't even been filmed yet.  Avengers 3 is a couple years away as it is and Thanos will need pay off before moviegoers forget him.
Why would they forget the background bad guy they keep building towards, whether it is 4 more years of build or 10?  When I read Feige interviews, it always seems to me that he still thinks of Thanos as a long term plan... and 4 years is starting to look more near than far. 

All I'm saying is I would not assume Thanos MUST be the main conflict of Avengers 3.  It could just as easily be a Masters of Evil, Kang, Civil War, Kree, or something else story...  Only a small group of people know what the plan is right now.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on August 01, 2014, 07:43:56 PM
They've revealed half the Infinity Gems already and two of the Phase 2 movies took the time to establish what they are. Between Avengers 1 when Thanos was revealed and Avengers 3, there will have likely been 6 years and a dozen movies. It's already assuming a lot to think that the audience is going to maintain interest in the story through Phase 3. Pushing the resolution out to 9 years and 20 movies later would be insane, especially considering there's a good chance that a large amount of the cast will have left by the time Avengers 4 rolls around. I'd rather see them do the Infinity Gauntlet while the still have RDJ, Evans, and the rest.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on August 01, 2014, 08:58:54 PM
It wouldn't be hard for them to insert elements of a larger plot line through after-credits or several minute scenes inserted into the personal / individual stories of the movies. That's pretty much what shows like X-Files did.

There are a smart bunch of people behind the scenes. Whatever comes out is going to 'look right', because there are so many things creatively that would 'work' for what they're doing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on August 02, 2014, 03:35:29 AM
Marvel past and future video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cInu82fWFfQ)

Oh yeah.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on August 02, 2014, 03:42:47 PM
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think they'll want to split up Infinity Gauntlet into two movies filmed back to back (like the last Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, etc...). They'll probably want to get the Guardians involved, and given the number of characters that would make, and the fact that the Guardians would likely just be coming off a movie the previous year, I would expect an Avengers focused Part 1 with the Guardians coming into play more in Part 2. My slightly revised thinking on the schedule is this:

May 1, 2015 - Avengers 2: Age of Ultron

July 17, 2015 - Ant Man

May 6, 2016 - Captain America 3

July 8, 2016 -  Doctor Strange

May 5, 2017 - Hulk

July 28, 2017 - Guardians of the Galaxy 2

November 3, 2017 - Thor 3

May 4, 2018 - Avengers: Infinity Gauntlet Part 1

July 6, 2018 - Ant Man 2 (They'll at least want to keep the possibility open in case of a surprise hit, like with GOTG and it would be less jarring to have a solo Ant Man movie going on during Infinity Gauntlet rather than Cap or Iron Man).

November 2, 2018 - New series (would guess either Black Panther or Inhumans, but could be any number of things)

May 3, 2019 - Avengers/Guardians: Infinity Gauntlet Part 2


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on August 04, 2014, 11:20:07 AM
Katie Sachoff posted some tweets of her getting molded for a super hero role - and the pictures are in line with Carol Danvers Captain Marvel outfit. 

If she is going to tbe the rumored 4th female main character from Avengers (Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Maria Hill, ?????) that Whedon mentioned, I wonder if they'll start her off with a guest spot on S.H.I.E.L.D.  Given the origin of Captain Marvel in the comics, and the reported storyline in Age of Ultron, I don't see room to do an origin story for the character as part of that movie.  On the other hand, if they use the last few episodes of MAoS to introduce Carol Danvers and then give her super powers in the season finale... (so they only have to do a few expensive shots for TV before handing her off to the movies)... that would make more sense.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 04, 2014, 12:55:05 PM
I think she might almost be better launched fully in Guardians of the Galaxy 2, with the connection to the Kree. But then the SHIELD show has already had a dead Kree in a box, so Earthside/SHIELD works fine too. Given how much GotG has a sort of Farscape vibe at times, they could even have Carol Danvers travel accidentally in an experimental shuttle to the other side of the galaxy...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on August 04, 2014, 01:04:15 PM
Oh, is that confirmed now ?

Edit;  the Blue Alien, I meant.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Hutch on August 04, 2014, 01:07:28 PM
https://twitter.com/kateesackhoff/status/496351654564753408 (https://twitter.com/kateesackhoff/status/496351654564753408)

Quote
Clue #4 Secret Project NOT a @Marvel project. Xoxo

Doesn't mean she can't be in a Marvel movie later on  :grin:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 04, 2014, 01:09:15 PM
Nope. Sackoff has been hinting but nobody else has really. [edit: ah, and it seems like the hints aren't even about Marvel!] Whedon dropped some statement about how there are "four" strong women in Avengers 2, which has everyone scratching their heads and saying, "Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Maria Hill (maybe), and ?". Feige has given interviews about how much Marvel wants to have more female characters. That all could be misdirection, or be another female character entirely, who knows?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Furiously on August 04, 2014, 03:42:43 PM
Nope. Sackoff has been hinting but nobody else has really. [edit: ah, and it seems like the hints aren't even about Marvel!] Whedon dropped some statement about how there are "four" strong women in Avengers 2, which has everyone scratching their heads and saying, "Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Maria Hill (maybe), and ?". Feige has given interviews about how much Marvel wants to have more female characters. That all could be misdirection, or be another female character entirely, who knows?

So Eliza Dushku or Summer Glau will be playing X-23 is what I am hearing...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 04, 2014, 09:32:54 PM
Melissa McCarthy as Big Bertha?   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: DraconianOne on August 05, 2014, 04:35:25 AM
If she is going to tbe the rumored 4th female main character from Avengers (Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Maria Hill, ?????) that Whedon mentioned,

Here's a clue: Hayley Atwell has said she will be in Avengers 2.




Edited because of fat fingers and not enough coffee syndrome.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on August 05, 2014, 04:37:09 AM
An excellent recap of that post.

 :grin:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: DraconianOne on August 05, 2014, 04:38:41 AM
An excellent recap of that post.

 :grin:

I thought so.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on August 06, 2014, 02:00:48 AM
...And I'm still fairly sure it will not happen at all because China is way too big a market for them now.
And there are a lot of ways to do the Mandarin that would not be offensive.

It's not a matter of offensive.

If people are allowed to be offended by poorly written national stereotypes used as hollywood or comic book villains then I'm off to demand billions in reparations on behalf of Blighty.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on August 06, 2014, 04:44:40 AM
Start with The Rocketeer.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 06, 2014, 05:13:13 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuYVniuIEAEPXUr.jpg)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on August 06, 2014, 05:54:21 PM
For a second there I was wondering what Ron Howard had to do with the Avengers.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on August 06, 2014, 10:30:00 PM
If she is going to tbe the rumored 4th female main character from Avengers (Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Maria Hill, ?????) that Whedon mentioned,

Here's a clue: Hayley Atwell has said she will be in Avengers 2.


Most likely the other female is Agent 13, i.e. Sharon Carter.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 06, 2014, 10:33:40 PM
If she is going to tbe the rumored 4th female main character from Avengers (Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Maria Hill, ?????) that Whedon mentioned,

Here's a clue: Hayley Atwell has said she will be in Avengers 2.


Most likely the other female is Agent 13, i.e. Sharon Carter.

This is my guess too, as her and Cap will probably be bumping uglies in Cap 3.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 06, 2014, 10:46:14 PM
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/5152/001xcs.png)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 10, 2014, 05:34:36 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/gvLeaib.jpg)

Maybe he's playing Black Bolt and will have no lines this time.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 10, 2014, 05:48:44 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/gvLeaib.jpg)

Maybe he's playing Black Bolt and will have no lines this time.   :awesome_for_real:

I'm not sure that will happen but it would be fucking hilarious.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on August 10, 2014, 06:15:44 PM
(http://photos.laineygossip.com/articles/vin-diesel-25jul14-02.jpg)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on August 10, 2014, 08:08:04 PM
He could totally pull it off.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on August 11, 2014, 06:21:32 AM
He would be awesome as Black Bolt.  Also, what the fuck is up with those leg things?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on August 11, 2014, 06:52:48 AM
Also, what the fuck is up with those leg things?

He did motion capture for Groot as well.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MrHat on August 11, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
So Thanos is the big bad in the Marvel Multiverse?  I didn't really follow that part from Guardians.

(pretty much just a movie watcher)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 11, 2014, 12:25:54 PM
He seems like an established Big Bad out there where the Guardians do their thing, yeah. Also seems like he has an active interest in acquiring the Infinity Gems, though I'm not sure how that squares with Avengers. (e.g., he seems to have outfitted Loki with the staff and the Chitauri; the staff seems to have an Infinity Gem in it and is now in the possession of HYDRA; but what does Thanos get out of all that?) 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on August 11, 2014, 01:07:25 PM
Thanos gets to know their exact locations.  Once they're all safely secured in places he knows he can gather them all at once.

Plus all the death that happens in each of their appearances.  It's foreplay before the main event.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 11, 2014, 01:39:41 PM
Well in Guardians he's mentioned several times as some sort of space badass and referred to as "the mad titan" but even in avengers he was shown to be the one who resuced loki and gave him the staff.  Following the movies alone simply tells us he's a power player behind the scenes with sinister motives.  Knowing the comics does gives us a bit more knowledge of his endgame but we already know he's evil and behind the scenes.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on August 11, 2014, 02:17:23 PM
In the comics, the Infinity Gems "called out to each other - they wanted to be put together" or some such. So as long as he knows where one or two are, he can use them to get more. GOTTA CATCH THEM ALL!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 11, 2014, 02:28:57 PM
Which has never made any sense in the Marvel comics. What, there are gems as old as the universe that are basically its source code, that make you effectively God, and they WANT to be put together? But never have been until Thanos did it (and then have been put together constantly ever since, including by a two-bit street villain...)

I get that the force of creation or whatever might choose to create a root kit for the entire universe just in case of something really really extra-universal happening to it but I would think you would not make it something that the equivalent of a Czech hacker sitting in a basement could just download off an unprotected server.
 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on August 11, 2014, 02:35:40 PM
Best not to think to hard about the cosmic shit because it literally WILL NOT MAKE SENSE.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Margalis on August 11, 2014, 10:54:59 PM
The best part of the Infinity Gauntlet saga was Thanos collecting the gems, which isn't going to be replicated in the movies. The story after he collected them was crap.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on August 11, 2014, 11:52:31 PM
The best part of the Infinity Gauntlet saga was Thanos collecting the gems, which isn't going to be replicated in the movies. The story after he collected them was crap.

Eh, it was fun for what it was although Starlin's fascination with Thanos (a character he created) gets a little tiring at times.  I've never found Thanos to be nearly as interesting as Starlin seems to think he is, and Starlin went back to the well way too many times with the same characters and concepts. His Dreadstar stuff was much better. Shame he didn't stick around long enough to see that to conclusion.

As for the Infinity Gems themselves, they hit a lot point in a crossover with the Ultraverse that introduced a 7th gem that combined with the others to form the generically named cosmic entity Nemesis. Even Warren Ellis writing the last issue of that storyline couldn't save that shit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 12, 2014, 08:06:37 AM
Thanos, weirdly enough, is most interesting when Starlin writes him in his "down" times, after he's failed again. I really liked Starlin's attempt to say, "This is a guy who actually hates himself, just on a cosmic scale, and when he's left alone with power, sabotages himself, until the one day where he doesn't and wins and then finds out that neither power nor Death does anything to relieve his self-loathing." The best stuff the company has ever done with him was the brief run in his own title where Starlin gave Giffen his blessing to write Thanos. Two great arcs: in the one, Thanos sets out to try and make up for some of his worst deeds, ends up humiliatiing Galactus after Galactus gets suckered into bringing an interdimensional parasite into the Marvel reality; in the other, Thanos seems to be done with his "making up to people" phase, now is in his contemplative "what should I do" phase, goes to visit the Kyln (it's where it was introduced) and meets up with the Beyonder (not the white-guy w/jheri curls version of the character). He was also good in Annihilation right up to when Drax killed him, partly because it was sort of mysterious what Thanos was up to. At some point, I kind of wished Marvel had told Starlin, "You're not writing this guy anymore ever, Giffen and Abnett & Lanning are, because they're just better". Starlin has a habit of being a big asshole when he writes Thanos because he usually goes out of his way to reverse everything that every other writer has done with him.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 12, 2014, 08:26:17 AM
Obligatory thanoscopter.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Yh62Fzf0s6A/T6uFY3h9tJI/AAAAAAAABi4/9H4mKgYf400/s1600/thanos_copter.jpg)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on August 12, 2014, 10:24:58 AM
WTF was that from?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Trippy on August 12, 2014, 10:57:06 AM
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/06/14/i-lova-ya-but-youre-strange-2/


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 12, 2014, 10:59:29 AM
That old Spiderman-for-kids comic. It's full of hilarious panels.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on August 12, 2014, 11:57:08 AM
I find it hilarious that even in that comic, Thanos beat himself.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 12, 2014, 03:43:20 PM
So it looks like with Guardians being a hit they are working on Inhumans now.  They are shopping around a script right now looking for a director.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 13, 2014, 03:33:30 PM
And Inhumans has been announced.  So I think this is going to be one of the 2017 dates.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Bunk on August 13, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
The Inhumans - the Movie!

Lead Actor get's one line in the entire movie (which blows all the shit up)
Lead Actress has magic 70's hair
Supporting Actor - french looking skinny martial arts guy
Supporting CGI Actor - giant weird looking doggie sorta thingy with a big mustache

Who am I forgetting?

Funnily enough though, I thought the Inhumans were awesome as a teen. I loved the idea of a guy whose power was to break really big stuff by karate chopping it's weak point.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on August 13, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
I like what they've done with Karnak lately - he's not only able to see the physical deficiencies in something to karate chop it, he's also able to analyze the weakness in diplomacy and strategy. He could be a cool character.

Rather than playing Black Bolt, I could see Vin Diesel doing Gorgon with the goat hooves things, although he'd be cool as Black Bolt too. He's got the stare down.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on August 13, 2014, 03:55:44 PM
And Inhumans has been announced.  So I think this is going to be one of the 2017 dates.

I don't think it's actually been announced yet.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 13, 2014, 03:57:23 PM
I like what they've done with Karnak lately - he's not only able to see the physical deficiencies in something to karate chop it, he's also able to analyze the weakness in diplomacy and strategy. He could be a cool character.

Rather than playing Black Bolt, I could see Vin Diesel doing Gorgon with the goat hooves things, although he'd be cool as Black Bolt too. He's got the stare down.

I think it's funny that someone known for their voice would get a role like Black Bolt.  Vin landed Groot cuz Marvel wanted him for a movie, apparently Inhumans, but it was a while off yet.  So they offered him the Groot role as well.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on August 13, 2014, 04:00:37 PM
Crystal was the only Inhuman I really liked so hopefully she'll be in it with a major role.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 13, 2014, 04:02:57 PM
And Inhumans has been announced.  So I think this is going to be one of the 2017 dates.

I don't think it's actually been announced yet.

It's because of the news that the script is done and being shopped around to directors.  Not only that, but because of the Vin tease yesterday on Facebook.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on August 13, 2014, 04:07:09 PM
And Inhumans has been announced.  So I think this is going to be one of the 2017 dates.

I don't think it's actually been announced yet.

It's because of the news that the script is done and being shopped around to directors.  Not only that, but because of the Vin tease yesterday on Facebook.



I don't disagree it's coming, but Marvel themselves have not actually announced anything.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 13, 2014, 06:05:27 PM
Thinking about it, Diesel might have been wearing those stilts all the time for reasons other than playing groot if he's going to be woodgod.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on August 14, 2014, 06:31:25 AM
Behind the Scenes video quotes Vin as saying he wanted to know what it would be like to be a seven foot tall tree creature. He wore the stilts as he recorded his VO lines for international release. It works for promotional purposes too.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 14, 2014, 09:39:42 AM
It's interesting that Marvel Studios retained the rights to the Inhumans given that the characters were so closely associated with the Fantastic Four early on. They may be interested in making the movie as a preliminary way of announcing that anything that wasn't specified in the contracts for FF, Spider-Man and X-Men is theirs, and that they're going to persistently be trying to yank anything that isn't nailed down back into their stable. There's also a rumor that they may use the concept of "Inhumans" as the Marvel Studios' version of mutation. Wouldn't be surprised in that sense if it turns out that what makes the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver is essentially the MCU version of terrigen.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Numtini on August 14, 2014, 10:51:16 AM
I've seen that idea all over the place, but I just don't get it. I don't think anyone really cares about "mutants." People care about the X-Men.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on August 14, 2014, 11:46:47 AM
I've seen that idea all over the place, but I just don't get it. I don't think anyone really cares about "mutants." People care about the X-Men.

From my perspective it's more of what origin story you want (or don't want) to tell. The whole point of mutants (or at least in Stan Lee's telling) is to get around the problem of coming up with a new origin story for every single hero: one can just say "mutant!" and be done with it. I think that's the purpose of using inhuman instead of mutant so we don't need a gazillion new origin stories for each new character. They can just say "Inhuman!" and get right to the wisecracks/senseless violence.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ingmar on August 14, 2014, 12:53:10 PM
I've seen that idea all over the place, but I just don't get it. I don't think anyone really cares about "mutants." People care about the X-Men.

I thought the problem is they literally aren't allowed to use the term mutant because of the different movie contracts?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 14, 2014, 01:34:40 PM
That's pretty much it. I think it's basically nothing more than they want a way to say, "This guy has metahuman powers!" and not have to think of an elaborate explanation for it.

It's a pretty common thing in superhero universes--the old Wild Cards books had an alien virus, the New Universe had its White Event, etc.: something that lets you just get on with characterization. Only a few characters have origins that are so rewarding that it's worth retelling every part of it in detail. Since the MCU can't say "mutant!" I think they want something else that functions the same way for their metas. I would expect terrigen to be that something else.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2014, 01:38:01 PM
That's pretty much it. I think it's basically nothing more than they want a way to say, "This guy has metahuman powers!" and not have to think of an elaborate explanation for it.

It's a pretty common thing in superhero universes--the old Wild Cards books had an alien virus, the New Universe had its White Event, etc.: something that lets you just get on with characterization. Only a few characters have origins that are so rewarding that it's worth retelling every part of it in detail. Since the MCU can't say "mutant!" I think they want something else that functions the same way for their metas. I would expect terrigen to be that something else.

One could even say the crystal in loki's staff if one of the crystals terrigen mist comes from.  I'm really curious how aggressive disney will get in reclaiming property now in regards to not movies but merchandising.  Technically unless it's Hugh Jackman's likeness, you can't sell a sticker of wolverine without disney coming down your throats.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on August 14, 2014, 04:05:19 PM
That's pretty much it. I think it's basically nothing more than they want a way to say, "This guy has metahuman powers!" and not have to think of an elaborate explanation for it.

They can already do that now (and have in a couple episodes of Agents of Shield). I don't think the audience would freak out if  superpowered characters show up without the origin of their powers being explained.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on August 14, 2014, 04:39:43 PM
Inhumans are heavily tied to the Kree, so it is a way to also bridge all the SPAAAACE stuff back to Earth.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on August 14, 2014, 04:50:21 PM
I've seen that idea all over the place, but I just don't get it. I don't think anyone really cares about "mutants." People care about the X-Men.

I thought the problem is they literally aren't allowed to use the term mutant because of the different movie contracts?

By all accounts, the contract says no such thing, but Disney see no reason to piss off the other rights holders on issues like this when it doesn't matter a damn to them.

Nobody cares if quicksilver is a mutant or not.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on August 14, 2014, 08:08:35 PM
As far as I know, we've only had vague references to what is allowed under the contracts and we certainly have not seen them.   However, there have been articles claiming they do not have the right to use the term "mutants" in the Marvel Comics sense of the word: http://screenrant.com/inhumans-mutants-marvel-cinematic-universe (http://screenrant.com/inhumans-mutants-marvel-cinematic-universe)  However, they can clearly play with that a bit based upon one joke from MAoS this year.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 28, 2014, 03:44:27 PM
So the Russo's are throwing stuff out there about the title for Cap 3.  They stated that it was taken from a Cap comic arc and then they pretty much confirmed Crossbones will be in Cap 3 as well.  Could they be doing Death of Captain America?  I wonder if they have the balls to do it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 28, 2014, 03:55:05 PM
Oh and here's a leaked photo of Doctor Doom (http://www.geek-pride.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/photo_2-1.jpg) from the FF reboot.  I don't even know what to say personally.  I think it blows and the only thing I can hope for is it's some transitional costume from some accident or something.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on August 28, 2014, 04:10:37 PM
I think that leak just got DDOSed from all the geeks on the Internet. You don't happen to have another link?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 28, 2014, 04:24:18 PM
I think that leak just got DDOSed from all the geeks on the Internet. You don't happen to have another link?
Hah the whole site seems to be gone.  Let me look around.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 28, 2014, 04:26:26 PM
Found it here (http://i.imgur.com/L2xj1Lh.jpg).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on August 28, 2014, 04:28:07 PM
Well, since you can see the green screen, that's probably just the 'base' that will get CGIed up to his real look.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 28, 2014, 04:30:20 PM
Well, since you can see the green screen, that's probably just the 'base' that will get CGIed up to his real look.

There is no green on his outfit. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on August 28, 2014, 04:41:55 PM
Motion capture suits aren't green, though that doesn't look like your typical motion capture suit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 28, 2014, 05:00:09 PM
Motion capture suits aren't green, though that doesn't look like your typical motion capture suit.

I mean if you zoom in it's a textured painted suit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on August 28, 2014, 05:22:27 PM
I don't see the problem. Looks like an evil guy encased in metal.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on August 28, 2014, 07:00:50 PM
It'll be highly CGI'd.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on August 28, 2014, 10:22:51 PM
There is a story going round that - after filming scenes for Ms. Marvel - she will be cut from Age of Ultron.  Reportedly, she was suddenly revealed in the movie with no explanation for where her powers originated.  I think it is a misdirect and that they're going to introduce her on MAoS towards the end of the season.... and then she WILL be in the movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2014, 11:06:22 PM
what's with you and MAOS?  They aren introducing luke cage on the show, no way in hell they will waste ms marvel on it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on August 29, 2014, 01:06:23 AM
They're going to shift her to which ever movie has the Kree invade. She might make a name drop cameo before that, something only us dorks would know.

Look for a blonde fighter pilot with the call-sign Cheeseburger.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on August 29, 2014, 10:48:46 AM
Rumors flying around today that Joaquin Phoenix is in final negotiations to be Dr. Strange.

That's one way to get me to not watch it at all.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 29, 2014, 10:53:07 AM
I feel as if I should just trust these guys at this point but...it doesn't feel right to me. Maybe it's because Strange is pretty much my favorite Marvel character.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on August 29, 2014, 11:24:12 AM
It doesn't feel right because Strange is mysterious.

Joaquin isn't mysterious, he's creepy. He's always been creepy and will always be creepy. Even when he played Johnny Cash, he was creepy.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 29, 2014, 11:27:41 AM
It doesn't feel right because Strange is mysterious.

Joaquin isn't mysterious, he's creepy. He's always been creepy and will always be creepy. Even when he played Johnny Cash, he was creepy.

At least it's not johnny depp.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 29, 2014, 12:15:44 PM
Even if they don't do the movie as an origin story (which I'm actually fine about) I assume they're going to establish the baseline story of Strange's career and character. So the grace notes that they have just got to hit right are:

Strange as arrogant, driven, narcissistic but also supremely skilled surgeon, Type A alpha male to the max, who is too busy drinking, fucking and collecting money to care about anything or anyone
Strange as broken man after he loses his ability to be Top Dog. I don't actually care how that happens--they can go with the classic drunk driving accident/neurological injury, or have him have a nervous breakdown, or even keep it mysterious. But something happens to bring the guy down--and rather downsize and get humble, he goes chasing anything that might get him back on top again
Strange as guy who finally learns wisdom and caring when he has no choice but to spend time with an aged wise man who is engaged in a battle against the forces of darkness
Strange as superpowerful dude but he's like Batman: all of his power is the result of his own discipline, his own learning, his own ability to maintain focus, and some shit on his "utility belt". If Strange decides to coast for a while and just stop reading all those tomes and watching for evil in his crystal ball, he's essentially 100% fucked. Plus he has to keep from falling back into arrogance.

Is that anything I've ever seen from Phoenix? I guess aspects of his portrayal of Johnny Cash have some overlaps. But I'm not seeing it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on August 29, 2014, 02:08:59 PM
Jaoquin Phoenix will be fine.

He's an actual actor as opposed to famous for playing himself, among current Avengers this is not something you can say about anyone else who has had their own film.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on August 29, 2014, 07:19:52 PM
Jaoquin Phoenix will be fine.

He's an actual actor as opposed to famous for playing himself, among current Avengers this is not something you can say about anyone else who has had their own film.
Cap?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Furiously on August 29, 2014, 10:08:22 PM
Jaoquin Phoenix will be fine.

He's an actual actor as opposed to famous for playing himself, among current Avengers this is not something you can say about anyone else who has had their own film.

How is Tom Cruise not being cast for this.....


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on August 29, 2014, 10:37:21 PM
Jaoquin Phoenix will be fine.

He's an actual actor as opposed to famous for playing himself, among current Avengers this is not something you can say about anyone else who has had their own film.

How is Tom Cruise not being cast for this.....

I'm pretty sure his Scientology views would keep him out of any project involving magic.  Besides.. fuck Tom Cruise.  Sad thing is that RDJ would have made a killer Doctor Strange too imo.  I don't mind Joaquin Phoenix.  I think Keanu could have pulled it off, he wasn't too bad in Constantine.. but still Keanu. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on August 30, 2014, 05:54:03 AM
I was pretty happy at the rumor that Jack Huston had been cast--that seemed much closer to the mark than Joaquim Phoenix.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 02, 2014, 05:07:15 PM
Not exactly gospel, but ... http://www.blastr.com/2014-9-2/stan-lee-confirms-marvels-already-working-black-panther-flick-and-teases-black-widow (http://www.blastr.com/2014-9-2/stan-lee-confirms-marvels-already-working-black-panther-flick-and-teases-black-widow)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 02, 2014, 05:12:04 PM
I'm willing to bet the success of guardians got it green lit fast.  It was a an iffy property but then talking racoon makes half a billion and suddenly marvel says "fuck it, money hats for all!"


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on September 02, 2014, 05:14:52 PM
Did anyone other then Stan Lee say it?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 02, 2014, 05:20:26 PM
Just Lee but he did sound like he was privvy to "the timeline" but who knows if that means BP is coming in 3 years or 10.  I'm going to hazard a guess and say they are filming his cameos way in advance now for obvious reasons.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on September 02, 2014, 05:25:32 PM
There are rumblings that Avengers 2 will have a different team at the end.  That rumor along with the "no more origin stories" could lead to some surprise cameos.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 02, 2014, 05:43:06 PM
Reading between the lines, between now and the end of Avengers 2 we will see a widespread introduction of heroes and villains.  We'll have something like the Kree/Inhuman Terrigen Mist unleashed and that will be used to explain all of these new powered individuals.  The post credit for Cap 3 initiative - to make more 'Miracles'.

Regarding BP, this is not the first time Lee has talked about the character as if the film is about to go underway.  It could still be a ways off.  However, it still seems likely to me that it will be one of the 2017 films.  BP has been something they've been setting up for a long time, and Wakanda does seem to be a likely location for action in Avengers 2 (the previewed Avenger vs. Avenger combat seems to be clearly taking place in Wakanda to me - and there is an obvious reason for them to be there tied to the movie if you know your Marvel lore).  Regardless, this has been talked to death and nothing really has changed until they announce something officially.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on September 02, 2014, 08:45:32 PM
Saw a story today that Stan the Man's cameo in Guardians was originally supposed to be that he was going to be one of the Collector's items and then when stuff goes boom and the boxes break, he was going to climb out and give the Collector the finger.

I like Stan macking on some woman instead, seems more in character.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on September 18, 2014, 06:29:00 PM
So we got Deadpool coming in Feb. 2016 and Doctor Strange in July 2016.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sky on September 19, 2014, 09:26:24 AM
I really hope they pull in Posehn to write for Deadpool. He has done great work on the comic.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 19, 2014, 12:21:04 PM
Fox will not let deadpool be rated R, therefore it's going to be terrible.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on September 19, 2014, 01:19:33 PM
Fox will not let deadpool be rated R, therefore it's going to be terrible.

IF A = TRUE then B = TRUE.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 19, 2014, 01:26:10 PM
Deadpool is a great character, but I do not see how you do an entire movie about him.  He is an outstanding character for a team movie as he is great in small doses, but a movie where he is the centerpiece will get a bit tiresome, I think.

However, I think they did say somewhere along the ways that they would not do it unless they could do it without the PG-13 leash.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 19, 2014, 01:26:24 PM
I was right about robocop.  R is not just about dirty words and violence, it's about how much the people making the movie want to remain faithful to the story and characters.

Edit: See also-Expendables 3(The search for more money) 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 19, 2014, 02:59:50 PM


However, I think they did say somewhere along the ways that they would not do it unless they could do it without the PG-13 leash.

The problem with this is now that interested enough has been drummed up, the only person with a say in it's rating are the people spending money on it.  Super hero movie actors and directors are very, very replaceable. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 22, 2014, 11:27:16 AM
Ugh - Deadpool is aiming at PG-13:

"I heard from the director that they finally figured out the script, and it was right before this was announced, that they figured out, and you guys are all gonna hate this, they figured out how to make it PG-13. And therefore 'not lose its soul,' and that' a quote, of the script so that they can make it."

http://www.blastr.com/2014-9-22/one-thing-might-ruin-deadpool-movie (http://www.blastr.com/2014-9-22/one-thing-might-ruin-deadpool-movie)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 22, 2014, 11:36:17 AM
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/c045b0be831f9a3eaff6ef009d182f03/tumblr_myni5lE5mH1qdhrnoo1_500.gif)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on September 22, 2014, 01:23:13 PM
You really can't do an R rated Deadpool and make money.  That is the problem.  The highest grossing R rated superhero movie is Watchman and it only made 100 mil.  Dredd only made 13 mil.  Does it suck, of course it does.  Still if they can really pull off the humor it should be fine.  You can still fit a lot of violence in a PG 13 movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Trippy on September 22, 2014, 01:30:00 PM
Yeah the proof of concept movie showed that it was possible.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 22, 2014, 02:39:18 PM
You really can't do an R rated Deadpool and make money.  That is the problem.  The highest grossing R rated superhero movie is Watchman and it only made 100 mil.  Dredd only made 13 mil. 

You can't make a movie starring a cgi raccoon either, audiences will not buy it.  You are reciting the reasoning WHY it won't be made but not the reality that audience attitudes to comic movies has changed.  Not to mention watchmen and dredd arre really obscure IP's.

PG-13 will get more eyes on your product initially but if the product is crap then it won't matter.  Deadpool is about comedy and violence and without the second it will need to rely heavily on the first.  However how much do you want to bet they are going to try and shoehorn a "serious story" into it?

 "Here deadpool is the plucky comic relief alongside super serious fbi agent hottie actress kate flavoroftheweek as they work together to save the world from bad guys."

Pirates of the carribean + guns.  That's the movie they are going to make.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: tazelbain on September 22, 2014, 02:55:18 PM
Deadpool needs lots of super-serious stuff to be irreverent towards.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 22, 2014, 03:36:19 PM
True and in the comics deadpool is the main character set against the serious ones but hollywood has a habit of needing to put someone the audience can "identify with" as the lead/co-lead as they did with pirates/transformers/tmnt etc etc etc. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on September 22, 2014, 03:40:56 PM
Green Lantern was a better Deadpool movie than a GL one and it was PG-13.  Seems like it could work.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on September 22, 2014, 04:03:08 PM
Green Lantern was utter shit though.  I know that's not your point, but it's worth repeating.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on September 22, 2014, 04:13:51 PM
If they do implied violence they could hide the most gruesome scenes from the camera while still getting the brutality across.  It won't be easy to get it right for the entire movie, but it is possible.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 22, 2014, 04:26:39 PM
The biggest problem, in my mind, is not the violence, profanity, or any of the other stuff that would be better in an R film...

It is that Deadpool is meant to play off other important characters, and is not meant to be the centerpiece.  He is designed to be a  secondary character, not a main character.  Writing a Deadpool movie would be like making a Kramer (of Seinfeld), Barney (of HIMYM), or Cliff Clavin (of Cheers) TV series... they're too out there to be a main character.  If you try to move them to the spotlight, and flesh out their secondary character to give it a main character's depth, you violate their core.  That is why Frasier worked - the character was not so far out there that you could add depth without changing what was appealing in the character.  

Yes, I know he has his own comics.  But what happens in the majority of those comics?  Guest stars for him to play against, or cliché situations that are the real core of the story so that he can provide the counterpointe.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on September 22, 2014, 04:53:07 PM
So they just need a lot of cameos and it will work out fine! :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 22, 2014, 04:57:38 PM
So they just need a lot of cameos and it will work out fine! :awesome_for_real:
That would do it, but that does not seem to be the direction they've hinted at heading... more of a 'I'm a psychotic Ferris Bueller' story.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on September 22, 2014, 05:18:04 PM
I think Deadpool would work in a solo movie kind of like Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 22, 2014, 05:52:56 PM
Well DP has enough weight as a character to play off others that aren't necessarily known comic guys.  He does need to be the main character though because he's literally the one talking to the audience.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: CmdrSlack on September 22, 2014, 06:07:45 PM
The biggest problem, in my mind, is not the violence, profanity, or any of the other stuff that would be better in an R film...

It is that Deadpool is meant to play off other important characters, and is not meant to be the centerpiece.  He is designed to be a  secondary character, not a main character.  Writing a Deadpool movie would be like making a Kramer (of Seinfeld), Barney (of HIMYM), or Cliff Clavin (of Cheers) TV series... they're too out there to be a main character.  If you try to move them to the spotlight, and flesh out their secondary character to give it a main character's depth, you violate their core.  That is why Frasier worked - the character was not so far out there that you could add depth without changing what was appealing in the character.  

Yes, I know he has his own comics.  But what happens in the majority of those comics?  Guest stars for him to play against, or cliché situations that are the real core of the story so that he can provide the counterpointe.

Yeah, that Fraiser show sure folded fast. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on September 23, 2014, 03:21:17 AM
Ummmmm.  Reading.  How does that work ?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on September 23, 2014, 05:09:12 AM
Trying to claim you can't make a good film led by any specific 'humanish' character at any given rating is ridiculous.

If the writer does a good job it will be fine. If they hire a shit writer the story will be shit.

You can argue there is no good reason to make yourself work harder by attempting to make films about dull characters, but that never stopped Superman making bank. And deadpool is not a fraction as dull as Superman, or Wonder Woman, or Green Lantern, or Aragorn, or Harry Potter.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on September 23, 2014, 02:51:23 PM
There is a difference between making a good movie about a character named Deadpool and making a movie about THE character named Deadpool. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on September 28, 2014, 05:31:26 PM
Marvel coming soon teaser. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-bFzkO9O4)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 02, 2014, 04:47:28 PM
Joaquin Phoenix is apparently out as Doc Strange.  I'm glad.  I never saw it as a good fit.

My favorite choices remain Matt Bomer, Timothy Oliphant, Norman Reedus, and Andrew Lincoln.  Signable for long contracts and capable of hitting a home run as important versions of the character.  I think they'd also all make good Starks once RDJ goes out.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 02, 2014, 04:56:00 PM
None of those are good choices. Matt Bomer is too young looking, Oliphant too Western, Reedus too seedy and Lincoln just doesn't fit to me.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on October 02, 2014, 05:10:29 PM
I could see Benedict Cumberbach in the role of Strange, myself. Just the right kind of odd looking.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 02, 2014, 05:27:12 PM
The previously rumored Cumberbatch would be a good fit. Fassbender could do a job also although I doubt he'd want to do a second Marvel character. Cillian Murphy maybe doesn't have the right look for the comic book version of Strange, but he could probably take the character in a creepier direction fitting in with Scott Derrickson's style. Similarly, Derrickson worked with Ethan Hawke on Sinister and Hawke is a more than capable actor given the right material. Again, maybe not right for the comic book version of Strange but I'm not sure if that's what we're going to get considering Derrickson's previous movies.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 02, 2014, 06:00:44 PM
Much as I like Cumberbatch I'm not sure he can carry a whole movie on his own yet.  Hawke would be a good choice in my mind, he's got chops and he's hungry for a big part.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on October 02, 2014, 07:50:38 PM
What's Cumberbatch look like with more weight?  He also strikes me as a bit too young and English. Strange needs to look at least 40 when he falls and despite being 38 Cumberbatch looks to be in his early 30s at worst. And English. So very, very English.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 03, 2014, 12:11:14 AM
None of those are good choices. Matt Bomer is too young looking, Oliphant too Western, Reedus too seedy and Lincoln just doesn't fit to me.
There is a huge difference between a role and the actor.  Oliphant, Reedus and Lincoln have done more than just Justified and Walking Dead.  And Bomer can dig pretty deep.  I think they'd all be great choices that could be signed for a lengthy series.

I stand by my opinion.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: NowhereMan on October 03, 2014, 02:19:13 AM
If he could do enough to play it straight I think Depp actually has a decent look for Strange and could certainly do arrogant followed by mental break down and rebuilding. At least if he actually chooses to act in it rather than just keep playing Jack Sparrow.

Of course he would probably be way too big a name for the MU movies to want to touch him.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 03, 2014, 07:28:02 AM
What's Cumberbatch look like with more weight?

The Cumberplump.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 03, 2014, 10:47:05 AM
None of those are good choices. Matt Bomer is too young looking, Oliphant too Western, Reedus too seedy and Lincoln just doesn't fit to me.
There is a huge difference between a role and the actor.  Oliphant, Reedus and Lincoln have done more than just Justified and Walking Dead.  And Bomer can dig pretty deep. 

They are all good actors and could certainly surprise me. I've seen them in other roles than the ones you mention. I still don't think they are right. Though I think Ethan Hawke might actually be able to pull it off, I'm not a fan of him. Depp is the best of the bunch for the role, IMO, but I don't think he'd do it. I think they should go for a relative unknown, personally.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 03, 2014, 02:55:57 PM
I like Depp but the last thing we need is him taking on a strange character. He's done THAT enough times...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on October 03, 2014, 11:12:38 PM
The biggest problem, in my mind, is not the violence, profanity, or any of the other stuff that would be better in an R film...

It is that Deadpool is meant to play off other important characters, and is not meant to be the centerpiece.  He is designed to be a  secondary character, not a main character.  Writing a Deadpool movie would be like making a Kramer (of Seinfeld), Barney (of HIMYM), or Cliff Clavin (of Cheers) TV series... they're too out there to be a main character.  If you try to move them to the spotlight, and flesh out their secondary character to give it a main character's depth, you violate their core.  That is why Frasier worked - the character was not so far out there that you could add depth without changing what was appealing in the character.  

Yes, I know he has his own comics.  But what happens in the majority of those comics?  Guest stars for him to play against, or cliché situations that are the real core of the story so that he can provide the counterpointe.

Yeah, that Fraiser show sure folded fast. 

'Frasier' was seen as a complete longshot, especially after 'The Tortellis' only lasted a seaon.

Who? Exactly.

Deadpool needs a straight person to bounce off. He's the Chris Tucker of comic book characters.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on October 04, 2014, 02:05:08 PM
Now now. Look at how successful the "Joey" TV series was after "Friends"  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 04, 2014, 09:36:07 PM
Now now. Look at how successful the "Joey" TV series was after "Friends"  :oh_i_see:
And the reason for that is pretty clear - and addressed by the post where I first mentioned Frasier. 

A character, such a Joey, Kramer - or Deadpool - that is designed to be a secondary character - needs something to play off.  If you try to make them the primary character, their quirks move from accent to feature and they move from comic relief to awkwardness.  I'd love to see Deadpool in a team movie.  I fear seeing him in a movie where he is center stage and has to carry the emotional load of the film. 

And before someone points out that Deadpool is not designed to carry an emotional load - a film needs it.  Deadpool's inability to deliver it while being true to the Deadpool from the comics is the problem.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 04, 2014, 11:01:33 PM
It's like you've never noticed that Deadpool has been carrying multiple versions of his own title for years.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 04, 2014, 11:38:32 PM

And before someone points out that Deadpool is not designed to carry an emotional load - a film needs it.

The Jackass guys would disagree with you.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 05, 2014, 11:50:20 AM
It's like you've never noticed that Deadpool has been carrying multiple versions of his own title for years.
Or, it is like I addressed that earlier.  There is a reason that those titles feature so many other characters...

... and that is somewhat of an irrelevant point as a comic book and a movie are quite different beasts... unless you spend 2 hours reading each Deadpool comic?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 05, 2014, 11:50:56 AM
...
The Jackass guys would disagree with you.
So I see.  Oh, snap.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 05, 2014, 04:04:45 PM
...
The Jackass guys would disagree with you.
So I see.  Oh, snap.

Some people just want to watch the world burn, or guys being hit in the nuts.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Teleku on October 05, 2014, 04:12:11 PM
You know, it's pretty easy for them to create random characters to be the straight man for him to play off.  They do not need any established marvel characters to do so (which is also what they often do in his comic).  They are the serious cop/agent/soldier trying to stop something, he is the the guy with superpowers they have to rely on to do so.  But of course, he's god damn insane deadpool.  They can make up all the supporting cast they need.

Easy as hell, not even sure why it's being discussed.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 05, 2014, 09:03:43 PM
You know, it's pretty easy for them to create random characters to be the straight man for him to play off.  They do not need any established marvel characters to do so (which is also what they often do in his comic).  They are the serious cop/agent/soldier trying to stop something, he is the the guy with superpowers they have to rely on to do so.  But of course, he's god damn insane deadpool.  They can make up all the supporting cast they need.

Easy as hell, not even sure why it's being discussed.
Easy =/= good.  Crimany.

The better reason not to be discussing it here is this thread seemed to have been intended to handle the Marvel run MCU movies - and this is in other hands.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 05, 2014, 10:35:50 PM
Almost the entirety of some comedian's careers are completely disagreeing with your assertion that Deadpool needs established straight characters to play off of. He doesn't if the script is written well, the actors have the comedic chops to pull it off and the director isn't a complete fucknugget. Ryan Reynolds can pull off the Deadpool character and as Teleku said, you don't have to have SPECIFIC ESTABLISHED characters for him to play off of. You are just wrong.

Now whether it WILL be good is another story, but there's nothing going on with the current setup that can't end up being good.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Soulflame on October 06, 2014, 09:59:25 AM
Wasn't Deadpool specifically built so that Ryan Reynolds would portray him at some point, or is that internet legend?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 06, 2014, 11:30:20 AM
Considering he was created by Rob Liefeld in the early '90's before Ryan Reynolds was even out of high school, I'm going to say NO.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 06, 2014, 01:01:39 PM
I thought he was joking. A quick Wikipedia search would have sniffed out that info.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Soulflame on October 06, 2014, 01:11:28 PM
Eh, it was something I heard about the time of the XMen movie he was in as Sort-of-Deadpool.  I thought it would be cool if true.  If it's not true, well, that makes me the gullible one.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: SurfD on October 06, 2014, 07:33:09 PM
I dont know.  The Deadpool "character" obviously predates Ryan by a good bit, but that does not rule out the possibility that one of the current "versions" of Deadpool might not have been tailored a bit towards Renolds.  Much like the way the new Nick fury has looked remarcably like Sam Jackson for god knows how long, and Tony stark in the comics has been an almost spitting image of RDJ for just about as long as RDJ has been attached to Ironman (or possibly even longer).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 06, 2014, 09:19:38 PM
To be fair RDJ was always Tony Stark.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 06, 2014, 09:34:18 PM
So we have Marvel canceling FF, Wolverine's incoming death, Spiderman fuckery, and the fact that the X-men aren't even anywhere near the movie X-men anymore, they have now added the possible death of Deadpool in March 2015.  This is just a rumor, although they have confirmed someone with Dead in their name will be killed off. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 06, 2014, 11:14:26 PM
Normally I'd dismiss it all as nonsense given the minimal effect that the sales of comics and the box office grosses for movies have on each other. The FF stuff though seems like it might actually have some sort of basis in reality though with the rumor being Marvel CEO Isaac Perlmutter (who is also noted as being Disney's highest single shareholder) canceling the book as part of a grudge against Fox. Sounds a tad ridiculous but a couple things have come out about Marvel not allowing artists to use any FF related character on sketch cards, and Mondo (who make posters) stating that Marvel rejected anything related to FF. They do currently have a number of Deadpool posters available which obviously Fox also has the movie rights to. There's also reports that Diamond Toys isn't allowed to make any FF new merchandise right now.

Of course it's also possible that Marvel just has plans for some sort of major FF relaunch down the road which includes merchandising.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on October 06, 2014, 11:44:52 PM
Gazillion was still able to add FF members as playable heroes over the summer, if that means anything.  Maybe the original license explicitly says they can use any hero, though Marvel delayed them adding Nova for a long time and for some reason Namor isn't being added anytime soon.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on October 07, 2014, 09:03:43 AM
Is it because Namor is retarded ?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on October 07, 2014, 10:01:35 AM
He's just as awesome as Aquaman!

Oh.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on October 07, 2014, 10:51:42 AM
I actually like Aquaman more than Namor...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on October 07, 2014, 11:10:12 AM
Ditto.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on October 07, 2014, 11:38:40 AM
Obligatory Aquaman pic

(http://i.imgur.com/8KzMnlo.jpg)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 07, 2014, 12:02:19 PM
Aquaman has always been cooler than Namor because 1) Namor is a complete dickbag, 2) he doesn't have wings on his feet. Aquaman as written by Peter David was awesome (that would be Aquaman with the hook hand). Everyone else? Not always so much. Namor has always been a dick. Now he just happens to be a genocidal dick.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on October 07, 2014, 03:56:36 PM
I dont know.  The Deadpool "character" obviously predates Ryan by a good bit, but that does not rule out the possibility that one of the current "versions" of Deadpool might not have been tailored a bit towards Renolds.  Much like the way the new Nick fury has looked remarcably like Sam Jackson for god knows how long, and Tony stark in the comics has been an almost spitting image of RDJ for just about as long as RDJ has been attached to Ironman (or possibly even longer).


Ultimate's Nick Fury was purposefully made to look like Jackson. As in Marvel went and asked for Jackson's permission to do so and Jackson's reply was "sure, but I better play him if you ever make a movie".


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 09, 2014, 03:56:05 AM
Apparently Chris Claremont mentioned a few months back that writers aren't allowed to create any new characters in any of the X-men books right now because Fox would have the movie rights.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on October 09, 2014, 06:51:58 AM
Wasn't Deadpool specifically built so that Ryan Reynolds would portray him at some point, or is that internet legend?

A quick Google indicated the animated footage of Deadpool - voiced by Reynolds - appears to have been scrubbed. Someone else may be more interested in finding it.

Reynolds was mentioned for the role and did play Wade Wilson in the "Wolverine: Origins" movie, but obviously didn't play the Deadpool version of that character.

So yes, he's been linked and was in a promo animated trailer as Deadpool.

Deadpool needs a straight person to bounce the jokes off. Fox could shove in Cable and off we go.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 09, 2014, 10:31:46 AM
Fox has already said that Deadpool WILL be a part of their X-Universe so there'll be plenty of opportunity for X-Men to be the butt of the joke.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 13, 2014, 09:10:09 PM
I'm hearing that Stark (RDJ) will be in Cap 3 in a large role... sounds like the start of Civil War storyline... waiting for it to be denied, but it makes sense given story lines and contracts...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 13, 2014, 09:32:11 PM
I'm hearing that Stark (RDJ) will be in Cap 3 in a large role... sounds like the start of Civil War storyline... waiting for it to be denied, but it makes sense given story lines and contracts...

I am disappointed in you.  Civil war is a terrible storyline for the MCU for one very big reason you likely aren't thinking about, there are NO costumed heroes with secret identities. 

You can't have some big hero registration arc when no one is making it a secret.  Maybe he has a big role in cap3, maybe he doesn't but jumping to civil war is way too far a stretch. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 13, 2014, 11:00:25 PM
... and yet it is a stretch that every article is hitting.  Go read.

It has been obvious to some people that this has been a likely direction for a long time. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 13, 2014, 11:59:09 PM
I'm hearing that Stark (RDJ) will be in Cap 3 in a large role... sounds like the start of Civil War storyline... waiting for it to be denied, but it makes sense given story lines and contracts...

It really doesn't make sense unless it's the Civil War storyline in the same respect that Avengers 2 is the Age of Ultron storyline (which is to say, in name only). As Lakov mentioned, there are no superheroes with a secret identity in the current MCU. Also there's currently no justification for Stark to take a pro-reg side given what's happened with S.H.I.E.L.D. and that fact that Hydra agents had infiltrated the government. In IM2 Stark was already against giving the government any sort of access to his tech. After everything that's happened I can't see him signing on with the government. Of course the Civil War storyline in the comics didn't make a bit of sense either.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 14, 2014, 07:17:28 AM
Yeah reading the unconfirmed leak now.  Even if it's called civil war and pits captain america vs iron man it's not going to be the same civil war as in the comics, it will have to be adapted to fit the movie universe so hopefully they can fix how terrible it was.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on October 14, 2014, 07:27:20 AM
It's not exactly true that there are NO supers with a secret Identity. Spiderman has a secret Identity for one, assuming they are sticking his movies in with the MCU. The X-men movies played off the fact that the School was a secret Mutie hideout as well, and part of the plot was the Goverment discovering it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on October 14, 2014, 08:04:59 AM
So you're buying in to the "Marvel will pay Fox and Sony several billion dollars each to get the rights back" camp?

Because that's what it would take to bring Spidey and the X-men in for that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 14, 2014, 09:52:33 AM
Yeah....what? Marvel can't even SAY xmen/spiderman exist without getting sued or paying out a shitload of money.  No way fox is giving up the xmen rights anytime soon,  Sony....maybe but still no where near cost effective for disney/marvel right now and not necessary as the MCU has plenty of heroes in their stable.  It's just that the current roster isn't very secret in their identities.

More than likely the movie will be about vigilante's and the law, either go to jail or work for a government type deal.  That story is a common superhero trope that hasn't played out in the movies and it's close enough to the civil war storyline but it's not really the same thing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 14, 2014, 11:48:31 AM
sounds like the start of Civil War storyline

Please stop.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on October 14, 2014, 12:00:08 PM
All I can say is even if they did by some miracle get other characters in the MCU I hate Civil War with a passion and I hope they don't come close to using that storyline.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on October 14, 2014, 12:00:41 PM
Fair amount of the more serious press is starting to suggest they will use the civil war title, even if the comic book story makes no sense in context and was terrible.

There is room for a new story about government control if superheroes even if it would need to be an entirely different story.

The movie execs will like the idea of RDJ vs Chris Evans, and the death of Captain America has resonance plus would come at a convienient time.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 14, 2014, 12:14:04 PM
Exactly, it will be called civil war and will carry over certain themes of fascism vs freedom but it's not gonna be civil war as comic readers know it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on October 14, 2014, 04:27:52 PM
I'm hearing that Stark (RDJ) will be in Cap 3 in a large role... sounds like the start of Civil War storyline... waiting for it to be denied, but it makes sense given story lines and contracts...

I am disappointed in you.  Civil war is a terrible storyline for the MCU for one very big reason you likely aren't thinking about, there are NO costumed heroes with secret identities. 

You can't have some big hero registration arc when no one is making it a secret.  Maybe he has a big role in cap3, maybe he doesn't but jumping to civil war is way too far a stretch. 

I found a leaked copy of the script.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 15, 2014, 01:39:59 AM
Seriously?  Man, you folks just suck at eating crow.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on October 15, 2014, 03:34:32 AM
 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 15, 2014, 06:45:35 AM
Seriously?  Man, you folks just suck at eating crow.

No, you're right. I'm sure this will be a pretty faithful retelling of the comic version of Civil War. It just makes sense. Of course they'll have to change the whole beginning of the story. There's no Speedball, no New Warriors, and no Nitro in the MCU currently. Maybe we'll just have the public get pissed off that Iron Man creates Ultron or something. I guess that's kinda similar and might guilt Tony onto a Pro-Registration side.

And you'd have to tweak the main point of the story slightly. I mean there's not lot of dramatic tension in trying to register about a dozen superheroes who don't even have secret identities (and about a third of the Avengers current roster doesn't even have superpowers). We'll just say that the act requires them to be under government control. Kinda like how Cap got his powers in the first place, and where Falcon was trained to use his flight harness. Also Rhodes is presumably still military as well. And Hawkeye and Black Widow of course were technically employed by the government as part of S.H.I.E.L.D.. Tony had a working relationship with the U.S. military as a weapon's manufacturer until fairly recently in the movie timeline. I mean, I guess thematically a large part of the IM movies was about Tony no longer wanting to get his hands bloody by supplying people with weapons (which one would think would apply to putting superheroes under government control, especially given that the most recent Secretary of Defense, Alexander Pierce turned out to be in control of Hydra), but they can rework his motivations in a couple movies. I mean we can't really have him continue to be a character who would heavily lean towards the anti-reg side.

It will be interesting to see what side the Hulk takes, given that in the comics he had been blasted into space (by Tony among others) prior to the start of Civil War. One would think he'd be anti-reg given that he's been on the run from the military who want to study with Hulk in order potentially replicate it for military applications (General Ross also ends up helping to create the Abomination). He's good buddies with Tony right now though, but maybe it will be interesting for the audience to see Bruce get stabbed in the back by Stark so they can a taste of how comics readers had to deal with Iron Man being a total dick for a couple years. Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch should have some interesting reactions to a registration act also given their unique perspective not only as mutants but as former supervillains working for their father Magneto as part of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.

And of course some of the main story beats are going to have to be reworked a bit. They don't have Spider-man so they can't have him join up with Tony first, reveal his identity, and then later join Cap instead. And there's no Black Goliath currently, and even if there was getting killed by a messed up Thor clone probably wouldn't have been likely. There's not really enough super-powered characters so the Fifty-state Initiative and Project 42 (the Negative Zone prison) probably don't really work. They could still have Cap getting assassinated at the end I guess, although they might want to avoid the time bullets this time. Brutally gunning Cap down might not be the best send-off for the character if the idea is to write Steve Rogers out after Chris Evans decides to leave. I guess if they wanted to they could always bring Rogers back with another actor and maybe it won't be too jarring.

Yep, they can make this just like Civil War as long as they change every single aspect about the story except for Cap vs. Iron Man, and maybe the part where Cap is shot by a character who had no real prior involvement in the storyline before that point.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: SurfD on October 15, 2014, 07:14:15 AM
Dont forget that they dont have the Fantastic Four, so you lose all the effective influence of Reed Richard's super brain, plus the entertainment factor of getting to watch Marvel's First Family split down the middle on the registration issue.

And you also dont have, what, nearly all of the "illuminati" council.  No Exavior, no Richards, no Namor, no Blackbolt (yet), no Strange (yet), no Panther (yet).  I mean, heck. At this point, the only member currently around the MCU is Stark.  And given that their split on the issue is part of what set the entire thing off in a "big" way in the marvel universe...

I mean, unless Cap 3 is going to be set after a LOT of movies, about the only possible way they could use it for Civil War is if it was used very very losely as the set up piece for an entirely new round of MCU movies centered around Civil War. And I cant really see them doing that when they STILL have the whole Infinity Gauntlet thing steadily building with no chance of closure in sight for at least another 3 to 5 years.

Unless they are planning to do some kind of "Civil War Extremely Light" version or something.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 15, 2014, 07:46:51 AM
What's troubling to me is that the discussion is revolving around what concepts / comic book plot elements that won't translate to the big screen. That's pretty much a given. What's important is the larger picture ideas working within the MCU framework. What's implied by this discussion about using Civil War as a script is how the MCU won't be able to contort into the *specific* elements of Civil War's comic implementation.

I can see a story that is about Regulation of the Powers, and division happening along those lines. Somewhat similar to how Cap 2 had the theme of Freedom vs. Security. What about the idea of something along the lines of a War Crime tribunal in response to some new Power that goes horribly wrong? What oversight do the Powers have? That's the good starting point for a good MCU movie based on Civil War.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on October 15, 2014, 09:30:43 AM
About the only possible story I could see them doing is saying if you have powers you must be a government employee.

And that doesn't work because of the limited number of people with actual powers.  Thor is an alien, not a US citizen.  Stark is just smart, not a super.  So... Cap (who could be argued is just a peak human specimen) and Banner whose spent the last decade running and hiding and is probably the last person you'd want to upset.  Is Strange a super?

They really need to dramatically expand the hero roster to have any sort of internal struggle being worth a movie.  Otherwise there needs to be an external threat, and Civil War isn't about outside forces.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: tazelbain on October 15, 2014, 09:40:08 AM
Like Kingdom Come the central anxiety in super power proliferation and attempts to control it. Makes some sense in comics there are literally 100s of thousands SP dudes running around. In the MCU there is handful at most. Especially since X-men are out of the picture.  Maybe if this inhumans thing takes off an then it could make sense.

Also Civil War seemed wildly unpopular so I don't know why Marvel would be eager to bring this turkey back.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on October 15, 2014, 10:09:13 AM
The X-men movies also focus entirely upon the subject.  It would be a huge misstep to copy them, especially with the latest two being as good as they are.  It wouldn't be nearly as interesting without changing the tone of the Marvel movies as a whole.  (See the previous debate about casualties in New York and whether the movies are glossing over things or just trying to keep the mood upbeat rather than depressing.)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on October 15, 2014, 10:24:22 AM
Also Civil War seemed wildly unpopular so I don't know why Marvel would be eager to bring this turkey back.

I'm not sure it's widely unpopular. On this forum sure, but on Marvel Heroes it's like the majority of people have no concept of comics before Civil War and it informs everything they talk about. For example they think of Sam becoming Captain America as a repeat of the Winter Soldier story line, instead of the billions of times someone else became Cap or Cap lost the Super Soldier Serum and got old.  :oh_i_see:

eta: also youtuber comments (especially on AMC Movie Talk) show this pattern.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: DraconianOne on October 15, 2014, 10:29:44 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bz20D6vCIAAJWCy.jpg:large)

Source (https://twitter.com/Marvel/status/521771111415963648)


Title: CIVIL WAR AND EVERYTHING!!!
Post by: HaemishM on October 15, 2014, 10:32:05 AM
No, no, jgsugden is totally right. Marvel will totally change their plans to make sure they use CIVIL WAR!

Look, I could certainly see Marvel using the NAME Civil War and maybe even making it about Iron Man vs. Captain America. But it won't have even the slightest similarity to the comic version other than those two elements because even movie people realize it was a shit story and the very concept makes no goddamn sense in the framework they've created. I mean, they could add another 6 heroes in Age of Ultron (we know they add at least 2 in Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, and Black Panther and Capt. Marvel are both possibilities) and it still wouldn't make sense.

EDIT: Also, the Marvel Twitter account is clearly taking the piss.


Title: Re: CIVIL WAR AND EVERYTHING!!!
Post by: DraconianOne on October 15, 2014, 11:06:37 AM
EDIT: Also, the Marvel Twitter account is clearly taking the piss.

You mean their Age of Ultron vs Marvel Zombies thing isn't going to be a major story too?

Damn!

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 15, 2014, 03:47:44 PM
I love it when people restate things I stated a year ago assuming that I have no idea of the things I said...

The core of Civil War is heroes fighting heroes because of government regulation of the heroes.  The X-men were superfluous.  Spider-man, although in a lot of the stories, could have been excluded entirely.  The role of the FF was similarly NOT driving the conflict.  This will be Civil War in the same way that Cap II featured Winter Soldier, that Avengers was the Ultimates, etc...  That is what I've been saying all along.

I still have no friggin clue why you guys are so adamantly against anything I've said here when most of the online internet fan community seems to take it as a given.  It isn't like I'm claiming to have originated any of the things I've said about it...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 15, 2014, 03:59:20 PM
Spider-Man revealing his identity then switching to the anti-reg side and Reed Richards providing the scientific future prognostications that caused Tony Stark to double down on registration wasn't integral? Not to mention the whole creating a Thor clone who killed Black Goliath thing?

Those two characters were pretty integral to the Civil War story.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 15, 2014, 04:12:42 PM
I love it when people restate things I stated a year ago assuming that I have no idea of the things I said...

The core of Civil War is heroes fighting heroes because of government regulation of the heroes.  The X-men were superfluous.  Spider-man, although in a lot of the stories, could have been excluded entirely.  The role of the FF was similarly NOT driving the conflict.  This will be Civil War in the same way that Cap II featured Winter Soldier, that Avengers was the Ultimates, etc...  That is what I've been saying all along.

I still have no friggin clue why you guys are so adamantly against anything I've said here when most of the online internet fan community seems to take it as a given.  It isn't like I'm claiming to have originated any of the things I've said about it...

If the storyline has to be reduced all the way down to "heroes fight each other", then the first Avengers movie might as well have been called Civil War (Iron Man vs. Cap vs. Thor, Thor vs. Hulk, Black Widow vs. Hawkeye). We've already seen them fight each other more than we've seen them fight any villains.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on October 15, 2014, 04:46:57 PM
You guys are just not thinking far enough into the future, we are talking 2018 at the soonest.  Ant man and Dr Strange and GotG 2 are already confirmed, along with Daredevil, Luke Cage, Iron Fist and Jessica Jones tv shows.  By the time the civil war story rolls around there could easily be plenty of secret identity super heroes in the MCU to easily do the story mostly as written.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 15, 2014, 05:25:31 PM
Except the part where they're talking about setting it up in Cap 3 which is a 2016 release.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 15, 2014, 11:44:39 PM
(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t31.0-8/s720x720/10669246_10152733484137488_6439610460813140583_o.jpg)


I think Marvel is doing every storyline over next summer.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 15, 2014, 11:54:15 PM
The first thing that jumped into my head was a joke Louis CK did years back about how it's been so long since he had sex that he has no point of reference for it anymore and that he just masturbates thinking about other times he masturbated. If they're going to start bringing back all their big stories of the past, they're just wanking it to their previous wankery at this point.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on October 16, 2014, 07:17:11 AM
I think Storm had to have chopped her head off to get her body into that position  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on October 16, 2014, 12:16:40 PM
And isn't half that x-team dead or slated to be dead?  I'm confused by these pictures.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 16, 2014, 12:18:13 PM
Spider-Man revealing his identity then switching to the anti-reg side and Reed Richards providing the scientific future prognostications that caused Tony Stark to double down on registration wasn't integral? Not to mention the whole creating a Thor clone who killed Black Goliath thing?

Those two characters were pretty integral to the Civil War story.
They can easily be ignored or reworked.  Spider-man was in a lot of comics, but was superfluous to the actual core conflict.  Him 'coming out' was big comic book news, but in the storyline, it could have been a lot of other characters and had the same effect.  

The mere fact you reference Stark 'doubling down' shows that Reed's formula wasn't necessary.  You can't double down on something unless there is already something there... something providing extra motivation is not a core element of a story.  And the clone?  You don't need a Thor clone to be the killer to get to a breaking point in the storyline.  You don't even need a hero death to be the breaking point.  

As I said months ago, the core of Civil War is that heroes come into conflict over government regulation of people with powers.  Having Cap and Iron Man be the key characters that the story drives around is iconic, but you could have Banner fill the Stark shoes and tell essentially the same story.  

Clearly, with only a few hours to tell the story in film, Civil War is going to be abbreviated.  Without the rights to the FF, X-men and Spider-man (although Spidey could be in the fold by then and the 2 existing ASM movies ret-conned into the continuity - talks are apparently ongoing and the delay on some of the Spidey properties point towards it being serious), they'll clearly need to make changes.  However, I could see the story unfold like this and be pretty darn on track with what I consider to be the core of Civil War:

MAoS 2014-2015: We see more Superhumans being created and wider knowledge of superhumans in the world.
Avengers: AoU: We see a calamity that Superhumans get blames for - namely Stark making Ultron and the disaster that follows.  This replaces the disaster that starts Civil War in the Comics.
Cap III: We see the battle lines for Civl War of Reg vs. Non Reg. drawn and Stark and Cap come to blows.  There will likely be a secondary villain that brings the two together initially - perhaps the Mandarin?  Ends with Cap on the run?
A few years of MAoS, Defenders, etc... dealing with being on the run from the government forces trying to regulate them....
Avengers III: Civil War - the big conflict (perhaps with nearly everyone in the Marvel pantheon taking at least a small part) and resolution of the storyline - maybe resulting in the death of Captain America, Bucky/Falcon taking his place, etc...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on October 16, 2014, 12:32:38 PM
Yeah, but Stark isn't a superhuman.  He's just a brilliant guy.  That story is more properly about letting individual citizens build, play, and use what should be restricted weapons.  While I suppose a superhero second amendment story could be done, I'm not sure it'd be any good.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 16, 2014, 01:13:55 PM
So basically it'll be civil war expect not, except it will be but, not really.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 16, 2014, 02:43:24 PM
So basically it'll be civil war expect not, except it will be but, not really.   :why_so_serious:
Just like Avengers was Ultimates except not, exit it was, but not really.

Let me put it this way: If you asked someone for the elevator speech (the quick summary or pitch you could deliver to someone while they go from one floor to another) summary of Civil War, I think the key elements you discuss from the comics will appear on film.  Here is a plot summary that popped up on a quick Google search:

Plot Summary

After the super-villain Nitro sets off an explosion in Stamford, CT, killing the New Warriors and hundreds of innocents, the American Government, blaming the super-hero community for these deaths, enforces a Super-Human Registration Act that forces super-heroes to reveal their secret identities and work for the government, labeled as weapons of mass destruction. This doesn't sit well with some heroes and the Super-Hero community is divides into sides: Iron Man's Pro-Registration Act team enforced by S.H.I.E.L.D. and its new director Maria Hill, and Captain America's Anti-Registration Act team called the Secret Avengers. This separation causes a super-human Civil War that pits the two teams against each other physically and morally.


Quick version: Heroes blamed for disaster, government forces regulation of heroes, hero community divided, IM is the face of pro-registration, Cap is anti-registration face, conflict comes to blows. 

If you want to argue that the storyline, that will undoubtedly be called Civll War, is not a film version of Civil War because they use Armin Zola's algorithm instead of Reed Richard's formula, because they do not focus on heroes taking off masks (and instead focus on heroes being forced to work for the government), or because they don't kill a character named Goliath in the big conflict with a robot Thor... well, you'll be in the minority.

 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 16, 2014, 02:55:07 PM
Why would they use Civil War, even in the broad strokes you keep mentioning? Why, when they've clearly gone to the trouble of setting up Thanos as a big bad villain through 2 different franchises (Avengers and Guardians) while doing pretty much nothing to even plant the seeds for the pro-registration momentum? I mean, as has been said in this thread just recently, Stark has had 3 films where he's attempted to keep his tech out of the hands of government and those he felt wouldn't use it correctly. All of our heroes and I mean ALL OF THEM have shown no willingness to "toe the line" - Stark with his Congressional hearings, Black Widow and Captain America with the SHIELD initiative of Pierce's. I mean, if I squint hard I could see Stark feeling guilty about Ultron but I can't think he'd take that to the "everyone should be registered with the government" sort of argument that is just a wee bit necessary for Civil War to make sense. It would be more likely for him to set up his own kind of Authority as opposed to relying on the very corruptible government he's already seen.

And again, the whole Thanos thing really shits all over that argument.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 16, 2014, 04:12:06 PM
I could see Civil War as isolated to Cap 3, where Cap 2 already setup government anxiety of the Superhuman Threat, and leaving Thanos for some far-flung Avengers III, or even a GotG-focused movie for Thanos with Avengers guest-starring, though this creates the problem that there's only so much life in the actors on the current roster. An Avengers III would have Robert Downey at, what, 55 years old?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on October 16, 2014, 04:13:58 PM
What Superhuman Threat was there in Cap 2?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 16, 2014, 04:21:26 PM
The Helicarriers were a response to New York. New York was a game-changer for the MCU and made Earth governments realize the world of shit they're in should another invasion take place. Arms escalation.

I'm a bit more fuzzy on this, but the Helicarrier targeting systems were meant to identify potential threats i.e. superpowers, but it was turned on anyone who didn't sympathize with HYDRA.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 16, 2014, 04:25:31 PM
Yeah if they do anything remotely civil war it will be self contained in cap3 which can still make for a good storyline but it will still be civil war "super lite edition"


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on October 16, 2014, 04:35:29 PM
The Helicarriers were a response to New York. New York was a game-changer for the MCU and made Earth governments realize the world of shit they're in should another invasion take place. Arms escalation.

I'm a bit more fuzzy on this, but the Helicarrier targeting systems were meant to identify potential threats i.e. superpowers, but it was turned on anyone who didn't sympathize with HYDRA.

Nothing about that has anything to do with 'we must register all superhuman people' though.  New York was an alien invasion.  Cap 2 was a hidden conspiracy/military force.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 16, 2014, 05:10:11 PM
Regarding Thanos - there is no guarantee the payoff is in Avengers III.  They have talked repeatedly about how Thanos is a villain best used as a threat out there in the shadows, mostly off screen...

... but it entirely possible they could do an abbreviated Civil War that just puts Cap against Iron Man in Cap III.  They could have the registration act into the last bit of Avengers II, the play it out in MAoS (if not canceled by then) and the Netflix series.... and then resolve it in Cap III...

Regardless, time will tell.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on October 22, 2014, 08:01:46 PM
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By4e12DxrjXQZ3FUaE0yVFlTSlU/view?pli=1

Age of Ultron trailer.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Trippy on October 22, 2014, 08:03:28 PM
Not anymore.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on October 22, 2014, 08:11:36 PM
http://io9.com/our-best-look-yet-at-ultron-plus-the-hulkbuster-from-a-1649586887

This one works for now.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 22, 2014, 08:14:44 PM
Looks pretty awesome to me.  Can't wait for a newer trailer though.  I think that's mainly the stuff from Comic-Con.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on October 22, 2014, 08:20:57 PM
Dunno how much newer it can get, this is the one they are showing next week during Agents of SHIELD.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 22, 2014, 08:49:47 PM
Links are dying fast.

Edit: Youtube seems to be going nuts as everyone scrambles to upload their reactions (who gives a shit how someone ELSE reacts?!) and low quality copies of the trailer. I would actually want to wait for the real thing given just how shitty the feeds have been.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on October 22, 2014, 09:48:06 PM
Links are dying fast.

Edit: Youtube seems to be going nuts as everyone scrambles to upload their reactions (who gives a shit how someone ELSE reacts?!) and low quality copies of the trailer. I would actually want to wait for the real thing given just how shitty the feeds have been.


An enormous chunk of the population? Another persons reaction to things is like, the majority of media content that isn't scripted.



Ultron looks fucking amazing, as does the Hulkbuster armor.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on October 22, 2014, 09:57:47 PM
Here's the official one. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmeOjFno6Do)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: 01101010 on October 22, 2014, 10:04:54 PM
Still can't wrap my head around hearing Spader again right alongside Downey Jr. Too much nostalgia.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on October 22, 2014, 10:07:00 PM
Heh, the Marvel response to the trailer leaks before they went ahead and officially released it: https://twitter.com/Marvel/status/525071656306626560 (https://twitter.com/Marvel/status/525071656306626560)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on October 22, 2014, 10:20:22 PM
People are slowly starting to realize they can't take something out of the internet.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 22, 2014, 10:20:28 PM
AWESOME OVERLOAD.  :hulk_rock:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: DraconianOne on October 23, 2014, 05:49:51 AM
Welp, watching Pinocchio is never going to be quite the same again.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 23, 2014, 08:02:50 AM
All I can say is it looks like they got it right.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ceryse on October 23, 2014, 10:46:11 AM
Trailer was awesome.

I want that version of the song, too, but can't seem to find it anywhere.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 23, 2014, 12:06:06 PM
Trailer was good, but I wasn't blown away. The whole thing was a funeral -- which I suppose makes sense. There was some clever meta-awareness ("This is the end of everything that I started."). The Hulkbuster fight was the most eye-catching element.

I just thought of something though -- Cap II built off the events of Avengers 1, so with Rogers and Stark both in Cap III, I can see the movie building off Ultron. Stark created Ultron, so the government is obviously concerned with private industry working on weapons of mass destruction, which (and here's my point) the movie will be focused on Public Sector (Rogers) vs. Private Sector (Stark). Not very Civil War, but it's what I foresee as either what it will be or what the script writers are considering.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on October 23, 2014, 03:13:18 PM
It would also give a good reason for Stark to take the government side after what he caused.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on October 23, 2014, 07:10:06 PM
Though surely the lesson of Ultron is that the people without superpowers, such as Stark, are the ones who need to be regulated?

The trailer had great explosions, but also felt like a film I've seen before.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 23, 2014, 07:25:22 PM
Looks good, although I find myself not as excited for it as I was for Guardians of the Galaxy.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on October 23, 2014, 10:15:38 PM
Looks good, although I find myself not as excited for it as I was for Guardians of the Galaxy.

Trailer needs more hooked on a feeling.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on October 23, 2014, 10:16:13 PM
It's because of the serious business trailer vs. the "Hey, who wants to get some beers!" trailer.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 23, 2014, 10:38:18 PM
Cap 2 was pretty serious and I was really excited for that as well. I think it's more just they focus heavily on Ultron in this trailer, who I don't really find that interesting in the comics. I'm sure in future trailers if they show more of the Avengers just interacting with each other more my hype meter will start to build up.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 23, 2014, 10:44:04 PM
They needed to add the part where the Avengers were hanging out and trying to lift Mjolnir.  I believe that was the opening that from Comic-Con we don't see here.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 24, 2014, 12:04:10 AM
One thing to consider - this far out, the big effects shots are far from complete.  We're not seeing the big action moments, yet.  The trailers we see in 5 months are going to be much more action oriented...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on October 24, 2014, 04:08:30 AM
Stop making me agree with Marvel-Psycho.

It's just a teaser chaps, and it's the grimdark draw you in version.  Don't sweat it too much at this stage.  Also, you should probably be aware that it is unlikely to be as good as GotG as it is 'things we've seen before' for the most part.

I do love Heath Ultron though.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 24, 2014, 05:56:06 AM
Stop making me agree with Marvel-Psycho.

It's just a teaser chaps, and it's the grimdark draw you in version.  Don't sweat it too much at this stage.  Also, you should probably be aware that it is unlikely to be as good as GotG as it is 'things we've seen before' for the most part.

I do love Heath Ultron though.

Didn't say I'm worried it's going to be a bad movie or anything. Just that I was more excited for GotG than Avengers 2 based on the first trailer for each. Was more excited for Cap 2 based on the first trailer for that as well. Ultimately these trailers are all cut by the marketing department though and not the directors so in the long run it doesn't matter much. This trailer had me thinking "yeah, that looks like it should be good" rather than feeling like I just can't wait 6-7 months to see it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on October 24, 2014, 06:11:36 AM
I was just as excited, to be honest.  Though I'm more intrigued.  There are a lot of unanswered questions here, which I guess is the textbook definition of 'teaser'.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 24, 2014, 06:51:50 AM
To pile on DC a bit here, did you notice how this movie is dark in its material but the whole thing isn't sepia toned and drained of color?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on October 24, 2014, 09:11:28 AM
Yes, but that's because Marvel can make it be dark emotionally rather than needing camera tricks.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on October 24, 2014, 09:25:46 AM
Iron Man 3 was quite dark emotionally.

Also, not very good.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on October 24, 2014, 12:18:05 PM
Yes, but that's because Marvel can make it be dark emotionally rather than needing camera tricks.

I think the problem here is Zac Snyder, not something inherent to WB and their characters.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 24, 2014, 06:19:27 PM
Yes, but that's because Marvel can make it be dark emotionally rather than needing camera tricks.

I think the problem here is Zac Snyder, not something inherent to WB and their characters.
The aged nature and greater power levels on most of their characters bump up the difficulty level considerably.  Marvel's core was established after the advent of the refrigerator and TV - but DC was not.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on October 24, 2014, 06:31:38 PM
Though of course, superman was much less powerful before the widespread adoption of refrigeration.


Given the willingness to be all dark and edgy in a superman film its a shame they aren't willing to be non-traditional by simply making him less powerful.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 24, 2014, 08:04:11 PM
Though of course, superman was much less powerful before the widespread adoption of refrigeration.


Given the willingness to be all dark and edgy in a superman film its a shame they aren't willing to be non-traditional by simply making him less powerful.

That movie was called the incredibles and it was awesome


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on October 25, 2014, 01:28:29 AM
The original superman was just a strong, tough guy who could jump really far, and was unable to fly. So yeah, Increadables.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Strazos on October 25, 2014, 03:56:55 PM
So how is it that Fox can use Quicksilver in DoFP, but Disney can use the same character here? Shouldn't that present the same problems regarding why Disney cannot use X-Men?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Hutch on October 25, 2014, 06:25:12 PM
My recollection, which was backed up by a little wiki-fu, was that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were actually Avengers at one point.
Their origins lie with Magneto and the X-Men, but they were never actually X-Men.

I think that if Fox had a case, we'd have heard about a lawsuit by now. And vice-versa. So these characters must not fall under whatever licensing agreement was made regarding the X-Men.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on October 25, 2014, 07:21:06 PM
Quicksilver and SW are one of the few characters that have their film rights split between companies. I think the Skrulls are also split between Disney and Fox. The Sub-mariner is owned by at least 2 different companies but isn't quite as straightforward as QS and SW. I think Namor has to be shared, so it's going to be awhile before he shows up in any other medium (even video games).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Teleku on October 25, 2014, 07:27:53 PM
I really hope Marvel invests some of its many new found millions into having the man who haphazardly sold all this shit away beaten to death with a stack of comic books in a pillow case.  And if he's already dead, his family.

I mean dear god, talk about fucking the future for very small short term gain.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 25, 2014, 07:30:22 PM
I really hope Marvel invests some of its many new found millions into having the man who sold all this shit away haphazardly beaten to death with a stack of comic books in a pillow case.  And if he's already dead, his family.

I mean dear god, talk about fucking the future for very small short term gain.

There would be no Marvel right now if they hadn't of sold it.  They were close to gone and that was their only way out.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on October 25, 2014, 08:45:30 PM
My recollection, which was backed up by a little wiki-fu, was that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were actually Avengers at one point.
Their origins lie with Magneto and the X-Men, but they were never actually X-Men.

I think that if Fox had a case, we'd have heard about a lawsuit by now. And vice-versa. So these characters must not fall under whatever licensing agreement was made regarding the X-Men.


It's not as simple as them just having been avengers, everyone has been an avenger including wolverine. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 25, 2014, 10:35:50 PM
Key to their usage is that they can't be called Mutants by Disney.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on October 26, 2014, 05:26:54 AM
My recollection, which was backed up by a little wiki-fu, was that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were actually Avengers at one point.
Their origins lie with Magneto and the X-Men, but they were never actually X-Men.

I think that if Fox had a case, we'd have heard about a lawsuit by now. And vice-versa. So these characters must not fall under whatever licensing agreement was made regarding the X-Men.


It's not as simple as them just having been avengers, everyone has been an avenger including wolverine. 

We're debating a contract none of us have seen, but by all accounts Disney could use Wolverine if they really really wanted to, but destroying the relationship with Fox over it isn't worth it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 26, 2014, 11:36:09 AM
...We're debating a contract none of us have seen, but by all accounts Disney could use Wolverine if they really really wanted to, but destroying the relationship with Fox over it isn't worth it.
Your first half of the sentence is the key here - the general public's only information related to which characters which studio can use is what the studios release, and they have not told us a lot of things that people assume are true.

However, I would be shocked if there were any main characters out there where there is any remaining uncertainty as to their rights. 

Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, as a packaged pair, get pretty special treatment as they play an important role in both the X-verse (as Magneto's child, and (particularly Scarlet Witch) as key components of major storylines) and the Avengers (as early Avengers and (particularly Scarlet Witch) as key cogs in major storylines (Scarlet Witch and her relationship with the Vision).  They've said there are other shared characters, but I do not know who they are... but I'd be shocked if Wolverine was not locked own exclusively at Fox as part of their deal.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 26, 2014, 01:30:07 PM
My recollection, which was backed up by a little wiki-fu, was that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were actually Avengers at one point.
Their origins lie with Magneto and the X-Men, but they were never actually X-Men.

I think that if Fox had a case, we'd have heard about a lawsuit by now. And vice-versa. So these characters must not fall under whatever licensing agreement was made regarding the X-Men.


It's not as simple as them just having been avengers, everyone has been an avenger including wolverine. 

We're debating a contract none of us have seen, but by all accounts Disney could use Wolverine if they really really wanted to, but destroying the relationship with Fox over it isn't worth it.

You mean like killing off Wolverine?  Or messing with the X-men comics so much that they are barely recognizable to the movie teams?  Or how about telling writers they can't create any new mutant characters?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Hutch on October 26, 2014, 05:49:52 PM
So I re-watched Marvel's The Avengers over the weekend. In the blink or you'll miss it department, Jasper Sitwell is on the bridge of the Helicarrier. He's not mentioned by name, but it's definitely the same actor as in Cap 2.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on October 26, 2014, 07:25:44 PM
http://marvel-movies.wikia.com/wiki/Jasper_Sitwell 

He's appeared in just about everything since they decided there was a universe.  Well until he died at least.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: palmer_eldritch on October 27, 2014, 12:07:35 PM
I like the trailer.

Does Hank Pym exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? One of the best things about Ultron for me is Hank Pym's massive guilt trip about creating him. I got a feeling from the trailer that they might have made Stark the creator in this version of the story?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on October 27, 2014, 12:17:51 PM
Yes.  Yes, they have.

He decided he liked the idea that Drone Better.

I suspect it will turn out poorly for him.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 27, 2014, 03:01:03 PM
Honestly in the MCU it would be weird if Stark DIDN'T make Ultron.  Trying to make drones is just a natural progression for the character.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 27, 2014, 05:22:14 PM
So, Doctor Strange news has come full circle with Cumberbatch rumored to be named as the lead in the next couple days.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on October 27, 2014, 06:36:37 PM
The Obvuis way to go with Strange is to make him some kind of "iron Man with Magic" in a sense. Ordinary guy that build up a lot of power via study... or thinking about it maybe have him be like the Technomancers in Bab5, technological illusions that look like wizardry. Considering that they have been pretty forthright about saying that Thor is not a god but a really long lived Alien with godlike powers that are actually Tech in nature, I have a feeling that they are trying to keep any kind of truly supernatural stuff out of their movies. Going that route actually saves them a lot of headaches, but what kind of villian could they put him against that would be a truley Doc Strange villian if they go that route? Bounce him through Thors 9 worlds and send him against Loki?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 27, 2014, 06:51:27 PM
The main reason they are doing Doctor Strange is to bring magic into the MCU.  I can't remember, but didn't they hand wave Asgardian "magic" by just saying that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on October 27, 2014, 08:11:19 PM
Seriously, they are not thinking in any way like that.

They are just looking for a character that is the next most filmable and marketable while being superficially different enough from the others that they can pretend it is a new thing but not actually so different that they aren't interchangeable in the Avengers story and able to fit the MCU film template.

Possibly with a side serving of "which character does the corporate suit I have to sell this to like".

I should stress I'm entirely ok with this so long as they keep churning out stuff at the level they have been, but this isn't some grand artistic project.


I have a feeling that they are trying to keep any kind of truly supernatural stuff out of their movies.

I definitely think they seem to steer away from it because it is harder to do well in a contemporary setting, but the explanation in Thor felt like a writer/director decision to make clear that their character was not invulnerable rather than a grand theory delivered from the big plan. Which is as it should be.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 27, 2014, 08:30:45 PM
Seriously, they are not thinking in any way like that.

They are just looking for a character that is the next most filmable and marketable while being superficially different enough from the others that they can pretend it is a new thing but not actually so different that they aren't interchangeable in the Avengers story and able to fit the MCU film template.


Then they have way more options than Doctor Strange.  Seriously, Strange is one of the most out there characters when it comes down to putting it on film.  Feige himself has said that this is their chance to swerve into magic and the supernatural.  They are going to have Doctor Strange look at magic from the scientific angle, as he is an M.D., and then wrap it in some mysticism.  However it's still going to be suggested it's all physics and quantum mechanics.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: NowhereMan on October 28, 2014, 12:16:26 PM
From the point of view of opening up the Universe and the potential for new characters that makes sense. Immortals open up the Terrigen mists and with the introduction of magic they can start to bring in a pretty big crop of characters and justify fairly unremarked upon background people (especially without the normal comics fall back of mutants).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 28, 2014, 02:42:18 PM
Announces today by Marvel:
Thor: Ragnarok
Captain America: Civil War
Doctor Strange
Inhumans
Captain Marvel
Black Panther
Guardians 2
And a 2 part Avengers: Infinity War.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: murdoc on October 28, 2014, 02:47:00 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1DfDPWCIAETu_T.png)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Trippy on October 28, 2014, 02:48:13 PM
May 6, 2016Captain America: Civil War
Nov 4, 2016Doctor Strange
May 5, 2017Guardians of the Galaxy 2
July 28, 2017Thor: Ragnarok
Nov. 3, 2017Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman lead)
July 6: 2018Captain Marvel
May 4, 2018Avengers: Infinity War Part I
Nov 2, 2018Inhumans
May 3, 2019Avengers: Infinity War Part II


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 28, 2014, 02:48:28 PM
2017 will be a banner year.

So Civil War predictions panned out, Marvel ramps up Outer Space films in time for Infinity Wars, which will likely be the end of the current slate of actors. Thor ushed out as far as it is seems to have to do with Hemsworth attempting to branch out from Thor.

My first thought about splitting Avengers 3 into two parts was whether that was a calculated move to keep Downey, Hemsworth and Evans under contract for one more film.

Edit: That image shows Captain America: Serpent Society, but I saw Civil War on the Marvel feed. Hm?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 28, 2014, 02:52:01 PM
They would have to add a picture to their deal.  I highly doubt they could extend any of their movie deals and force them if they weren't contracted for it.

Also I am magnitudes more excited over this line up than DC's.  DC really must be throwing fits over how Marvel just overshadows them at every turn.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 28, 2014, 02:53:50 PM

Edit: That image shows Captain America: Serpent Society, but I saw Civil War on the Marvel feed. Hm?

It was a swerve, they changed it a few minutes later when they brought out Evans and RDJ.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on October 28, 2014, 03:05:30 PM
Quote
Another new character joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe: "Captain Marvel," set for July 6, 2018. "I want to make it very clear that this Captain Marvel's name is Carol Danvers," Feige said. This film has been in development almost as long as "Guardians of the Galaxy," according to Feige, who said the character straddles two worlds -- Earth-bound origins and outer space adventures.

You're god damned right it is!  :yahoo:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 28, 2014, 03:08:57 PM
I like how they are pretty much going to have two separate settings.  Earth based stuff and the outer space stuff, with all three space properties having earth ties.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 28, 2014, 03:15:45 PM
Still no confirmed casting for Doctor Strange.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 28, 2014, 03:40:54 PM
Benedict Cumberbatch, bitches (http://www.beastsofwar.com/marvel/benedict-cumberbatch-confirmed-doctor-strange/).

Also, fuck Civil War. Everything else looks awesome. I liked the Serpent Society thing better, though if the Serpents are involved, the Civil War may not be registration v. not-registration.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 28, 2014, 03:49:34 PM
100% sure civil war will be vastly different than the comics.  Most likely they are going to take the core concepts of it and then make it fit in the current universe, which is fine to me.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 28, 2014, 03:52:14 PM
Also I'm happy to be wrong about the black panther but it looks like they are definitely giving him a lot more lead ins than any other hero.  We're probably going to get a glimpse or two of Wakanda in avengers2 and he's also confirmed to be in cap3 and in costume no less. So when the BP movie rolls around he'll already be a thing in peoples minds, which means they obviously want him to be a big deal.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 28, 2014, 03:56:25 PM
Why wouldn't they? The Marvel Universe in the movies is horribly lily-white, at least as far as the leads go. I mean, Falcon was fucking awesome, and I'd be all over a Falcon movie as a lead, but that's not going to happen because they'd be more likely to mirror the comics and make Falcon the new Captain America when Evans bows out than to make a Falcon movie. Better to take an established black character who doesn't start cinematic life as a "sidekick" and blow him out. Now Marvel just needs to figure out what Hispanic character they can turn into a big thing to show true diversity appeal to the growing minority demographics.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 28, 2014, 03:59:47 PM
I'm not saying BP isn't going to be awesome and you're right Marvel does need some color in their roster.  It's just an unprecedented amount of lead in to a solo movie so you can tell they are considering him very important.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on October 28, 2014, 04:13:18 PM
I think they are just going the extra mile because BP and Wakanda could VERY EASILY be done really racist and stereotypical horrible.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on October 28, 2014, 04:31:12 PM
Yvonne Strahovski needs to be Carol.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 28, 2014, 04:33:58 PM
My pants agree with your assessment.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on October 28, 2014, 04:47:50 PM
Benedict Cumberbatch, bitches (http://www.beastsofwar.com/marvel/benedict-cumberbatch-confirmed-doctor-strange/).

Also, fuck Civil War. Everything else looks awesome. I liked the Serpent Society thing better, though if the Serpents are involved, the Civil War may not be registration v. not-registration.

Yeah this seems the route that fits best in the universe as it is. HYDRA is a thing, they infiltrate the government and we get GI-Joe2 done Marvel Style.

 :grin:

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 28, 2014, 04:58:05 PM
More details (http://io9.com/marvel-debuts-their-new-phase-3-movies-including-capta-1651832265).

Black Panther... FUCK YEAH. Civil War... meh. Depends HEAVILY on how they do it and how much of the comic bullshit they ignore.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: DraconianOne on October 28, 2014, 05:22:51 PM
Benedict Cumberbatch, bitches (http://www.beastsofwar.com/marvel/benedict-cumberbatch-confirmed-doctor-strange/).

Also, fuck Civil War. Everything else looks awesome. I liked the Serpent Society thing better, though if the Serpents are involved, the Civil War may not be registration v. not-registration.

Also, judging from those photos, Stephen Moffat will be writing it. That ought to please Ironwood.


 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 28, 2014, 05:26:53 PM
I have more faith in Moffat writing magic and fantasy than anything else he's tried to do.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 28, 2014, 05:37:08 PM
More details (http://io9.com/marvel-debuts-their-new-phase-3-movies-including-capta-1651832265).

Black Panther... FUCK YEAH. Civil War... meh. Depends HEAVILY on how they do it and how much of the comic bullshit they ignore.

Given that the next five movies after Cap 3 are fairly unlikely to tie into it (three new character movies, a space movie, and Thor, who isn't on Earth a lot of the time), I'm guessing Civil War will be largely self-contained with maybe some mention in Infinity War. Wouldn't be surprised if by the end of Cap 3, Cap and Iron Man have found some common enemy to fight because I can't see them having Hero vs. Hero as the climax of one of their movies.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Surlyboi on October 28, 2014, 08:51:32 PM
I will literally lose my shit if Ragnarok brings us Beta Ray Bill.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on October 28, 2014, 11:13:22 PM
No bad news there. Looking forward to all of it. I wonder if they might populate Civil War with folks from TV in addition to Stark / Rodgers.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 29, 2014, 02:06:25 AM
I'll just leave this here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30kASCBl0ck) :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on October 29, 2014, 05:22:04 AM
They needed to add the part where the Avengers were hanging out and trying to lift Mjolnir.  I believe that was the opening that from Comic-Con we don't see here.


They've released an alternate version of the trailer with that part as the beginning. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGwuoYKhqx8&list=UUvC4D8onUfXzvjTOM-dBfEA)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on October 29, 2014, 05:36:22 AM
That'll cheer up the wife.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on October 29, 2014, 09:16:49 AM
Also, the internet appears to be abuzz with 'omg Loki's staff was the mind gem !!'

What ?

We knew it was an infinity stone.  What the fuck ?  The only thing we didn't get was why the fuck Thanos gave it away, but I'm sure it's be some Xanatos Gambit.




Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sky on October 29, 2014, 09:31:36 AM
Could make a meeting down the line between Stark and Strange interesting if they get the right actor for the part.
Benedict Cumberbatch
:grin:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 29, 2014, 09:54:12 AM
Civil War predictions:

Stark, directly responsible for creating a global threat on par to the Chitauri invasion of New York, experiences extreme guilt (possibly compounded by his PTSD). He realizes he needs some type of oversight to regulate his actions, and turns to the government being the supreme authority over how best to apply his scientific mind. His ego is shattered; all that's left is a shell of his former self who has lost his way.

Rogers, fresh off his experiences with mass government infiltration by HYDRA, believes that the powers must be independent and rely on a personal sense of morality (something Stark is weak in). Government power isn't the 'highest' authority, and would create Nationalist heroes fighting for their country, not humanity. By being accountable only to themselves and each other power, the possibility of corruption is reduced.

Stark finds God / Philosophy and Rogers dies for his beliefs just to show Stark how it's done. The End. Actually, I do foresee Captain America making some kind of grand sacrifice (and Bucky taking over for Avengers III complete with updated costume), and Stark going off to do some soul-searching / humanitarian work and abandoning his pursuit of solving problems through technology. Then there's the grand, final, Phase-3 ending reunion for Infinity Wars. Post-Infinity Wars, the slate gets wiped clean, non-core properties are explored, and a Bondesque reboot is planned and executed by the mid-20's.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on October 29, 2014, 10:25:18 AM
That idea has nothing to do with the Stark that they've shown thus far.  It's going to be a massive swerve if that's the case and, frankly, a bit of a shitty mouthful to swallow.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on October 29, 2014, 10:31:17 AM
Hinges a lot on character development/ guilt over Ultron in Avengers 2.  They're already showing some pathos from him in the trailer.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 29, 2014, 10:33:24 AM
I'm willing to entertain alternative theories on how Stark, on the side of the government, comes to blow with Rogers. I do think Stark is deeply affected by the events of Avengers 2, though I admit a traumatic episode creating internal character conflict was essentially the Avengers -> IM3 progression.

Edit: Also...

(http://abload.de/img/untitled-2xyceq.gif)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on October 29, 2014, 11:11:08 AM
Cap just blew up Shield rather than rebuild it.

RDJ just learned to be a grown up, accidently creates Ultron.

RDJ thinks 'uh, shield needs to be a thing'.

Cap says 'no wai'

FIGHT! KAPOW! WOOSH!

Oh no! Bad guys!

Cap gets killed.

Very sad, ultimate sacrifice, think about what he stood for,why can't we all just get along?

Bucky might now be Cap, cliffhanger, somehow Thanos involved.

Fin.



What did I miss?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on October 29, 2014, 11:55:14 AM
What would disappoint me about Cap 3 being Civil War focused is that it totally leaves the Bucky story from Winter Soldier unresolved. And that's a fuckload more interesting story than goddamn Civil War.

Also, Fuck Civil War.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 29, 2014, 12:16:39 PM
Bucky could easily fit into the storyline for civil war and a whole winter soldier focused movie would be stretching it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sky on October 29, 2014, 12:52:14 PM
I tend to like the less actiony comics movies, so I'm hoping something like Demon in a Bottle gets some play. Doubtful, but one can hope.

Thor's reaction when Cap grabs Mjolnir and it moves slightly was my favorite part of that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on October 29, 2014, 01:00:32 PM
Somebody explain to me why Thor is more worthy than Steve Rogers. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on October 29, 2014, 01:04:35 PM
Because he follows the Norse code that Mjolnir wants and Steve only follows American Christian morality.

Not enough smashing heads, glory dying in battle and too much forgiveness of your enemies.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Trippy on October 29, 2014, 02:10:42 PM
In the comics Cap has wielded Mjolnir so he's just not quite ready yet in the movies in that scene.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on October 29, 2014, 02:35:56 PM
I'm putting weight behind the theory that the inclusion of that moment is a setup for a callback when Cap does wield Mjolnir at a critical moment in the Ultron fight. Chekov's Gun.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on October 29, 2014, 03:15:01 PM
It wouldn't surprise me at all.

I do love how his smirk fades real quick when it budges for Cap.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 29, 2014, 03:49:38 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/YjYBjcI.gif)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sky on October 29, 2014, 04:32:01 PM
I hope the Captain Marvel movie follows the Marvel Now version.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on October 29, 2014, 05:10:11 PM
It absolutely will. It's why she's getting a movie to begin with basically.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on October 29, 2014, 06:59:24 PM
What would disappoint me about Cap 3 being Civil War focused is that it totally leaves the Bucky story from Winter Soldier unresolved. And that's a fuckload more interesting story than goddamn Civil War.

Also, Fuck Civil War.

Is there much to resolve? HYDRA made him into whatever captain america is and gave him a lobotomy. Now he is grumpy so the human torch needs to find him and give him a hug to prove that the human spirit is amazeballs. Until then he is doomed to randomly show up and punch people because reasons.

I found Bucky largely unsympathetic and unnecessary in both films for what it is worth, I don't think it was anyone's fault, just that they didn't have enough screen time available for me to give a shit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on October 29, 2014, 11:12:35 PM
Full Phase 3 announcement. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2VoJuVfbjI)  I am not ashamed to say, even knowing everything already, I still got a little giddy at the announcements.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 04, 2014, 06:14:55 PM
Doc Strange: Benedict Cumberbatch. http://marvel.com/news/movies/23754/benedict_cumberbatch_to_play_doctor_strange (http://marvel.com/news/movies/23754/benedict_cumberbatch_to_play_doctor_strange)

Is anyone going to try to come up with a reason to complain about this casting?  my only concern would be whether he'll stick around long term...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on December 04, 2014, 06:40:38 PM
Other than he's overrated actor?  He'll probably do fine. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 04, 2014, 07:01:51 PM
Other than he's overrated actor?  He'll probably do fine. 

Both true statements.  He's good and he'll do a fine job but man, his fanbase is rabid.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 04, 2014, 07:02:45 PM
Other than he's overrated actor?  He'll probably do fine. 
So the answer is yes, someone will come up with a reason to complain.

Honestly, I'd rather have seen Downey do this role rather than Stark, but once Downey was out of the way, I don't think I could come up with a better Strange.  I prefer him to others considered for the role.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on December 04, 2014, 09:53:15 PM
Was there something going on this week that resulted in major movie announcements on Thursday? Festival?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 05, 2014, 10:52:41 AM
Not as far as I know.  I think Marvel just had a bunch of stuff to reveal all at once for TV/movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 05, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
I'm sure they wanted all that stuff, especially the Doctor Strange thing sealed up before that big thing they did a month ago,  but the deal was likely not done.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on December 05, 2014, 01:24:37 PM
I only ask because of this and the Terminator... oh and Spectre. Thursday had some significance.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 05, 2014, 01:42:53 PM
I'm confused: Why are you brining up the new Terminator in your conversation about major movies?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Slyfeind on December 05, 2014, 05:28:31 PM
Somebody explain to me why Thor is more worthy than Steve Rogers. 

That trailer cut out and rearranged a lot of that scene (which was shown with more clarity at the latest SDCC). Steve struggles at first, then actually lifts Mjolnir a few inches, all the Avengers freak out, and then Steve gets nervous and puts it back down.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on December 05, 2014, 11:52:26 PM
I'm confused: Why are you brining up the new Terminator in your conversation about major movies?

New trailer did spark some hope!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 10, 2014, 11:33:14 AM
Those rumors about Sony and marvel discussing bringing Spidey into the MCU.... True.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/12/09/sony-marvel-discussed-spider-man-movie-crossover/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/12/09/sony-marvel-discussed-spider-man-movie-crossover/)

Sadly, Sony seems to have blown it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on December 10, 2014, 12:13:14 PM
I can imagine how that decision was reached:

Sony Exec 1:  "Can anyone tell me why we shouldn't agree to this?"

Sony Exec 2:  "We hate money."

Sony Exec 1:  "Right.  No deal."


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 10, 2014, 12:13:28 PM
Keep on fucking that chicken, Sony. You'll get an egg eventually.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 10, 2014, 12:40:52 PM
I don't generally go for conspiracy theories, but Sony's Spider-man handling is one of those situations where I can't really come up with a sane explanation for their gameplan.  All I can come up with is that they're trying to extort Marvel for every penny.  I still think there is a chance that they could come up with an agreement three weeks before Avengers II is released and they could insert Spidey into the ending scene for Avengers II and make him a cog in Cap III.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 10, 2014, 12:49:24 PM
What are the sources on that article beyond "A hacker said so"  is there a link to the actual emails anywhere on there that I'm missing?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Teleku on December 10, 2014, 12:52:39 PM
That article mentioned part of the deal was that Sony would 'retain creative control', while Marvel just produced.  So, fuck that.  Let Sony distribute and market all it wants, leave them out of the creation process.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 10, 2014, 01:40:28 PM
Lakov - No, the emails are not on the site.  You're free to decide the evidence of the discussions is insufficient.

I'd bet the idea was that Sony could do their own thing and Marvel could use the character in their films - which is ridiculous.  Marvel will likely buy the rights back after the next flop or two.  As fans, we could move this forward faster by not buying or renting anything related to this new Spider-man series.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 10, 2014, 02:35:35 PM
As fans, we could move this forward faster by not buying or renting anything related to this new Spider-man series.

After seeing the last movie, this will be a lot easier than anyone might think.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 10, 2014, 02:44:39 PM
Seriously.  I watched in the theater and was disappointed.  When I saw snippets of it on TV, I was shocked at how much worse it seemed.  When I flashed onto it and just saw that tag scene where they revealed the tech, I cringed at the idea of what they're going to cobble together for the next films.... 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on December 10, 2014, 05:00:40 PM
Seriously.  I watched in the theater and was disappointed.  When I saw snippets of it on TV, I was shocked at how much worse it seemed.  When I flashed onto it and just saw that tag scene where they revealed the tech, I cringed at the idea of what they're going to cobble together for the next films.... 

I'm going to snark slightly at you and say that you are part of the problem since you voted with your dollars and went and saw it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 10, 2014, 05:07:45 PM
Fair snark - and had I known that it was truly that disappointing, I would not have gone.  I do not plan to go to any of the upcoming Sony ones (unless they get great reviews from the sources I trust).

I've seen each Marvel film (except I. Hulk) at least twice in the theaters.... but none of the Sony or Fox ones more than once.  Does that count?

EDIT: Apparently, Spidey back to Marvel may not be dead according to Latino Review... http://www.latino-review.com/news/marvelous-da7e-75-the-spider-manmarvel-deal-is-very-much-alive (http://www.latino-review.com/news/marvelous-da7e-75-the-spider-manmarvel-deal-is-very-much-alive)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 10, 2014, 06:21:44 PM
That article reads like 95% speculation and 5% "guys I totally have some sources, and they heard that Sony folks in Japan aren't happy so you can see how there's a good chance that they could possibly push for the Marvel deal".


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on December 10, 2014, 06:40:10 PM
We know the sources are real, Sony really was hacked. Edit: it would probably be legally problematic to post the actual hacked emails, but they can talk about what is in them.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 10, 2014, 11:31:02 PM
I just thumbed back through this thread....

A lot of funny things in retrospect.  Some people were wrong a lot... and some people nailed a lot of things.  Some of our predictions were hilarious.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Hutch on December 12, 2014, 04:39:32 PM
I just thumbed back through this thread....

A lot of funny things in retrospect.  Some people were wrong a lot... and some people nailed a lot of things.  Some of our predictions were hilarious.

Wayyyy back on Page 1, I speculated (not predicted) that it would be cool if Avengers 2 was about Ultron.

I also was wondering why the hell there was going to be a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, so it shows what I know  :grin:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 19, 2014, 11:14:40 AM
...
I also was wondering why the hell there was going to be a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, so it shows what I know  :grin:
Someone just made a really strong argument as to who MCU Peter Quill's father is... in fact, it kind of seems obvious, now.  Just in case it is right...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Typhon on December 19, 2014, 11:34:35 AM
Nova Core said that Quill's father is alien, I thought Adam Warlock was made up of human DNA.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on December 19, 2014, 12:05:07 PM
They said his father was "Something else".  They had never seen it before.

(Thanks recent bluray release!)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 19, 2014, 12:07:09 PM
That would fit with Quill's mama talking about his father as an angel of light.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 19, 2014, 12:15:39 PM
So I guess the spoiler thing was a waste of time...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 19, 2014, 12:20:19 PM
Fuck it. It's not really much of a spoiler - maybe we need a "Wild Ass Geek Speculation" tag.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Hutch on December 19, 2014, 12:22:01 PM
Spoilers are spoiled in the thread title.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on December 19, 2014, 12:57:35 PM
They said his father was "Something else".  They had never seen it before.

(Thanks recent bluray release!)

No they said they had not seen it in a very long time.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on December 19, 2014, 01:20:30 PM
What about Blackbolt?  I'm not up on Marvel's cosmic entities but that would tie him to the Inhumans instead of introducing a new celestial being or whatever.  Plus the Inhumans have a base on the moon. 

Or maybe Captain Atlas?  He runs in the same circles as the Kree and Ronan, is Kree and is planning a new enhanced race with Minerva.  Maybe Peter's mom was a trial run?

Or maybe Starhawk?  He/she has a strong connection to the Guardians of the Galaxy.  But he/she had kids of their own so he/she doesn't fit that neatly into the MCU.

Of the three I'd say Starhawk.  I think he/she would be the most interesting of my three nominees.  Starhawk the dad of Starlord.  Kind of cool.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 19, 2014, 01:26:55 PM
...
I also was wondering why the hell there was going to be a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, so it shows what I know  :grin:
Someone just made a really strong argument as to who MCU Peter Quill's father is... in fact, it kind of seems obvious, now.  Just in case it is right...

Also, as a reminder:



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 19, 2014, 02:34:12 PM


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 19, 2014, 02:35:45 PM
Nobody actually claimed it was a new argument. Also, directors say a lot of things.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 19, 2014, 06:45:17 PM
... Also, directors say a lot of things.
To lack of wit: http://screenrant.com/amazing-spider-man-2-interview-marc-webb/ (http://screenrant.com/amazing-spider-man-2-interview-marc-webb/)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 19, 2014, 09:40:05 PM
Let us never again compare a spider man director with James Gunn please.

Some directors have a good handle on their projects, especially when they also write the scripts.  Maybe that's not always the case but in this instance, if Gunn says something is so, I'm inclined to believe him.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 19, 2014, 10:14:38 PM
James Gunn has definitely earned a bit of respect that other directors of super-hero movies have not.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: SurfD on December 20, 2014, 02:23:03 AM
What about Blackbolt?  I'm not up on Marvel's cosmic entities but that would tie him to the Inhumans instead of introducing a new celestial being or whatever.  Plus the Inhumans have a base on the moon.
Blackbolt wouldnt really make much sense, since an Earthbound being would have absolutely no reason to phone halfway across the galaxy to contract the ravagers to fetch his kid from a mere couple thousand kilometers away on the same planet.  That and the whole problem of how would he talk to peter's mom without vapourizing her.

Besides, from what I understand, they have no need to use Guardians to tie into Inhumans, as they are doing a huge chunk of that in the Agents of Shield TV series.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 20, 2014, 06:40:27 PM
Spidey may be headed for the MCU with a recast and reboot.  CBM has missed on some of their stories, but there is independent rumors backing this one...

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=112646 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=112646)

The sources are a bit shadowy and the rights/sharing issues seem a bit wonky (Spidey can't have a big enough role to be worth 25% production in Civil War... not at this late date), but I do think this is the ballpark where this ends up:

Spidey effectively joins the MCU as part of a reboot, Marvel gets a say in director/writer/casting but Sony retains creative control of the solo flicks, Sony and Marvel split bills (and revenue) for any movies in which Spidey appears, and Sony gets the benefit of the House of M(ouse) to promote, show and profit on any solo Spidey movies.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 20, 2014, 07:28:12 PM
Even if everything leaked is true that is all still a part of a negotiation which is not even remotely close to what may or may not be agreed upon. 

There has been no doubt Marvel has been wanting spidey back and were likely in talks with sony but this article just shows us what those talks were about.  It doesn't say any of those terms were concrete and it seems like those are all sony's terms/counteroffers. 

In short it's interesting stuff but insubstantial right now.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 20, 2014, 08:30:38 PM
Note my reference to the other sources... I'm not saying it is a lock, but I consider it more likely than not that the deal has been reached and will be announced in the next 2 months.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on December 20, 2014, 09:17:23 PM
I really am fascinated that folks who have been 100% wrong in every guess just keep on coming. I know I'm only batting at best 50% but...really, that's the point. When you've been wrong at what's plausible, possible and likely often enough, at some point you just sit back, grab some popcorn and see what's coming next.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 20, 2014, 10:14:32 PM
You seem to be under the impression I have been 100% wrong.  You seem to have very selective memory.  I'm not going to go back through this thread (and the MAoS threads) again, but I just mentioned that I'd gotten a kick out of doing it recently to see where we were on and off... and I was pretty darn ahead of the curve, even when people claimed I was an idiot for thinking we'd see Civil War or Inhumans anytime soon.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on December 21, 2014, 01:53:10 AM
Now I got curious and checked my own posts in the thread. I made only one actual prediction, that any Captain Marvel we will see in the MCU will be Carol Danvers.

Move over Nostradamus, there is a new sheriff in town.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on December 21, 2014, 03:57:19 AM
Regardless of whether true or not, I think the spiderman/mcu  deal described would be an awful plan for both sides.

I don't see Disney making any more money from it, and it will create a stronger fan desire for Sony to get the fuck out of Spiderman, while triggering an enormous management headache all around.

Can imagine both sides continuing to circle around this just in case one company agrees to something foolish. But this deal only works if Sony think they've burnt the franchise out and want to cut losses, or when Disney has run the MCU off the rails are willing to let Sony throw them a hail Mary.

Above all, I really struggle to imagine the Rat allowing anyone to else to have any from of creative control over a project impacting their IP.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on December 21, 2014, 05:46:45 AM
Marvel's in a good position, they want Spidey not need him.  Sony knows that Spidey in the MCU would make bank.  They just want a big piece of that bank.  I don't even mind if they keep Garfield, he's a good kid and that would make the two ASM's part of the MCU.  :oh_i_see:

If I were Sony, I'd not sell Spidey, I'd lease him out per movie to Marvel.  Then after his rapturous appearance in Cap 3 or whatever, Sony makes a new ASM and rides Marvel's coattails to money hats.

Honestly at this point it's up to lawyers and accountants. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on December 21, 2014, 09:53:57 AM
The alternative to a deal for Sony is to realise they are more than capable of making bankable movies with an iconic character which will benefit from the existence of the MCU even if they do not cross over.

ASM2 took over $ 200M. About the same as Thor 2 or CA1. More than Thor1.

 Amazing Spiderman already makes more money than all but the best performing MCU films, despite being an entirely phoned in production. The first 3 Spiderman films took more money than any marvel film except Avengers and IM3.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on December 21, 2014, 10:25:14 AM
You seem to be under the impression I have been 100% wrong.  You seem to have very selective memory.  I'm not going to go back through this thread (and the MAoS threads) again, but I just mentioned that I'd gotten a kick out of doing it recently to see where we were on and off... and I was pretty darn ahead of the curve, even when people claimed I was an idiot for thinking we'd see Civil War or Inhumans anytime soon.

Wasn't thinking of you, actually. That's the problem with subtweeting, I guess.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on December 21, 2014, 10:51:16 AM
The alternative to a deal for Sony is to realise they are more than capable of making bankable movies with an iconic character which will benefit from the existence of the MCU even if they do not cross over.

ASM2 took over $ 200M. About the same as Thor 2 or CA1. More than Thor1.

 Amazing Spiderman already makes more money than all but the best performing MCU films, despite being an entirely phoned in production. The first 3 Spiderman films took more money than any marvel film except Avengers and IM3.

Yes they realize that.  That's their current strategy.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on December 21, 2014, 02:46:43 PM
The stuff that leaked detailed the discussions on a deal. One that fell through. There's a meeting set for sometime in January to discuss thing further, but currently a Sony/Disney deal is basically dead.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 21, 2014, 07:34:34 PM
The alternative to a deal for Sony is to realise they are more than capable of making bankable movies with an iconic character which will benefit from the existence of the MCU even if they do not cross over.

ASM2 took over $ 200M. About the same as Thor 2 or CA1. More than Thor1.

 Amazing Spiderman already makes more money than all but the best performing MCU films, despite being an entirely phoned in production. The first 3 Spiderman films took more money than any marvel film except Avengers and IM3.

The box office numbers for Spider-man are on a downward trend though, and that's despite the fact that the Amazing Spider-man movies had the benefit of 3D upcharges. Every movie has made less than the one before it and if that trend continues you're potentially looking at the mid to upper $100 million range for the next one. The budget for the first ASM is reported to be $230 million. That's $60 million more than Guardians of the Galaxy or Captain America 2. The only thing that's saving the ASM movies is the foreign market.

According to a Deadline.com article prior to ASM2's release: (http://deadline.com/2014/04/amazing-spider-man-2-box-office-international-launch-716150/)

Quote
ASM2’s production budget is said to be around $255M, with about $180M to $190M spent on marketing. With that said, the success of its global web of grosses from international territories are crucial. With so much riding on this one picture – the outlay investment is so high – Spider-Man 2 is the kind of picture that needs to do higher than the first, which made $752.2M worldwide and about 65% of its gross coming from international markets. At the $750M mark, Sony stands to make about 20% return on the movie so they will not lose money but not considered a big success. What would be considered successful is a worldwide gross in the $850M to $900M range. And above that number is where they ideally would like to be all in … and who wouldn’t, right? So between the domestic and international markets, those are the numbers they gotta pull off.

Given that they did in fact end up right around $750 million, ASM2 was not the level of success Sony was looking for, and it stands to reason that future entries are only going to do worse.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on December 28, 2014, 01:58:44 AM
The stuff that leaked detailed the discussions on a deal. One that fell through. There's a meeting set for sometime in January to discuss thing further, but currently a Sony/Disney deal is basically dead.

It's not surprising that Sony and Disney talked about it, but as the saying goes, no-one in Hollywood ever got fired for saying, "No".

ASM 2 didn't so as well as expected, but it still did okay. According to Box Office Mojo, it did better in foreign markets than the US market.

Also, off two data points, I don't think it's fair to say that the next ASM will automatically do worse. The biggest problem with ASM 2 is that it tried to pack too much in - a new director could potentially fix that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 28, 2014, 02:35:24 AM
I consider it five points of data. You've got five Spider-man movies released by Sony in a 12 year period. I don't think rebooting the franchise erases the relevance of the other three points of data.

And yes, they did better in the foreign market. That's increasingly becoming the rule rather than the exception of every major movie release. Even movies like Battleship, John Carter, and Prince of Persia make a good chunk of money overseas. If you look at how the foreign box office has increased for a lot of franchise over the last several years, ASM's foreign numbers aren't particularly impressive and are actually down from Spider-man 3's numbers in 2007.

If you go with the numbers that say that ASM2 cost around $250 million to make, and then look at the marketing around it, and then you look at GOTG which brought in more money with less cost on characters nobody recognized, you really have to wonder how much power Spider-man has as a brand. Is that the best return Sony can get on investing a quarter of a billion dollars? It really doesn't sound like it.

Beyond that, creatively they've hit a crossroads. Could they reboot the series a second time already? If they keep going with ASM are they going to be hurt by having killed off Emma Stone in the last movie? She was one of the few bright parts of the series. Do they have the rights to so few characters that the Sinister Six was the best idea they could come up with to start building a shared universe of franchises?

There were also a fuckton more problems with ASM2 than trying to cram too much in but I'm sure I've discussed them somewhere else on here.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 28, 2014, 10:17:08 AM
Much as Disney/Marvel would like spiderman back into the fold, crazy deals like the one outlined above are just not worth it.  As mentioned before, when you make the number one movie of the year guardians of the galaxy, you just don't need spiderman.

Would they love to get spidey back? Absolutely.  Are they willing to pay huge sums of cash? Not likely.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Malakili on December 28, 2014, 10:51:22 AM

If you go with the numbers that say that ASM2 cost around $250 million to make, and then look at the marketing around it, and then you look at GOTG which brought in more money with less cost on characters nobody recognized, you really have to wonder how much power Spider-man has as a brand. Is that the best return Sony can get on investing a quarter of a billion dollars? It really doesn't sound like it.


If they made a Spider-Man movie that was as good as Guardians of the Galaxy they would print money.  It isn't a brand issue, it's just that the movies have been garbage.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on December 28, 2014, 11:49:44 AM
Yeah, but making a good movie with second- and third-string characters means the writers try to make something more interesting than regurgitating an origin story that everyone already knows.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 28, 2014, 02:35:55 PM
I think the latest Spider-Man's biggest problems have been the reboot. It was simply TOO DAMN SOON. And as much as they changed, the movies really weren't all that different from the three earlier films because they had to start over with an origin story. They'd have done better to just replace the actors and move the story forward from where they had it - though that wasn't a good spot to start from either as Spider-Man 3 was worse than this ASM2.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on December 28, 2014, 03:42:19 PM
Spider-Man's stories are kinda shit for the movie format, they would be much better served as some kind of on going series. His stories are at their strongest when he is managing his 'day to day' stuff, which doesn't translate terribly well to the movie format.


His powers though, they need the movie budget to do them justice.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 28, 2014, 03:47:28 PM

If you go with the numbers that say that ASM2 cost around $250 million to make, and then look at the marketing around it, and then you look at GOTG which brought in more money with less cost on characters nobody recognized, you really have to wonder how much power Spider-man has as a brand. Is that the best return Sony can get on investing a quarter of a billion dollars? It really doesn't sound like it.


If they made a Spider-Man movie that was as good as Guardians of the Galaxy they would print money.  It isn't a brand issue, it's just that the movies have been garbage.

Making a movie as good as GOTG is the tricky part though, and my point is if they made a really good movie and spent the same amount to market it as they did ASM2, it would likely make money whether it's a Spider-man movie or not. I'm not entirely sure at this point why they bother to keep the Spider-man licence. It's not a strong enough brand to make a ton of money regardless of quality, and Sony doesn't even really get to make much off the character in regards to merchandise either.

I do think it's a brand issue though in the respect that Disney/Marvel Studios and the MCU are established to be generally high quality brands. If GOTG had come out from a different studio and wasn't part of the MCU it might not have got the attention it did. Even a lot of people on this board expressed some skepticism in Marvel making a movie with those characters but were willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and go see it based partly on Marvel Studio's track record. Sony Pictures hasn't established a brand like that though. I think if they had happened to release GOTG instead, and did so following ASM2's release they would have had even more of an uphill battle than Marvel did.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 28, 2014, 09:04:46 PM
If in the MCU and used effectively, a well done Spider-man series of movies would be the top single character movie property.  There is a reason Spidey has historically been the most beloved Marvel character for decades.  You see what Sony has pulled in despite messing up the series repeatedly.  Both of the recent versions had massive problems (although each got a few things right).  If they nailed the character, the spirit, the entire deal ... it'd be insanely huge.  Sony has been idiotic not to offer to hand over creative control to Marvel with an agreement that pulls in most of the revenue from solo films for Sony.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on December 29, 2014, 01:30:07 PM
Well, you know, Sony has been in the news recently for idiocy.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 29, 2014, 01:36:24 PM
Spiderman is just an odd duck because it's still making sony a lot of money even if it could be making an assload of money in other hands.  So for sony, it's not worth selling at anything but a premium price but for marvel with their already profitable stable, it's not worth buying spiderman at anything but a discount.  Now I'm sure talks are going on and have been for some time but it's just going to be ridiculous demands from sony and marvel simply keeping the dialogue open for the future. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 29, 2014, 01:38:55 PM
It seems simple to me:

* Sony hands over all creative control to Marvel.
* They agree to have a new Spider-man feature movie every 24 to 36 months where Sony gets the lion share of the studio revenue.  No movie, or if the movie fails to perform well, the deal ends and Sony gets the character back (with a one subsequent movie option for Marvel to work the character out of the MCU).
* Marvel gets to use Spidey characters in any of their films or TV they want, but Sony gets compensated on a sliding scale based upon amount of usage.

Basically, Sony gets to sit back and collect revenue while Marvel takes on all the risk - which are much smaller risks when the character is in their hands.  Both studios recognize there is a bigger pie to split if the character is in the MCU... and the Sony backlash is going to force their hands at some point.

On another note: Speculation out there is that


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on December 29, 2014, 04:54:41 PM
Could you spoiler tag any speculation on the plot for Avengers II?  I'm wanting to go in fresh.  Thanks.  I mean specifically spoiler tag stuff that shows up in Latino Review or other sites like that.  Your own wild ass speculation is still fine of course.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 29, 2014, 05:05:01 PM
Could you spoiler tag any speculation on the plot for Avengers II?  I'm wanting to go in fresh.  Thanks.  I mean specifically spoiler tag stuff that shows up in Latino Review or other sites like that.  Your own wild ass speculation is still fine of course.
If it helps, the above speculation was people connecting dots from different sources ... not from a single source.  It is closer to wild ass speculation right now.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 29, 2014, 06:01:23 PM
I just don't see what would be in it for marvel to jump through hoops to get spiderman back nor for sony to lease out spiderman and have marvel take a small cut.  The spiderman brand is big enough to make money for sony as is and while it would make fans gasm all over to have him in the MCU, the MCU is strong enough to not need spiderman and if it got a benefit, would likely be minor. 

That's not to say I'm predicting it will never happen, in fact I think a cameo may be likely but anything else just seems like a bridge too far.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on December 29, 2014, 06:08:27 PM
I would rather they bought the rights back to Spider-man then have to deal with Sony.  They have more than enough stuff to make up for not having him in the MCU at this point.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 29, 2014, 06:43:47 PM
It seems simple to me:

* Sony hands over all creative control to Marvel.
* They agree to have a new Spider-man feature movie every 24 to 36 months where Sony gets the lion share of the studio revenue.  No movie, or if the movie fails to perform well, the deal ends and Sony gets the character back (with a one subsequent movie option for Marvel to work the character out of the MCU).
* Marvel gets to use Spidey characters in any of their films or TV they want, but Sony gets compensated on a sliding scale based upon amount of usage.

Basically, Sony gets to sit back and collect revenue while Marvel takes on all the risk - which are much smaller risks when the character is in their hands.  Both studios recognize there is a bigger pie to split if the character is in the MCU... and the Sony backlash is going to force their hands at some point.

So basically Marvel would make next to no money on Spider-man movies, and would have to give Sony money if they use the character in something like the Avengers which already makes more money without Spider-man in it than pretty much any movie that doesn't have James Cameron's name on it. There is literally no benefit in that deal for Marvel, while at the same time they have to devote top talent, money, and manpower to trying to build a successful Spider-man movie which is either tied to a largely unsuccessful series (ASM) or would be the second reboot in around a decade and a half. And they would have to be devoting all those resources to this, while at the same time working on their already increased workload of three movies a year, and trying not to have any sort of dip in quality from focusing on this many movie projects at once (not even taking into account all the TV stuff they're working on these days).

But hey, the more characters Marvel has the rights to, the closer they can get to doing better adaptations of every shitty crossover they've done in the comics.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 29, 2014, 10:47:31 PM
I just don't see what would be in it for marvel to jump through hoops to get spiderman back nor for sony to lease out spiderman and have marvel take a small cut.  ..
If the pie doubles in size, but you have to give up a third of it, you're still ahead.  That is why.

Velorath, Marvel would make *some* money on the Spidey films, and their other properties would benefit more from comingling with Spidey.  As their own movies and the Spidey movies would both be expected to do better as part of the MCU that alone, there would be more pie to split between the studios.  Obviously, they would not make a deal where they give up more than they expect to earn.  But all the Sony docs on the topic and all the analysis I've seen seem to agree with my beliefs - there is more opportunity for Spider-man to make more money in the MCU than if he has to stand alone.

Their other option is to watch Sony make mediocre Spider-man movies forever and a day - all of which Marvel gets minimal direct funding benefit from and all of which pull audiences away from the MCU efforts.  There are four superhero movie worlds in play right now - MCU, Spidey, X-men/FF and DC.  Uniting the most vulnerable (Spider-man) back under their banner gives them a lot more control and more ability to shape the competition.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 29, 2014, 11:17:47 PM
I don't see any indication that Spider-Man is "pulling audiences away from MCU movies." None. The market is quite clearly big enough to support them all, and the best movies are making the most money.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 29, 2014, 11:18:53 PM
So far outside of Avengers (and the upcoming Cap 3), they've used guest stars pretty sparingly and only when it made sense (Black Widow in IM2 and Cap 2 being the main ones). The last thing I want to see them do is try to cram Spidey into movies in the hope that it will boost up the box office numbers for those movies like it's a 90's comics Wolverine guest appearance.

Marvel has plenty on their plate for the next several years. Let Sony keep fumbling the license for the next few years. They're only going to get more desperate.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on December 30, 2014, 12:15:48 AM
But when do we hit Peak Superhero? The market is big enough, they keep swapping out properties instead of a Harry Potter / Hunger Games / Assassin's Creed / Battlefield / CoD "ONE A YEAR" strategy. They can keep it going awhile. Spider-man can fit into their docket.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 30, 2014, 07:44:36 AM
TAspiderman2 made 200mil, the premise that somehow just by fitting spiderman into the MCU that those profits would double is ridiculous.  Of course sony documents value spiderman highly, it's a 200mil property they are negotiating and they want as much money as they can get.

-Spiderman is not a 400mil property and while TAS2 may be a bad movie, good/bad does not translate to money, ask transformers.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on December 30, 2014, 08:58:06 AM
Increasing the number of characters in the MCU does nothing to increase the creative capacity of the team managing it.

Spending that limited capacity on a character they would not get 100% of the revenues from doesn't seem clever.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 30, 2014, 11:31:08 AM
Haemish - Marvel has spoken about the need to be strategic in the timing of their movies so that Superhero movies do not compete with each other.  If you release a few good movies in a row in the same genre, the later ones tend to get better box office than the earlier ones.  There is a lot to read on the topic on the interwebs.

Maven - I think Marvel is doing a good job countering the peak issue by making the different properties - and even the different movies in the same series - quite different, but good.  I do not think we hit a point where people say, "Not ANOTHER Marvel movie..."  I think the machine chugs away for well more than a decade...

Eldaec - Limiting the characters forces the MCU to work around and change elements when they want to draw upon stories that have worked for them in the comics and that have instant buzz when discussed.  Civil War had a lot of buzz surrounding it outside of the comics world when released.  It was an obvious option for them to revisit in the MCU because it allows them to focus on hero versus hero (which means not needing to pay for villains and giving each of their heroes more screen time).  However, eliminating elements of the Civil War storyline because they do not have access to Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Spider-man, etc... creates a perception in the media and amongst hard core fans that they're giving us an inferior version of the story.  Perception prior to the film release has an impact on box office.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 30, 2014, 12:21:03 PM
Civil war WAS an inferior story. It's a great idea and as an idea it's quality is not affected at all by the minor plot details.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 30, 2014, 12:29:40 PM
Civil war WAS an inferior story. It's a great idea and as an idea it's quality is not affected at all by the minor plot details.
Opinions differ.  http://www.comicbookquest.com/news-reviews/top-ten-storylines-and-events-of-the-marvel-universe/ (http://www.comicbookquest.com/news-reviews/top-ten-storylines-and-events-of-the-marvel-universe/)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Slyfeind on December 30, 2014, 01:18:42 PM
Bear in mind also perception of the property and public reaction. Money is great and all, but if Spider-Man is bring in big bucks while damaging public perception of Spider-Man, it's going to sour the franchise. "Hey Marvel," says Sony, "Our Spider-Man movies are still profitable, but your fans are starting to hate Spider-Man, and he's not gaining any new followings. But it's still money am I right?"

There's some long-term issues at work there; not necessarily damage, but Marvel has been handing Spider-Man for 60-some-odd years. Then Sony comes along and makes him look like shit, all the while saying "But it's profitable!"... it's bound to raise a few eyebrows.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 30, 2014, 02:51:40 PM
There are spoilers floating around for Avengers II marketing materials right now that reveal a lot about the storyline... if you do not want to be spoiled as to the exact origins of the villain, how they changed the origin of one of the three new Avengers, etc... you need to be careful....


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on December 30, 2014, 03:33:08 PM
  Civil War had a lot of buzz surrounding it outside of the comics world marketing money shoved behind it and the political climate when released. 

Do not doubt that if Civil War were anything but an allegory for Gitmo and the issues of 2006/2008 it would not have received the attention it did. You'd have heard as much about it in the news as you did Infinity Gauntlet or the last Wolverine/ whatever crossover.

Any time comics make the news it's because of a political agenda it's being used for. Hispanic, Gay Spider man, Female Spider Man, Female Thor, etc. Not due to the public's interest in comics or the story itself.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 30, 2014, 03:42:11 PM
Civil war WAS an inferior story. It's a great idea and as an idea it's quality is not affected at all by the minor plot details.
Opinions differ.  http://www.comicbookquest.com/news-reviews/top-ten-storylines-and-events-of-the-marvel-universe/ (http://www.comicbookquest.com/news-reviews/top-ten-storylines-and-events-of-the-marvel-universe/)

Because why wouldn't you trust a website that seems almost entirely devoted to selling comics and merchandise to tell you what the good stuff is...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 30, 2014, 03:45:09 PM
Timely issues being discussed play a part, obviously.  However, they shoved about the same marketing money behind it that they did for any of the other 'events' you listed.  It is still the most widely recognized event in the recent past, and likely second most well known all time next to Secret Wars.  There were obvious flaws in it, but it received a lot of appreciation, praise, and attention.  There are always bashers, but the voice of the majority sees it as one of the most significant Marvel events ever.

When combined with the obvious financial benefits of doing a film where you can capitalize on multiple heroes and not need to pay for a big time villain....

And Velorath - you're right.  We should go to a entomology site for comic news, obviously.  Why look at this, or any other, comic site for discussion of comics?  How silly was I.... (There are multiple lists like this one that put it at the top of the list - the majority of voices are in agreement on the significance of Civil War - including, obviously, the Marvel movie team).


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 30, 2014, 04:05:29 PM
And Velorath - you're right.  We should go to a entomology site for comic news, obviously.  Why look at this, or any other, comic site for discussion of comics?  How silly was I.... (There are multiple lists like this one that put it at the top of the list - the majority of voices are in agreement on the significance of Civil War - including, obviously, the Marvel movie team).

 :facepalm:

You might want to go to a comic news site for news, or possibly a comic reviews site. The website you linked to is literally a store. The homepage is entirely stuff for sale with zero editorial content. It has a grand total of 30 news or reviews stories going back to 2011, which seem to be almost entirely made up of (badly written) movie reviews. Let me guess, you googled "civil war top marvel story" to find this place and then once you got the result you were looking for you didn't bother to actually check out the site itself (or you're the guy that sends these people these shittastic reviews and articles). Clearly this isn't one of the sites you regularly visit for comics news or discussion so kindly stop being a fucktard about it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 30, 2014, 05:37:10 PM
I absolutely Googled it - and this was one of many similar lists.  I did just grab the first of many.  Absolutely. 

However, the point remains - there are many similar lists that put Civil War at, or near, the top of the list of Marvel events.  There are countless comments out there.  Objecting that the list I used was not up to snuff when there are so many fricking similar lists is kind of weak sauce.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on December 30, 2014, 08:39:24 PM
Ack.

Look, Civil War is all at once a 9/11 thing and not at all. The basic idea of a government deciding, "Fuck this, enough is enough, we're not letting gods and aliens and mutants just run around and do what they want" is a fundamental storyline for all comics after the Silver Age ended. Civil War came after Watchmen, it came after Miracleman, but it also came after just a bunch of more ordinary stuff where the government in both major comic-book universes rattled its sabers about monitoring supers more closely. Mark Grunewald, who was about as worshipfully fanboy a comic-book writer as there has ever been, wrote a story where the government revokes Steve Rogers' right to be Captain America because they own the intellectual property, basically.

If you strip away some of the Mark Millar dick-stroking awfulness of the actual Civil War storyline--the callous asshole version of Reed Richards that he offered, the dumb pandering to right-wing sentiment, the "we need to kill someone, how about the giant black guy" stuff, you have the same basic story: what human government would tolerate gods, aliens and mutants making their own decisions about what should happen next to any given nation, or humanity as a whole? None, that's what.

If Avengers 2 features a world that suffers serious consequences because Tony Stark and Bruce Banner got busy in the lab one day, I can totally see a vaguely-CW inspired follow-up where Stark agrees it's time to submit to democratic or collective guidance and Steve Rogers doesn't (partly because of the events of CA2). That's a better version of CW, because both of them will have perfect reason to think what they think without Millar having to make one or both into douchebags.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 30, 2014, 10:24:47 PM
Mark Gruenwald handled the consequences of super-powered beings better in just about every story he ever wrote (especially in the Squadron Supreme) than Civil War. God, Civil War was just fucking awful and anyone that says it is one of the top 10 comic stories of all time is a complete and utter clownshoes twat who thinks that Bendis' Avengers Disassembled is the height of edginess. It was so fucking bad, and it's that bad before you ever consider how it completely ignored decades of characterization on foundational characters like Reed Richards or Tony Stark.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on December 30, 2014, 10:42:33 PM
Mark Gruenwald handled the consequences of super-powered beings better in just about every story he ever wrote (especially in the Squadron Supreme) than Civil War. God, Civil War was just fucking awful and anyone that says it is one of the top 10 comic stories of all time is a complete and utter clownshoes twat who thinks that Bendis' Avengers Disassembled is the height of edginess. It was so fucking bad, and it's that bad before you ever consider how it completely ignored decades of characterization on foundational characters like Reed Richards or Tony Stark.

But some random comic site said so!   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 30, 2014, 11:18:19 PM
Thing is, MCU has been altering comic canon since the first iron man, before the MCU was a thing and guess what? NO ONE GIVES A FUCK.  You don't need spiderman for civil war any more than you needed any other thing they've cut,  let them cherry pick, they are really fucking good at that, as they have shown.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on December 30, 2014, 11:31:08 PM
I cannot think of a change the MCU has made that I thought was obviously inferior to the original source material. Even the stuff that's been kind of dubious in the MCU (Whiplash, say) sucked worse in the comics. What, you wanted a mobster who dresses like a man-whore stripper pirate and tries to kill the guy in the armor with an energy whip instead of whatever the fuck Rourke was playing? Or you wanted a blatantly dumb Yellow Peril fourth-rate Fu Manchu as the Mandarin?

Even when they've gone balls-out comic books (talking raccoons w/guns) they've gone for the essence of the thing and discarded the shit that doesn't work in a cinematic context with ease and confidence. As opposed to, well, Sony and Fox and WB, who are mostly struggling to figure out what to keep and what to throw away.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: MahrinSkel on December 31, 2014, 12:24:48 AM
What, you wanted a mobster who dresses like a man-whore stripper pirate and tries to kill the guy in the armor with an energy whip instead of whatever the fuck Rourke was playing?
I thought that was obvious, Whiplash was Stark if his dad had been broke and broken instead of rich and distant.

Just as brilliant, just as don't-give-a-fuck about the rules, but where Stark's daddy issues all centered on never feeling like he had measured up, Rourke played a guy who had spent a lifetime watching his father wallow in his own bitterness and bile after Howard Stark stole his greatest achievement (and then didn't do shit with it).

I mean, they spent half the movie with Stark playing Memory Lane in the film vault. It couldn't have been more obvious.

--Dave


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on December 31, 2014, 05:50:41 AM
Dave, get with the zeitgeist.  IM2 sucked!  Suuuuuckkkkeddd!  My friend was up in arms "Why is IM scratching on a turntable and giving his company away?"  Because he's dying, that's why.  IM2's a good movie. Tony Stark faces his mortality and the poorer version of himself.

As for Civil War; I didn't read it and don't care to.  The version they put on the screen will be fine I'm sure.  In fact it may be great.  No villains to speak of, just Thor vs IM, Hulk vs. Cap let's say. That's some good superhero fightin' AND will should be great drama as former friends pick sides.

Stop bitching about CW from the comics.  It doesn't matter.  The MCU will do it right I'm sure.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on December 31, 2014, 06:06:17 AM
It may have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but Rouke did a lot more scenes for "IM2" that got cut to make way for all the Avengers tie-ins. He had more of a character than crazy Russian man (who's dad may have been screwed over by Stark's dad).

"IM2" didn't suck, but a lot of it is filler.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on December 31, 2014, 06:14:29 AM
That's not why Iron Man 2 Sucked Tann.  It sucked because it had more potential than it used.

Also, I thought Hammer was kinda awful...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 31, 2014, 07:32:11 AM
Stop bitching about CW from the comics. 

No deal.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on December 31, 2014, 01:32:47 PM
I liked Iron Man 2 and I thought Justin Hammer was hilarious. I'm sure the MCU can do a good Civil War story - mainly because it won't be even remotely connected to the abortion that was the comics in anything other than name and "heroes vs. heroes."


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on December 31, 2014, 04:23:37 PM
He wasn't MEANT to be hilarious tho.  I kept asking myself how the fuck Zaphod got elected CEO.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on December 31, 2014, 04:33:45 PM
Hammer kind of reminded me of Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg, only Rockwell wasn't nearly as entertaining as Oldman.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 31, 2014, 07:22:47 PM
He wasn't MEANT to be hilarious tho. 

I disagree. I think he was meant to be played for laughs as a guy who was desperately trying to be Tony Stark but didn't have the wit, charisma, or talent.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on December 31, 2014, 07:27:43 PM
And yet built Hammer Industries.

It didn't work for me.  Enough said, really.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on December 31, 2014, 07:47:35 PM
And yet built Hammer Industries.

Which was a constant runner-up to Stark Industries until Stark got out of weapons manufacturing. I don't think Hammer was meant to be completely incompetent or anything, but his ambition ultimately outstripped his talent.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: DraconianOne on December 31, 2014, 08:11:48 PM
it won't be even remotely connected to the abortion that was the comics in anything other than name and "heroes vs. heroes."

This.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was nothing to do with a registration act or even much about hero vs hero. CA3 has to resolve some outstanding issues - mostly Bucky Barnes/Winter Soldier and possibly SHIELD/HYDRA. Couple that with the fact that neither Downey Jr nor Chris Evans will play a "bad guy" because cinema audiences wouldn't tolerate that. I reckon likelihood is that CA3 will be about the future of Winter Soldier and who gets to decide it: Rogers - Barnes was his best friend - or Stark - Barnes killed his parents. Also some other stuff that might constitute Avengers 2 spoilers so won't say here.

Of course, I am extremely drunk and can barely focus so I reserve the right to deny having said any of this in 17 months time.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on December 31, 2014, 10:27:22 PM
They've already said what it will be. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: NowhereMan on January 01, 2015, 07:37:24 AM
I could see Downey's Stark as a bad guy, or at least a control freak type who's making the hard decisions and ultimately is in the wrong without realising it. Honestly it will be hard to do things worse than the comic book version of Civil War. The core of the story is great, it was just the implementation in the comics that sucked horrendously.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on January 01, 2015, 12:56:04 PM
The thing is there wasn't supposed to be a "bad" side but two sides who both had good points.  The fact that Stark went ridiculously comicbooky evil is a failure of writing.  I doubt the movie is going to follow the shitty comic and make Stark's side the obviously wrong/bad side and whole "pick a side" thing will actually be meaningful.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on January 01, 2015, 01:06:49 PM
They had to use existing superheroes who we see as "good" to make both sides, but there was so clearly writer bias against the registration side (likely based on the Gitmo allegory) that they couldn't pull it off. It didn't help that the amount of thought put into the pro-reg actions was comically shallow. I mean, I realize they were trying to make Reed Richards somewhat aloof but cloning a fucking Asgardian GOD? That's one of those "hold my beer" kind of moments where you have to ask both the character and the writer "WHAT DID YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN?" I mean, it takes Hank Pym's creation of Ultron (an understandable goal that went horribly wrong) and turns the stupid to 11. A prison in the Negative Zone where you imprison former super heroes overseen by a dead Captain Marvel that you plucked from the time stream? No smart person with good intentions should ever fucking think of those words in the same sentence, much less be actual implemented ideas by characters we've seen make great personal sacrifices over the years to do things NOT like that? If it had been Henry Gyrich suggesting these things, both Tony Stark and Reed Richards would have fought it tooth and nail.

And there I go again. The fucking stupidity in that one series just induces a blinding rage in me. It's horribad, lazy writing and I can't believe anyone thought it was any different.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on January 01, 2015, 02:16:20 PM
It's worse than you think. Millar was trying to be pro-registration, in line with some of his post-9/11 views. Reportedly he was a bit unhappy with some of the tie-ins and then the follow-on stories that unambiguously came down against the pro-registration camp. It's not even clear that Millar thought Stark, Richard and Pym were acting like bad guys, just that they were being resolute, etc.  Millar has a fairly long history of writing douchebags that he himself apparently doesn't think of as being douchebags.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on January 01, 2015, 02:29:22 PM
So you're saying he went Frank Miller batshit?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on January 01, 2015, 03:43:51 PM
You never go full Frank Miller.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on January 01, 2015, 04:18:05 PM
I've never liked Millar to begin with.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Khaldun on January 01, 2015, 05:13:55 PM
I don't think he's as fuck-all crazy as Miller. Most of the biggest asshole shit he's said or written has a certain kind of postmodern-ironic deniability to it. Frank on the other hand appears to have gone fully into batshit land.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on January 02, 2015, 05:46:00 PM
There is an Ant-man Trailer out there.  Sort of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQjhJf1R4k4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQjhJf1R4k4)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on January 02, 2015, 11:13:11 PM
ROOFLES.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on January 03, 2015, 12:01:46 AM
That's about as clear on the plot as the usual hollywood trailer.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on January 03, 2015, 06:39:03 AM
They had to use existing superheroes who we see as "good" to make both sides, but there was so clearly writer bias against the registration side (likely based on the Gitmo allegory) that they couldn't pull it off.

One of the problems I see with MCU civil war is that they are doing it in a Captain America film, and MCU Cap is such a boy scout they can't possibly make him wrong about anything, or even raise the possibility he might be wrong about something in his own film. So a film with Captain America's name on it centred in a security vs freedom philosophical question is stillborn if Cap has already made his mind up. Plus nuanced plot is hardly the MCU's strength.

I can't decide how aware Disney are of their own limitations on this. If they just make about Stark and Cap bring grumpy with each other but having to come together to fight a big bad monster I'm sure it'll be fine.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Sir T on January 03, 2015, 06:44:24 AM
I'll just remind people how bad the second half of Xmen III was, and that had a Civil war type plot...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on January 03, 2015, 09:16:50 AM
Well yes, but every Xmen story is basically civil war, and many of them are just fine.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Hutch on January 03, 2015, 06:17:43 PM
The story of Winter Soldier was security vs freedom. Rogers knew that Project Insight stank as soon as Fury showed it to him, and neither of them even knew about Hydra or Barnes yet.
That's the moment in the film when we see Rogers start to question whether he wants to keep working for Shield. He doesn't know what else he'd do, of course.
And we don't have to wait around for the answer, because the next thing that happens is Barnes shoots Fury, Rogers/Romanov team up to discover Hydra's involvement, and then bang bang comic book ending.

So I see Cap 3 as the answer to the question, what does Steve Rogers do once he's cut loose from Shield? The answer will, of course, be bang bang comic book Stark vs Rogers.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on January 03, 2015, 06:42:46 PM
Soo Cap 3 ends with Steve Rogers giving up the Captain America mantle.  The government makes Bucky or they introduce John Walker to become his replacement, and Steve Rogers becomes Nomad.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: UnSub on January 03, 2015, 11:34:18 PM
And yet built Hammer Industries.

It didn't work for me.  Enough said, really.


Yes, but he built Hammer Industries in the Marvel Film Universe where Tony Stark is always right.

So Hammer Industries could customise the War Machine suit perfectly because it was Stark's, but its own high explosive rocket didn't work at all.

Well yes, but every Xmen story is basically civil war, and many of them are just fine.

If they're Civil War, then the pro-registration side are always cartoonish villains. How Civil War deals with Tony "Never Wrong" Stark being pro-registration is an entirely different issue.

(Side note: In "X-Men", Senator Kelly asks the question, "Are mutants dangerous?" and the rest of the film goes on to answer that question with, "Yes, yes, fuck yes". I've always found that funny.)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Ironwood on January 04, 2015, 05:41:02 PM

It didn't work for me.  Enough said, really.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 06, 2015, 03:28:47 PM
For those that are interested, there is a Jeph Loeb interview that is fairly spoiler free, but gets into some details on how they're handling casting / recasting issues.  His answers are intended to be ambiguous about how they'll approach an inevitable end to RDJ as Stark and stuff, but I think he is pretty bad at hiding the 8 ball.  I found the last 40 or so minutes of his interview to be interesting.

http://wordballoon.blogspot.com/2015/01/word-balloon-podcast-jeph-loeb-talks.html (http://wordballoon.blogspot.com/2015/01/word-balloon-podcast-jeph-loeb-talks.html)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Threash on February 06, 2015, 03:57:43 PM
Could you uh... give us a one paragraph summary of the two and a half hour video you just linked?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 06, 2015, 05:30:12 PM
Could you uh... give us a one paragraph summary of the two and a half hour video you just linked?
I basically did hit the relevant stuff:  First 20 minutes is a waste, then 40 minutes of interesting casting talk that doesn't go into specifics, but how he answers the questions is interesting.  He discusses casting for MAoS, Carter, Daredevil, Jessica, the movies.... The rest of the podcast is other people that I did not listen to...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 06, 2015, 10:10:58 PM
That's more of an outline than a summary.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 09, 2015, 11:36:09 PM
http://marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man


I'll just leave this here.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 09, 2015, 11:42:23 PM
Yeah, looks like that summit un-fucked things... though the mentions of re-casting, yet again, is perhaps troubling.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 09, 2015, 11:44:03 PM
No recasting is awesome.  Fuck Andrew Garfield.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 09, 2015, 11:50:20 PM
Individual feelings about Garfields performance has little to do with my point, which is more that recasting a role, this soon may rub audiences a little rough.

It really depends on who they end up getting. That being said, I didn't have any problem with Garfield. Garfield was the LEAST of those films problems.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on February 09, 2015, 11:53:30 PM
I am indifferent to keeping or leaving Garfield as Spider-man. I really want to see how they will work him into the MCU or whatever though.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 09, 2015, 11:56:23 PM
All the MCU fans will totally give a new casting/reboot a pass.  You can't really want the last 2 Spider-Man movies to be MCU canon do you?  Cuz.. eww.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Nevermore on February 09, 2015, 11:57:20 PM
I finally watched The Amazing Spiderman and I hated the whole cast, so recasting is perfectly fine with me.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 09, 2015, 11:58:45 PM
In a deal that should surprise no one, marvel lends it's huge brand to sony, who will foot all the bills.  The article didn't mention how much of a cut Marvel is going to get but I'm willing to bet it's not insignificant as the rest of the details all show that marvel has the stronger hand in the deal.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 10, 2015, 12:03:39 AM
All the MCU fans will totally give a new casting/reboot a pass.  You can't really want the last 2 Spider-Man movies to be MCU canon do you?  Cuz.. eww.

I'm not even sure what "MCU fans" means, really. They're stupidly successful movies. Audiences could end up with some reboot fatigue, but we'll see.

I am probably more closer to Fordel on this. Garfield was fine, but, the new stuff could be better. Just don't do a damn origin story again, again. But, I didn't hate the first Amazing Spider-Man. The second one was... Not Good, however. Better than Spider-Man 3, though.

Edit: Friend brought this up on Facebook. Spidey being part of the next wave of Avengers could work well.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on February 10, 2015, 12:07:01 AM
Yea, I didn't hate the first Amazing Spider-Man. It was made for all the wrong reasons, but it wasn't horrible and I didn't feel like I wasted two hours of my life or whatever. The second one...  :why_so_serious:

I feel like the first Amazing movie could slot into the MCU without much trouble, but the second... again...  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on February 10, 2015, 12:08:56 AM
Haven't seen it mentioned in most of the stories on this but Comingsoon.net mentions (http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/408299-its-official-spider-man-enters-the-marvel-cinematic-universe):

Quote
As a result of the new deal, Thor: Ragnarok will now arrive nearly four months later than planned, moving to November 3, 2017 (from July 28). Black Panther, which previously held that spot, gets delayed eight months, going from that original November 3 date to July 6, 2018. That, in turn, bumps Captain Marvel to November 2, 2018 and moves Inhumans all the way to July 12, 2019. The two-part Avengers: Infinity War, meanwhile, remains set for release May 4, 2018 and May 3, 2019.

If true, I can't say I'm thrilled that four other movies are getting pushed back (three of which are new franchises) to make way for another Spider-man reboot regardless of who is handling it.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 10, 2015, 12:12:29 AM
Yea, I didn't hate the first Amazing Spider-Man. It was made for all the wrong reasons, but it wasn't horrible and I didn't feel like I wasted two hours of my life or whatever. The second one...  :why_so_serious:

I feel like the first Amazing movie could slot into the MCU without much trouble, but the second... again...  :why_so_serious:

I mean that is pretty much it.. first one was kind of fine no matter how much I hated the Lizard's look.  As for Garfield there have been rumors that Marvel didn't like him and that he was gone if they ever got control.  Most likely since they are having him show up in a phase 3 movie first, this will be an established Spider-Man that's already been leading the double life for awhile.  Just because he was never named in the movies doesn't mean he hasn't been active.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 10, 2015, 12:20:38 AM
There's also no need to reveal Peter Parker at all until the next spiderman movie.  They could very well hold off on showing Pete(And the actor playing him) for some time.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Fordel on February 10, 2015, 12:25:30 AM
THAT is a very good point, there's no reason to actually have Spider-Man's identity revealed to the other heroes at all.


-edit-

Quote
bumps Captain Marvel to November 2, 2018

Dammit, now we'll have to reset the count down clock.  :angryfist:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on February 10, 2015, 12:40:44 AM
There's also no need to reveal Peter Parker at all until the next spiderman movie.  They could very well hold off on showing Pete(And the actor playing him) for some time.

Under the new schedule, Cap: Civil War, Dr. Strange, and GotG2 are the only movies being filmed between now and the Spider-man movie. He doesn't really fit into Dr. Strange or GotG, and Civil War starts filming in April so it would probably be hard to do anything more substantial than a small cameo there at this point. I could see them using the post-credits scenes for all three movies though to do a slow build-up though.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 10, 2015, 12:45:32 AM
Spider-Man could also fit well into an Agents of Shield episode or two to help get him out there.  I guess we'd have to see who is cast first.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Velorath on February 10, 2015, 06:47:43 AM
Spider-Man could also fit well into an Agents of Shield episode or two to help get him out there.  I guess we'd have to see who is cast first.

Also depends on the terms of the deal (which we'll likely never know the exact details of). With Sony retaining creative control of the Spider-man movies and the financial burden of making and distributing the films, I imagine they'll only let Marvel use the character to the extent with which it benefits Sony. Putting Spider-man in Agents of Shield seems like it would benefit the show much more than the Spider-man movies (plus TV rights might require separate deal from what they've made with the movie rights). I guess there's a possibility they'd be allowed to use some of the minor Spider-man characters or help establish Oscorp, or maybe Alchemax if they want to distance themselves from the previous movies.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on February 10, 2015, 09:45:18 AM
Spidey was always portrayed as being extra careful about revealing his identity to fellow heroes, so it wouldn't be out of line to keep the final actor reveal until a solo movie.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on February 10, 2015, 10:10:07 AM
I wonder if there is a longer term plan agreed but not announced here. It doesn't seem in keeping with Disney's established practice to allow any from of joint control to persist, nor is it really in either company's interest. Sounds like enormous headaches for limited possible upside. 

But recasting and rebooting  is never a problem unless the current actor is enormously popular and broadly identified as the definitive version of a character.  I don't know why people keep bringing it up as a thing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 10, 2015, 10:31:49 AM
I like Garfield fine as Peter Parker but not enough to be against a recasting. They absolutely should not do any sort of origin story at all though, in any of the movies. Mention it in passing, do a flashback, then move the fuck on and never speak of it again. After 5 movies in less than 15 years, there's nobody who doesn't know the basics of the origin.

With Feige producing, I have a lot more faith that Sony's Spider-Man solo movie won't suck.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Trippy on February 10, 2015, 10:38:06 AM
Except that Sony still has final creative control. Not going to end well.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 10, 2015, 12:03:37 PM
Note my reference to the other sources... I'm not saying it is a lock, but I consider it more likely than not that the deal has been reached and will be announced in the next 2 months.
.. and just 10 days under 2 months later...

Marvel has confirmed the new release dates for the 'other' films (http://marvel.com/news/movies/24065/marvel_studios_schedules_new_release_dates_for_4_films (http://marvel.com/news/movies/24065/marvel_studios_schedules_new_release_dates_for_4_films)) as well.  They are official.  Unless Marvel is putting a lot of resources and creative effort into Spidey, it makes no sense to push back the other movies.  They already knew that there would be Spidey movies in the theaters around that time... if anything, they've lessened the number of hero movies by removing Sinister Six, Venom, Aunt May, etc... 

With Spidey bring introduced in a Marvel film prior to the new Spidey movie, it seems Civil War is the likeliest spot still.  Age of Ultron and Ant-man are too far along to do anything more than a tag.  GotG 2 makes no sense (most likely).  Doc Strange is introducing a whole new world - I could see Spidey appearing in a background scene where Doc Strange is seeing a lot of things through magic, but not a real presence.  Civil War makes the most sense, although I do not expect it to be a majorly integrated role.

One idea that I heard sounded interesting but is pure speculation right now: Showing a Spidey origin story interspersed throughout Civil War and seeing Peter's decision to put on a mask and hide his identity be a result of the registration act.  He might be on screen for a grand total of 10 to 15 minutes.  They could film all of that separately of the film as planned and only do very minor reworking of the main story - and that would avoid yet another full blown Spidey origin story.  I'd be on board for that type of approach.  They could take the origin up to the point where he puts on the mask for the first time and then finish it off at the start of the Spidey Movie with the Uncle Ben death, even...

As for a TV appearance for Spidey - The Netflix series set in NY might make more sense than MAoS.  I could see a cameo in Daredevil Season 2 or the Defenders - just like a cameo by Fury, Stark, Barton or Rodgers makes sense in MAoS.  They could do a tie in story for MAoS as well, but it wouldn't seem to be as organic of a fit.  However, I'm betting that we don't see more than a glimpse or two of Spidey on the small screen anytime before 2019...

One last speculative thing: Whedon said he was not seeing it likely that he'd do the next Avengers films and really wanted to do a movie focused on one character...  However unlikely, pulling Whedon in to be the Spider-man show runner would answer a lot of critics.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on February 10, 2015, 12:16:15 PM
Marvel's in a good position, they want Spidey not need him.  Sony knows that Spidey in the MCU would make bank.  They just want a big piece of that bank.  I don't even mind if they keep Garfield, he's a good kid and that would make the two ASM's part of the MCU.  :oh_i_see:

If I were Sony, I'd not sell Spidey, I'd lease him out per movie to Marvel.  Then after his rapturous appearance in Cap 3 or whatever, Sony makes a new ASM and rides Marvel's coattails to money hats.

Honestly at this point it's up to lawyers and accountants. 


Since we're patting ourselves on the back here...

Nailed it!


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 10, 2015, 12:35:00 PM
... and just 10 days under 2 months later...

I was waiting for you to gloat. Keep in mind, the story you originally quoted was about a deal/discussion that had died. I even brought up the summit set for January to discuss things further.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 10, 2015, 01:07:13 PM
...
I was waiting for you to gloat. Keep in mind, the story you originally quoted was about a deal/discussion that had died. I even brought up the summit set for January to discuss things further.
I hate to disappoint people's expectations... And you're failing to remember the rest of the discussion, I think.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on February 10, 2015, 02:47:23 PM
Marvel's in a good position, they want Spidey not need him.  Sony knows that Spidey in the MCU would make bank.  They just want a big piece of that bank.  I don't even mind if they keep Garfield, he's a good kid and that would make the two ASM's part of the MCU.  :oh_i_see:

If I were Sony, I'd not sell Spidey, I'd lease him out per movie to Marvel.  Then after his rapturous appearance in Cap 3 or whatever, Sony makes a new ASM and rides Marvel's coattails to money hats.

Honestly at this point it's up to lawyers and accountants. 


Since we're patting ourselves on the back here...

Nailed it!

The bit that breaks my mind here is Disney apparently allowing the possibility of Sony just going off and making a Spiderman film after Spiderman has been in the Avengers.

I wonder if the detail of this 'creative control' clause is just glorified bragging rights and a royalty, with Disney firmly in effective control for as long as they keep making Spiderman films and paying Sony.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lantyssa on February 10, 2015, 04:16:42 PM
It's Marvel getting to use Spider-man in their movies and being able to ignore anything from the Sony flicks they want, because they never have to reference them.  Short of getting back all the rights, it's about perfect for Marvel.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 10, 2015, 06:05:27 PM
Also while Sony has complete control over "spiderman" if they want to include ANYTHING from the MCU into the next spiderman movie you can be assured that creative control will go right back to disney/marvel or spiderman is off on his own again.  

Spiderman in the MCU is a huge boost to the world they are building and a giant commercial for sony which is great for both parties but MCU in a spidey movie is a giant boost to getting people in the theatres and if they want so much as a cameo of iron man's butt, creative control goes right back to marvel.



Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 10, 2015, 07:07:56 PM
I'm betting they play real nice and that someone with MCU roots runs the Spidey show. 

A bit more info: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/70335 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/70335)  Civil War is the first movie for Spidey according to WSJ (I linked AICN because MSJ is behind a wall).  Sinister Six is not dead yet, but I would not be surprised to see them axe it and shift Goddard (who has a lot of ties to Whedon - he worked on Loki script for Whedon in Avengers and developed Daredevil). Heck, I would not be surprised to learn that Goddard's role with Sinister Six has always been a placeholder for when they hand this deal over to him to run.  And, if he takes the reigns, I would not be shocked to see him tie two of his playthings - Daredevil and Spidey - together by having Daredevil go from Netflix into the Spidey movie...


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Surlyboi on February 10, 2015, 09:33:37 PM
Make it Miles Morales and have Donald Glover play him.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 10, 2015, 09:36:41 PM
Only problem with Donald Glover is he's kind of old for the role now. 


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 10, 2015, 09:41:14 PM
I would not be angry with Goddard helming a Spidey flick. Not angry at all. Also, the Whedon/Goddard connection goes back a lot further than that.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 10, 2015, 09:44:22 PM
Only problem with Donald Glover is he's kind of old for the role now. 

I don't really think he is. Dude looks young. But, I also wouldn't be mad with someone like John Boyega, but I'm not sure he has the comedic sensibility.

.... fuck it, can we just get Boyega into SOMETHING Marvel related?


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Tannhauser on February 10, 2015, 10:03:39 PM
Wouldn't it be fun if we didn't know Spiderman's secret ID?  That could tie into the Civil War where they want him to unmask and we in the audience want to know which version it is, Parker, Morales, etc. but Spidey refuses (until a dramatic moment maybe).

Spidey just shows up at a dramatic time in the Cap movie and everyone kind of shrugs their shoulders.  They've heard of him as a 'street' superhero.

NO FUCKING ORIGIN!






Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 10, 2015, 10:08:59 PM
So I guess the deal is that Sony gets no money for any movie that Disney uses Spider-Man in and Disney gets nothing for any Spider-man Sony films.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Raguel on February 10, 2015, 11:59:04 PM
I'm not interesting in a Sinister Six movie, but a Superior Foes? That'd be awesome.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 11, 2015, 10:18:39 AM
So I guess the deal is that Sony gets no money for any movie that Disney uses Spider-Man in and Disney gets nothing for any Spider-man Sony films.

Disney will get money from the Spider-Man movies IF they make above certain undisclosed milestones.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: eldaec on February 11, 2015, 10:47:08 AM
Wouldn't it be fun if we didn't know Spiderman's secret ID?  That could tie into the Civil War where they want him to unmask and we in the audience want to know which version it is, Parker, Morales, etc. but Spidey refuses


For info, it is going to be Peter Parker.

Aside from that, yes, that certainly could be fun.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 11, 2015, 01:16:31 PM
According to this Variety report (http://variety.com/2015/film/news/spider-man-new-movie-high-school-marvel-1201430231/), they haven't decided yet. But the current casting rumors certainly lean towards Parker.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: CmdrSlack on February 11, 2015, 11:44:05 PM
I'm not interesting in a Sinister Six movie, but a Superior Foes? That'd be awesome.

Yes, this. Guardians proves that they can do funny with action.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 12, 2015, 02:25:46 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/2lVm5TN.jpg)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Maven on February 12, 2015, 09:22:08 AM
Amazing.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Merusk on February 12, 2015, 10:54:20 AM
Spectacular.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: sickrubik on February 12, 2015, 10:58:09 AM
Friendly Neighborhood.

Shit.


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: taleril on February 12, 2015, 11:20:36 AM
Clearly "Superior".  Get with the times.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: Evildrider on February 12, 2015, 08:09:39 PM
(http://d2vo5twcnd9mdi.cloudfront.net/uploads_13a2abb3-ec2f-4919-a698-d0fc11668e74-spiderman-miles.jpg)


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: HaemishM on February 12, 2015, 08:48:26 PM
FUCK YOU, NO.  :mob:


Title: Re: Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)
Post by: jgsugden on February 13, 2015, 12:03:49 AM
I think an unknown actor really helps sell the Story of Peter Parker. I hope the guy th