This thread is designed to discuss anything about the connected Marvel Universe that is on film. This includes all of what Kevin Feige has a hand in.
NOTE: blue sentences or phrases are links to posts or articles discussing that issue.
I created a massive list of all the connected MCU properties released thus far, with the basic interactions between them. It also includes all known future releases, with release dates or in anticipated release order for those confirmed MCU entries not yet having exact dates. (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019) (It is the second post following this one.)
[Two practical MCU lists I created are here: a chart of the mid- and end-credit scenes on the assorted home video releases of the MCU films, and the 3D Blu-rays that have the exclusive IMAX scenes in the expanded ratio on them (no 2D versions of these films have the IMAX expanded screen ratio). (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962020#msg962020) (That's the third post following this one.) With the credit scene checklist, you will know when to stop when visual searching through end credits if you want to watch those credit scenes each time you see the film. With the 3D/'IMAX scene' list, you will know when to preferentially watch the 3D version of MCU films.]
In this thread we can discuss film content, TV content, shorts content, interactions between them, apparent contradictions within or between them (for which you might get a 'No-Prize' ;) ), etc. That includes all the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, the shorts on their discs, and the Disney+ series.
For what characters are covered by this thread, this may help [image by The Geek Twins]. Disney has acquired 20th Century Fox which finalized on March 20, 2019. With the Disney/20th C Fox merger complete, MCU rights include almost every character, as long as that new product has been verified as being MCU by Feige. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/p6kuIut.jpg) (http://www.thegeektwins.com/2014/02/visual-guide-to-marvel-character-movie.html)
[Image is huge. Right-click and select "View Image", or save to hard drive for a better view.]
IMPORTANT NOTE ON USE OF SPOILERS IN THIS THREAD:
To be considerate of others, since many can't see films in theaters, until films are out on home video (Blu-ray, DVD), spoilers are required for images or the discussion of plot points here. Please briefly label the spoiler (e.g. "episode/film plot point", "future events", "surprise character reveal", etc.). Since different people find different things 'spoilery', unlabeled spoilers are useless because one has to open and view the contents to see if it was the kind of spoiler one avoids. For broadcast shows (i.e. WandaVision), spoilers should be present for at least two days after air date, so people have at least some chance to watch their time-shifted copy before being spoiled.
[My first comment was about a then-cannon, but no-longer-canon, Netflix show:]
For actual discussion of something, I'll start with a trivia point that irks me from Daredevil season 2.
Now, I freely admit I don't know much at all about the character of the Punisher. I tired of his comics after just a couple of them. So it is possible that what I saw on Daredevil was not an 'error' so much as a 'character easter egg' bit thrown to the die-hard Punisher fans. And that was in Daredevil season 2, episode 11... [spoiler includes plot point for Daredevil season 2]
Frank Castle and Karen Page are in the late night diner, when Castle is using Page as bait. Frank's Marine superior had already said that Frank was a big coffee drinker, and, one supposes, after such a long time being on the run, he'd want to be 'up', and he tells the waitress to, "keep it coming".
So why was he being given DECAF repeatedly by the waitress?
Coffee pots in restaurants are color-coded: the rim and handle on regular, caffeinated coffee is always in carafes with brown rims and handles. Decaf is always in carafes with orange rims and handles.
So: was it an oversight on the part of the TV show, or is part of Castle's characterization in the comics that he drinks a lot of coffee, but it is always decaf? Because it seems to me it has to be one or the other.
And, yes, I realize that this is WAY too f'ing much to write about such a seemingly trivial detail. But it's distracted me both times I've watched season 2, so figured I'd ask. And, yeah, if that's my biggest beef with the series, you can tell I liked it a lot. :)
OK... what other thoughts do you all have on any of the movies, the TV series, crossovers, or ideas spanning the whole 'Marvel Universe on film' Feige renaissance?
[I briefly struggled whether to place this thread in the "Movie Talk" or the "Television aka TV discussion" area. But this thread is designed to cross both theatrical films and Disney+ series, and things like the 'Marvel One-Shot' series of short films on Blu-rays and DVDs on top of that. So I felt that putting it in either the TV area or the Movie area would miss people who might be interested in it. Of course, putting it in neither area might miss out on everyone who might be interested in contributing, but it's the best placement I could think of for now.]
I had forgotten about that Spoiler'd bit! My wife & I both exclaimed it as soon as it popped on screen. Orange always equals Sad Coffee at diners & breakfast joints.
This is a chronological list of the Marvel Cinematic Universe entries, including the release dates. I have now scrubbed the Jeph Loeb TV shows (broadcast, Netflix, Hulu, etc.) from the list, as
Kevin Feige Says Previous MCU TV Shows Aren't Part Of Canon (https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/marvel-tv-shows-separate-mcu/).
I will continue to update this as new release announcements are made.
NOTE: blue sentences or phrases are links to articles discussing that issue.
This annotated list includes interactions between the MCU, the Disney+ streaming shows, and the
Marvel One-Shots short films. Directly-linked films, shorts, or shows are listed together with no spaces between those entries. Films or shows with less direct linkage (i.e. 'just part of the Infinity Saga') have a space between them.
Only one film thus far,
GotG v2, has been clearly stated to be grossly out of release-date sequence. In this list it has been placed in the order of its continuity for events, rather than when the film was released.
In addition to that film, the release dates for the One-Shots shorts do not fit, as they were all publicly released later than their place in continuity. They are placed in the position their events occurred (after the film they directly relate to), rather than when they were released. Them being 'late' in release may partly be because they were initially intended to be the 'cartoons' before feature film releases, so would have been presented in theaters right before the next film was viewed. (https://mcuexchange.com/one-shot-theatrical-release-pixar/)
This list is filled with spoilers. Some major and minor plot points are spoiled by this list, so if you haven't seen it all and don't want to be spoiled for anything, don't look at it. Using the rules for this thread regarding spoilers ("if a film is on home video, no need for spoilers"), here is the full unspoilered list with descriptions thus far:
Interactions between the Marvel Cinematic Universe,
the Marvel Disney+ shows, and the Marvel One-Shot short film series.
Iron Man . . . . May 2, 2008
The Incredible Hulk . . . . June 13, 2008
Marvel One-Shot: The Consultant . . . . Sept 13, 2011 [On the Thor Blu-ray release.]
Background on why it was Stark that approached Gen Ross at the end of Incredible Hulk to recruit Blonsky. Features Coulson and Sitwell.
Iron Man 2 . . . . May 7, 2010
Marvel One-Shot: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor's Hammer . . .Oct 25, 2011 [On the Captain America: The First Avenger Blu-ray.]
Coulson kicking ass on the way to Thor's hammer (so, in continuity, after the body of Iron Man 2, but before the post-credit sequence at the end of the film).
Thor . . . . May 6, 2011
Captain America: The First Avenger . . . . July 22, 2011
Marvel One-Shot: Agent Carter . . . . September 24, 2013 [On the Iron Man 3 Blu-ray.]
This not so much interacted with what was in Captain America: tFA (as it is meant to take place one year after that film's events), but started expanding on Peggy Carter's history post-Cap. The positive response to this led to her two half-seasons of non-canon TV.
Marvel's The Avengers . . . . May 4, 2012
Marvel One-Shot: Item 47 . . . . September 25, 2012 [On the Avengers Blu-ray.]
Agents Sitwell and Blake are sent to retrieve a Chitauri weapon that a couple has found and is using to raise hell.
Iron Man 3 . . . . May 3, 2013
Marvel One-Shot: All Hail the King . . . . February 25, 2014 [On the Thor: the Dark World Blu-ray.]
This 'corrected' the story of the Mandarin, to point out there was a real one and Slattery was not appreciated as misrepresenting him (or her). The true Mandarin will make his first appearance in 'Shang-Chi and the Legend of the 10 Rings' (~2021 if we are lucky). [Interesting note: Slattery was held at Seagate prison - the same prison Carl Lucas was held in - and transformed into Luke Cage in.]
Thor: The Dark World . . . . November 8, 2013
Captain America: The Winter Soldier . . . . April 4, 2014
Discovery that S.H.I.E.L.D. has been infiltrated by Hydra from the beginning.
Guardians of the Galaxy . . . . August 1, 2014
The Kree are a core presence in the movie.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 . . . . May 5, 2017
According to Gunn, this takes place about three months after the first Guardians film.
Avengers: Age of Ultron . . . . May 1, 2015
Ant-Man . . . . July 17, 2015
Hank Pym refers to the Avengers disparagingly, saying something like, "they may be off dropping a city on people", referencing 'Age of Ultron'.
Captain America: Civil War . . . . May 6, 2016
Doctor Strange . . . . Nov 4, 2016
Spider-Man: Homecoming . . . . July 7, 2017
Personal Note: I gotta' say, I always loved the double meaning of that title! Both referring to the homecoming dance, but also that Spider-Man was FINALLY coming back 'home' to Marvel control. :)
Thor: Ragnarok . . . . November 3, 2017
Black Panther . . . . February 16, 2018
Avengers: Infinity War . . . . April 27, 2018
Ant-Man and the Wasp . . . . July 6, 2018
Captain Marvel . . . . March 8, 2019
Avengers: Endgame . . . . April 26, 2019
Spider-Man: Far From Home . . . . July 2, 2019
WandaVision (no: not WonkaVision) Disney+ . . . . January 15, 2021
UPCOMING:Falcon & The Winter Soldier Disney+ . . . . March 19, 2021
Black Widow . . . . May ??, 2021
The Eternals . . . . ? ?, 2021
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the 10 Rings . . . . ? ?, 2021
Loki Disney+ . . . . June 11, 2021
Spider-Man 3 . . . . Nov 5, 2021
"What If?" Disney+ animated series . . . . Summer 2021
Thor: Love and Thunder . . . . Feb. 11, 2022
Doctor Strange 2: In The Multiverse of Madness . . . . March 25, 2022
Black Panther 2 . . . . May 8, 2022
Captain Marvel 2 . . . . July 8, 2022
as-yet untitled Marvel movie . . . . Oct 7, 2022
Hawkeye Disney+ . . . . ? ?, 2022
Ms. Marvel Disney+ series . . . . ? ?, 2022
She-Hulk Disney+ series . . . . ? ?, 2022
Moon Knight Disney+ series . . . . ? ?, 2022
as-yet untitled Marvel movie . . . . Feb 7, 2023
as-yet untitled Marvel movie . . . . May 5, 2023
as-yet untitled Marvel movie . . . . July 28, 2023
as-yet untitled Marvel movie . . . . Nov 3, 2023
Ghost Rider . . . . ? ?, 20?? [the Hulu series is dead, but K Feige has picked up interest (https://mcuexchange.com/ghost-rider-film-marvel-studios/)]
IronHeart Disney+ series . . . . ? ?, 20??
Secret Warriors . . . . ? ?,20?? [unknown as yet if this will be made at all (as a Disney+ series) (https://mcuexchange.com/secret-warriors-marvel-studios/)]
Possibly in production for Hulu or Disney+:Power Pack (animated)Young Avengers (some rumors suggest they may be introduced in Ant-Man 3)
Research for this came from: Wikipedia for film release dates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films), and the Marvel One-Shots short films (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_One-Shots).
While re-watching the films, I realized I needed yet another LucasM Useful MCU List TM. ::) Then yet another one... so I made these.
With this first list, you can now know in advance which credits to visual search through, and be able to anticipate when to stop, without having to memorize this information for each film. I used just enough words for descriptions to trigger memories, not to actually describe the full events. Each conforms to the Spoiler Requirements for this thread: if it is out on home video, no spoiler is used.
Marvel Cinematic Universe Mid-and-End-Credit Scenes Chart
NOTE:
First box is for a possible mid-credit scene (after animated credits, prior to all-text credits), second box is for possible end-credit scene ('stinger').
Any scene that is present in part or in whole in the next film is in brackets (e.g. the Ant-Man end-credit scene is a variation on scenes in Civil War, as is the first Doctor Strange end credit scene with Thor: Ragnarok).
Mid-/Stinger scene present
□ ■ Iron Man - May 2, 2008
. . / Intro: Nick Fury & 'Avengers Initiative'
□ □ The Incredible Hulk - June 13, 2008
. .
□ ■ Iron Man 2 - May 7, 2010
. . / Coulson arrives at Mjolnir
□ ■ Thor - May 6, 2011
. . / Fury shows Selvig the Tesseract
□ ■ Captain America: The First Avenger - July 22, 2011
. . / [Cap punching bag - Fury 'save world']
■ ■ Marvel's The Avengers - May 4, 2012
. . Thanos introduction / Schwarma
□ ■ Iron Man 3 - May 3, 2013
. . / Tony talking to sleeping Banner
■ ■ Thor: The Dark World - November 8, 2013
. . Aether to Collector / Thor returns, frost monster chasing birds
■ ■ Captain America: The Winter Soldier - April 4, 2014
. . Strucker & intro Pietro & Wanda / Bucky at Smithsonian
■ ■ Guardians of the Galaxy - August 1, 2014
. . Baby Groot dancing / Collector in ruins (Cosmo/Howard)
□ ■ Avengers: Age of Ultron - May 1, 2015
. . / Thanos: "Fine! I'll do it myself!"
■ ■ Ant-Man - July 17, 2015
. . Wasp: "It's about damn time!" / [Cap, Falcon, Bucky - partially different]
■ ■ Captain America: Civil War - May 6, 2016
. . Bucky frozen in Wakanda / Spider-Man finds computer
■ ■ Doctor Strange - November 4, 2016
. . [Thor consult - partially different] / Mordo's mission
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Guardians of the Galaxy 2 - May 5, 2017
. . Arrow / orig GotG / Warlock / teen Groot / SLee 'ride'
■ ■ Spider-man: Homecoming - July 28, 2017
. . Toomes meets Scorpion in prison / Cap on 'patience' ;D
■ ■ Thor: Ragnarok - November 3, 2017
. . Thanos's ship / "It's a tie!"
■ ■ Black Panther - February 16, 2018
. . T'Challa at UN, Austria / Bucky awakens
□ ■ Avengers: Infinity War - April 27, 2018
. . / Nick Fury pages Captain Marvel as he dusts
□ ■ Ant-Man and the Wasp - July 6, 2018
. . / Hello?
■ ■ Captain Marvel - March 8, 2019
. . Pager Stops / 'Hairball'
□ □ Avengers: Endgame - May 3, 2019
■ ■ Spider-Man: Far From Home - July 12, 2019
. . /
□ □ Black Widow - ? ?, 2021?
□ □ The Eternals - ? ?, 2021?
□ □ Shang-Chi and the Legend of the 10 Rings - ? ?, 2021?
□ □ Doctor Strange 2: In The Multiverse of Madness - ? ?, 2021?
□ □ Thor: Love and Thunder - ? ?, 2021?
□ □ [unnamed] - ? ?, 2022?
□ □ [unnamed] - ? ?, 2022?
□ □ [unnamed] - ? ?, 2022?
= = = = = = = =
The second one is short (so far). When MCU films were released, a few that were released in IMAX 3D theaters had exclusive IMAX scenes in them. These scenes had at least a 1.9:1 expanded ratio, vs the 2.35:1 ratio for the rest of the film. Thus far, Marvel has ONLY released the expanded ratio scenes on the 3D versions of those films. They are not on the 2D versions, not on the recent 4K versions. On DVDs, digital versions, 2D Blu-rays, and on 4K discs, the films remain cropped to the 2.35:1 aspect ratio throughout. Except for Civil War, the amount of the expanded sections is roughly an hour of screen time or more. So it is a substantial gain of visuals, which is particularly effective in Doctor Strange and Hulk: Ragnarok.
In order to know which MCU films have the IMAX footage (so I could remember to always re-watch the 3D versions of those films), I made this second list. Any time details for this came from HERE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_DMR_films).
Here are a series of screenshots showing JUST how much difference the aspect ratio makes to different scenes: side-by-side images for 2D and IMAX scenes for the first Guardians of the Galaxy (https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi).
Please Note: my 3D TV (as well as likely most others) has an option for selecting 2D viewing of 3D input, if one doesn't want to actually watch it in 3D, but still wants the expanded video sections. That is how I watch most of the time.
Marvel Cinematic Universe 3D-Blu-ray-Exclusive IMAX Scenes
Guardians of the Galaxy - August 1, 2014 - https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi
Over an hour of footage opened up to 1.90:1 on select scenes.
Captain America: Civil War - May 6, 2016
17 minutes of IMAX footage.
Doctor Strange - November 4, 2016
Over an hour of footage opened up to 1.90:1 for select scenes.
Guardians of the Galaxy 2 - May 5, 2017
Aspect ratio opened up to 1.90:1 for select sequences. Enhanced framing technique known as "Frame break" used to enhance 3D effects, making effects travel "outside" the frame. [For me, this also pulls me out of the film, however, as it forces one to recognize one is watching a film.]
Thor: Ragnarok - November 3, 2017
Aspect ratio opened up to 1.90:1 for select sequences.
Black Panther - February 16, 2018
Aspect ratio opened up to 1.90:1 for select sequences.
Avengers: Infinity War - April 27, 2018
This was the first film to be shot completely with IMAX/Arri Alexa digital cameras. Given Kevin Feige's statement that the IMAX ratio solely goes with 'the 3D experience', it was presumed the entire film would be seen on home video in the 1.90:1 ratio on the 3D disc. However, this is the FIRST film with IMAX footage that Marvel has not released the IMAX screen ratio on ANY home video format. [Pisses me off, too.]
Ant-Man and the Wasp - July 6, 2018
Aspect ratio opened up to 1.90:1 for select sequences.
Captain Marvel - March 8, 2019
Aspect ratio opened up to 1.90:1 for select sequences.
Avengers [4]: Endgame - April 26, 2019
Again, this was shot completely with IMAX/Arri Alexa digital cameras. Feige said the IMAX ratio solely goes with 'the 3D experience', but this did not have the opened-up IMAX aspect ratio even on the 3D disc.
LIKELY: Black Widow - ? ?, 2021
LIKELY: The Eternals - ? ?, 2021?
LIKELY: Shang-Chi and the Legend of the 10 Rings - ? ?, 2021?
LIKELY: Doctor Strange 2: In The Multiverse of Madness - ? ?, 2021?
LIKELY: Thor: Love and Thunder - ? ?, 2021?
I'm interested to see if Ghost Rider shows up in any of the films. He seems like a big enough player that to leave him as an Agents of SHIELD character only would be a waste.
Here's some for Daredevil season 1 for you off the top of my head.
Reference to Father Lantom (ties to Runaways as well as Cloak & Dagger) Tons of references to "the incident". Crusher Creel shows up in Agents of SHIELD as The Absorbing Man. St. Agnes has ties to SHIELD. That's where the orphanage that Skye/Daisy/Quake grew up. In Ben's office there's newspaper articles for "Battle of NY" & "Terror In Harlem" which tie to Avengers & Incredible Hulk. Roxxon is mentioned a bit as well (ties to Iron Man)
For those who've already stopped in to look at this thread, I've done an overhaul of the first post (the 'mission statement' for the thread). I did that because what I wrote initially wasn't as clear as I thought it should be. So you may want to read the new version.
K1: Nice! I added a link to your post in the 'Index' post above. :)
OK... now I have a question. I've been reading people's opinions about who was 'right' in Captain America: Civil War on Facebook. I won't respond there (a couple reasons: too many vicious crazies, and I don't care as much about what people I have no relationship with say). But one thing no-one has brought up is that the moral high ground - I think - partially depends on the number of people one has killed. [For the true moral high ground, that number would need to be zero.]
I see Tony killing without a second thought since the first Iron Man. I've seen Cap killing (something he never did in the comics following his thawing, I don't think). It seems that if they are willing to take lives [because the current 'action movie' tropes require heroes to do so], then neither is truly on the 'highest' ground.
The question I have is: does anyone know of a body count list, by character, for each of the characters in this shared universe? It would be interesting to see who is the least respecting of human life. Only the on-screen ones, as ones mentioned but not shown (e.g. Black Widow's past) can't be accurately counted. [And, for this, I'm just wondering about humans... let's not count the Chitauri since there's good evidence they aren't alive in the sense we know (as they all collapsed when the mothership was destroyed, suggesting they were all animated solely by energy coming from it).] I'm also referring to deliberate kills, not things like the body count from Wanda not being prepared for the early events of Civil War with Rumlo in Lagos.
Sorry I'm multiply-posting here. These are things I've thought about that I guess I never had the right place to ask or comment on. Hopefully I'm not the only one who finds them interesting.
My question(s) still stands in the previous post. But here's some things I found that addresses a tiny bit of it. When I found it, I just figured I'd share so someone else might not invest the time and effort to find and share info I'd already found. [Hence the third post in a row.]
I found two kill-count videos, one each for Iron Man and Cap, but they include non-humans. The Iron Man one shows Tony as killing 40 people just in his first film (then goes on from there). No remorse at all. Steve, in his first film, was less than that number, if only just barely, with 39 people [though I question the number racked up for the Hydra 'huge tank']. But of course he goes on from there in further appearances. Of course, Cap's kills in his first film were in wartime, but they were still human. An unrelated aside: I find it rather odd that someone with seemingly no compuction about killing has a problem with someone using the word "shit". ???
Honestly, after looking at that vid, I'm amazed that Mjolnir moved at all when Steve tried to pick it up in Age of Ultron. It shouldn't have budged. [Imagine if Gandhi said, "I only killed 39 British invaders, but it was a war for my country"... would that make him 'morally pure' enough to be nearly deified?]
Iron Man 'Kill-Toll' vid:
Spoiler
Captain America 'Kill-Toll' vid:
Spoiler
I have a problem with the Cap vid body count for a couple of reasons. First, it counts every person hit by his shield as dead. While they might be dead, I feel only 'incapacitating injury' can be assumed for most of them. Second, all the 'Ultrons' were the same consciousness. Destroying the bodies of the non-central Ultron is the equivalent of breaking remote computers but leaving the server intact: it does nothing to the OS or data, as only the 'server' is 'alive'. Plus it was the Vision who eliminated the final one, so Cap would get a '0' for kills there. I also have a problem with Cap getting 'credit' for the deaths on the three helicarriers in Winter Soldier, given that he had help from Sam to plant the chips, and it was actually Agent Hill that activated them... (in addition, as the story clearly pointed out, they were all three minimally manned ['operated by three people' for one of them], so hardly the death toll for their crashes shown in the video).
I'm still interested in the rest of the Marvel superheroes in the shared universe, if anyone can find anything on the others. [For arguments sake, we can include Black Widow and Hawkeye in 'superheroes' for this. I just don't think it worth the effort to find this info for each Agent of SHIELD, for instance. Particularly if it takes significant effort.]
Awesome news!
The Punisher Netflix Series Begins Filming (http://screenrant.com/the-punisher-netflix-filming-set-photos/)
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.srcdn.com%2Fslir%2Fw525-h262-q90-c525%3A262%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FJon-Bernthal-as-Frank-Castle-in-Daredevil-Season-2.jpg&hash=7f8b8263d629905ef032413a98f68324568c59db)
They sure didn't waste any time. ;D
Also on the Netflix front... here's a pretty good article on Luke Cage: A bulletproof black man: Luke Cage is the superhero America needs now (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/sep/30/luke-cage-netflix-marvel-a-bulletproof-black-man-the-superhero-america-needs-now). Has some relatively minor spoilers (but spoilers nevertheless), so if you are spoiler-sensitive, you may want to wait til you've seen the first season before reading.
Iron Fist- March 17.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2F-mm-%2F608fe4987871eb8c47270dc145fc56dcb9b2ee17%2Fc%3D0-10-2767-2090%26amp%3Br%3Dx404%26amp%3Bc%3D534x401%2Flocal%2F-%2Fmedia%2F2016%2F10%2F04%2FUSATODAY%2FUSATODAY%2F636111713279760351-KICK-110-Unit-02304R-Final.jpg&hash=d2d5f67ea4276a66dd280ebb2a7c14ab39a1783e)
Thanks, Compound! Lookin' forward to that almost as much as I was to Luke Cage... possibly just as much, actually, but in a different way.
At NYCC the actor was named for the big bad for Marvel/Netflix Defenders series. And for the Iron Fist panel, all four Defenders showed up.
Picture of the four, plus the big bad given inside a spoiler, just in case people consider it a spoiler. [Who the actor plays was not stated.]
Spoiler
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcimg.tvgcdn.net%2Fi%2F2016%2F10%2F09%2Fcff6d811-acf1-444f-918f-9bed3033cc31%2F161008-the-defenders-hp-lg.jpg&hash=759febc305bcc3160ce6abf041c58bb92f4ed9d8)
I'm pretty sure everyone will recognize the big bad actor (far right). :)
Marvel's up to SOMETHING with Blade: http://www.avclub.com/article/marvels-dusting-blade-hunt-more-vampires-not-ones--243944
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 10, 2016, 07:49:13 PM
Marvel's up to SOMETHING with Blade: http://www.avclub.com/article/marvels-dusting-blade-hunt-more-vampires-not-ones--243944
I'm glad it's not a crossover with Underworld. Those movies not only weren't very good, but their world isn't very interesting.
I do wish Wesley Snipes could play the role at least once more. The guy is still in great shape, and it's a shame for him to go out with the disappointing Blade 3.
Quote from: Darth Geek on October 10, 2016, 09:18:21 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 10, 2016, 07:49:13 PM
Marvel's up to SOMETHING with Blade: http://www.avclub.com/article/marvels-dusting-blade-hunt-more-vampires-not-ones--243944
I'm glad it's not a crossover with Underworld. Those movies not only weren't very good, but their world isn't very interesting.
I do wish Wesley Snipes could play the role at least once more. The guy is still in great shape, and it's a shame for him to go out with the disappointing Blade 3.
NOPE scrub that previous shitty Blade universe out. Relaunch it within the MCU the way it should be.
Yeah, I'd be up for an MCU revamping of Blade.
Here's a little amusing thing from the interwebs: Luke Cage opening through a 'Family Matters' window...
...and then... Avengers through a 'Full House' window...
For a side-by-side for this one vs the original, check this out:
Quote from: goflyblind on October 11, 2016, 08:13:24 PM
Quote from: LucasM on October 11, 2016, 05:32:58 PM
no mary-kate and ashley reference? :'(
Check out the 'side-by-side' one I linked to under it: they have Elizabeth Olsen in the credit section that Mary Kate and Ashley were in in the original credits... really kinda' freaky to realize the crossover there. I don't think the MCU would survive an Avengers/Full House crossover. ;D
[[Gofly: I went back and changed the link to an actual presence of the video in there, because of your comment and what I wrote below.]]
I felt the side-by-side was actually funnier - the shot comparisons, and who the guy had 'fill in' for some of the original casts' placements in the credits. And things like what the schwarma segment related to in the original.
Just saw this on James Gunn's Facebook page and thought this group would be likely to find it amusing... (note the bottom of the poster, in particular ;D).
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi432.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fqq49%2FLucasM06%2FThanos%2520-%2520the%2520Hands%2520of%2520Fate_zpsxsj8rsiy.jpg&hash=39ccd3a5c08afcc338a4cc7ca71541b8f0263c0a)
Nicely done!
It is clear that Doctor Strange doesn't take shit from anyone!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/q9cd1fap1IqNG/giphy.gif)
Quote from: LucasM on October 21, 2016, 01:35:23 PM
It is clear that Doctor Strange doesn't take shit from anyone!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/q9cd1fap1IqNG/giphy.gif)
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Is that from an SNL sketch or something?
Quote from: Darth Geek on October 21, 2016, 06:57:49 PM
Quote from: LucasM on October 21, 2016, 01:35:23 PM
It is clear that Doctor Strange doesn't take shit from anyone!
Spoiler
(https://media.giphy.com/media/q9cd1fap1IqNG/giphy.gif)
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Is that from an SNL sketch or something?
SNL hasn't been that funny in decades. It was a Jimmy Kimmel sketch from Cumberbatch's appearance Oct 20. Cool, just found the whole thing on YouTube:
That was funny, although the gif showed the best part.
I still wish Cumberbatch played the part like Dr. Orpheus
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fteamventure.org%2Fw%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F3%2F3e%2FOrpheus.png%2F250px-Orpheus.png&hash=79c52803d2a1996a4724d96342abc0486c600e12)
Dr. Orpheus has become my default voice in my head when reading Dr. Strange in comics. (It used to be Vincent Price.)
It'd be great if the DVD had some outtakes of him saying his lines like Dr. Orpheus.
Review of Doctor Strange from Variety. Only copied the second opening paragraph here, the title below is a link to the full article. Only spoilers I saw in the review are things that are either part of the character's comic history or else to things that have already been
way overplayed in the media hype already.
QuoteFilm Review: 'Doctor Strange' (http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/doctor-strange-review-marvel-studios-1201895862/)
...
Cut from the same mold as playboys Tony Stark (Iron Man) and Bruce Wayne (Batman), Strange easily might have become world's most insufferable superhero. But instead, it's the very fact of this deeply insecure and wildly overcompensating character's determination to prove himself — coupled with the setback by which texting while driving cripples his hands and very nearly derails him of that ambition — that makes "Doctor Strange" Marvel's most satisfying entry since "Spider-Man 2," and a throwback to M. Night Shyamalan's soul-searching identity-crisis epic "Unbreakable," which remains the gold standard for thinking people's superhero movies.
....
QuoteM. Night Shyamalan's soul-searching identity-crisis epic "Unbreakable," which remains the gold standard for thinking insomniac people's superhero movies.
Fixed it for you.
Quote from: Darth Geek on October 23, 2016, 12:29:40 PM
QuoteM. Night Shyamalan's soul-searching identity-crisis epic "Unbreakable," which remains the gold standard for thinking insomniac people's superhero movies.
Fixed it for you.
Never thought I'd agree with Darth about a movie...
(Actually, Unbreakable makes me so angry, that I'd never sleep through it)
Awesome! ;D
Google Maps:
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14729325_1527420797274487_8657334625984298646_n.png?oh=b417b3dbff0e8305d85cf6f95c2125cc&oe=58AC7467)
hmmmm risk the saturday crowds to see Strange or wait till sometime next week.
Quote from: BathTub on October 27, 2016, 08:55:04 PM
hmmmm risk the saturday crowds to see Strange or wait till sometime next week.
We have tickets for tomorrow afternoon :D
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F88FJic0.jpg&hash=c645b385e0172a08d15570e4fc1ad953c5f2e828)
:D Where's that dang Like button?
3rd hand, but may be legit (from a Twitter feed from "https://twitter.com/manwithoutfear"):
Quote"Hearing that Charlie Cox told some fans at Alamo comic con today that Defenders starts filming on Monday." (https://twitter.com/manwithoutfear/status/792524793530560512)
Rather bummed to read this. :(
QuoteNetflix's arm of the MCU is building towards its own Avengers-style team-up, The Defenders, in 2017. In a departure from the norm, the season will run to only eight episodes rather than than the 13-strong runs of Jessica Jones, Daredevil and Luke Cage.
From: http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/netflix-defenders-will-run-eight-episodes/
The article does, however, apparently clearly contradict the 3rd hand account of it already starting filming:
QuoteThe first two episodes of The Defenders also have a director in place.
Having "a director in place" is hardly "starting filming [today]".
Quote from: LucasM on October 31, 2016, 11:26:51 PM
Rather bummed to read this. :(
QuoteNetflix's arm of the MCU is building towards its own Avengers-style team-up, The Defenders, in 2017. In a departure from the norm, the season will run to only eight episodes rather than than the 13-strong runs of Jessica Jones, Daredevil and Luke Cage.
From: http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/netflix-defenders-will-run-eight-episodes/
The article does, however, apparently clearly contradict the 3rd hand account of it already starting filming:
QuoteThe first two episodes of The Defenders also have a director in place.
Having "a director in place" is hardly "starting filming [today]".
A shorter season that is as great as the others is fine - I'd rather they didn't pad it out to make 13 eps.
AND we're scheduled to get Iron Fist and The Punisher in 2017 as well, so that means they are upping the release schedule too.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 31, 2016, 11:40:54 PM
Quote from: LucasM on October 31, 2016, 11:26:51 PM
Rather bummed to read this. :(
QuoteNetflix's arm of the MCU is building towards its own Avengers-style team-up, The Defenders, in 2017. In a departure from the norm, the season will run to only eight episodes rather than than the 13-strong runs of Jessica Jones, Daredevil and Luke Cage.
From: http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/netflix-defenders-will-run-eight-episodes/
A shorter season that is as great as the others is fine - I'd rather they didn't pad it out to make 13 eps.
AND we're scheduled to get Iron Fist and The Punisher in 2017 as well, so that means they are upping the release schedule too.
True on the increased release schedule (hope they do that with the films, and increase to four a year), but with Loeb already saying, "these are four people who have very different ways of looking at their lives... now let's put them together and see what happens" [in the same '8 ep' article], eight episodes seems a bit short to do the character exploration that could be possible for their gaining a level of cohesion to work on the big bad. And of course, with no announced plans for a second Defenders season, it would simply be nice to get 'more'.
Of course something I didn't think of when writing the first could play a role. That is that the choice of eight episodes vs. 13 could also be financial. Netflix could have said, "you have $X for this season," and they couldn't do what they wanted to if the show was 13 episodes long (building sets, going to locations, CGI work, etc.). In other words: with their budget, and their expectations for what they are doing, it is possible they simply couldn't have afforded more than eight episodes.
Oh, and with the 'filming'/'not filming', I don't know what to think, because this was just posted on Facebook:
Quote(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14962715_1534577009892199_8408131848595717482_n.jpg?oh=112649bc4f84f29a7ed53ffecf46dd24&oe=588A4DA5)
"Jessica Jones and Misty Knight on the set of THE DEFENDERS!" (https://www.facebook.com/MarvelCinematicUniverse/photos/a.255014641181782.86037.217181691631744/1534577009892199/?type=3&theater)
If that is true, then yes, filming for Defenders has already started, just as Cox had said (3rd hand).
Well, on one hand it might not seem like enough time to develop them, but on the other hand, it's the equivalent runtime of four movies, so think of how much one can do with four movies.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 01, 2016, 04:49:03 PM
Well, on one hand it might not seem like enough time to develop them, but on the other hand, it's the equivalent runtime of four movies, so think of how much one can do with four movies.
I understand it is equivalent to four films. But it is also possibly the only Defenders we'll get. Or, if not, it may be another three years before they do another season given how long it's taken to schedule additional series and with the appearance that Netflix has a limit of two or three to how many Marvel seasons of any kind they'll fund/release in a year. So for a potential 'one-off', or even a 'one-every-three-years'-off I don't feel it is enough. [Yes, I realize I'm greedy. ;D]
I'm just thinking of the subtlety and details involved in the Netflix/Marvel series so far. How easy would it be to do Daredevil season 2 with the interactions with Electra and Punisher if they only had eight episodes? And that's one less main character than Defenders. [Yes, I also understand that neither Electra nor Punisher had their own series first so the characters had to be built up from scratch, where all four Defenders will have had at least one season under their belts by the time Defenders is released.]
I think if they had announced that The Defenders was going to be only eight episodes when they first announced it would occur, I would likely not have a problem with the shorter season. It is the fact that they have apparently already started shooting, and they are only just now saying, "oh, by the way: it'll only be 61% as long as the other Netflix/Marvel series," that has ticked me off about it.
[Also keep in mind: my life is
SO limited by my injuries, that there is VERY little I look forward to. To have the rug pulled out, or shortened, on something like this at this late date has its effects. Like being told a couple months in advance you are getting 'x' for Christmas as a kid, but then a couple weeks' before Christmas being told: "oh, you're only getting 61% of x, actually". If you're feeling shitty to begin with, that would really have an impact.]
[TMFI (I think people can guess the 'F') & I can tell I'm seizing from yesterday, despite the extra meds I've taken for it. (146 trick-or-treaters in an hour and 20 minutes. Keeping track of and at least nominally interacting with each [plus parents for the younger ones], when interacting with ONE person for that long takes me a couple weeks to recover from.)]
If someone responds to this, please don't quote it. I may delete all or part of it later (when I'm more functional). Thank you.
Hey, I'd love more, more, more too! I can't wait until there is at least one new MCU release a week! That's the world I want to live in. But, in 2017 we're getting:
Iron Fist
Defenders
Punisher
Guardians of the Galaxy 2
Spider-Man
Thor Ragnarok
Agents of SHIELD
Damage Control
Cloak & Dagger
So, that's a pretty great slate for one year! :D
(I suspect you are probably right this will be the only Defenders series we get, but I think there's a possibility of a Heroes For Hire series)
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 01, 2016, 06:30:25 PM
I can't wait until there is at least one new MCU release a week! That's the world I want to live in.
I fully support this!! ;D
Damage Control is confirmed? I hadn't seen that. I thought it was still being considered (with just a script, but not even a pilot, ordered yet).
I do agree that nine is a reasonable number, with Iron Fist and Punisher being ~13 hours each, Defenders ~8, SHIELD ~15, the three films ~2 each, that's
still only(::)) 55 hours of Marvel on film for the year. If Damage Control is confirmed, then that'd be maybe 7 1/2 more if it is a standard '1/2 hour' sitcom (though IMDb has it listed as a TV Movie at this point), and Cloak and Dagger either 7 1/2 or 15 depending on if it is designed to fill a half-hour block or full hour (guessing the latter). If C&D is an 'hour' (~41 mins), then that's 77 1/2 hours for a year.
That breaks down into only one hour of new Marvel every four 3/4 days!Not enough. ;D
[Hopefully it is clear I realize I'm being unreasonable here.]
I know Damage Control was a 'put pilot' so at very least we should see something.
The ABC Entertainment president said it would be part of the 2016-17 season, and I haven't heard anything different yet, so I assume it's still coming.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 01, 2016, 07:10:49 PM
I know Damage Control was a 'put pilot' so at very least we should see something.
The ABC Entertainment president said it would be part of the 2016-17 season, and I haven't heard anything different yet, so I assume it's still coming.
That's great! Looking forward to still more variety from the company that seems to have a lock on quality entertainment (with the exception of an average Agents of SHIELD episode here and there [which episodes those are being completely personal preference, of course ;)]).
I wonder if the pilot for Most Wanted will ever see the light of day? An extra on an Agents of SHIELD set maybe?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 01, 2016, 09:12:28 PM
I wonder if the pilot for Most Wanted will ever see the light of day? An extra on an Agents of SHIELD set maybe?
I hope so! I really wanted to see that show get picked up.
Quote from: k1 on November 02, 2016, 05:43:56 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 01, 2016, 09:12:28 PM
I wonder if the pilot for Most Wanted will ever see the light of day? An extra on an Agents of SHIELD set maybe?
I hope so! I really wanted to see that show get picked up.
Ditto. I am shocked they couldn't make it work. :/
And now we have a 4 week wait until the next SHIELD episode... :(
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 02, 2016, 05:54:31 PM
Quote from: k1 on November 02, 2016, 05:43:56 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 01, 2016, 09:12:28 PM
I wonder if the pilot for Most Wanted will ever see the light of day? An extra on an Agents of SHIELD set maybe?
I hope so! I really wanted to see that show get picked up.
Ditto. I am shocked they couldn't make it work. :/
And to top that off, because they anticipated them being occupied with their own series, they burned bridges so thoroughly that the two couldn't come back to Agents of SHIELD without their leaving being trivialized. :(
Quote from: LucasM on November 02, 2016, 06:48:15 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 02, 2016, 05:54:31 PM
Quote from: k1 on November 02, 2016, 05:43:56 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 01, 2016, 09:12:28 PM
I wonder if the pilot for Most Wanted will ever see the light of day? An extra on an Agents of SHIELD set maybe?
I hope so! I really wanted to see that show get picked up.
Ditto. I am shocked they couldn't make it work. :/
And to top that off, because they anticipated them being occupied with their own series, they burned bridges so thoroughly that the two couldn't come back to Agents of SHIELD without their leaving being trivialized. :(
While everyone was campaigning for Agent Carter to be picked up by Netflix, I was hoping Mockingbird would be. If nothing else, she'd fit in great with the Defenders Universe they have going.
Quote from: k1 on November 02, 2016, 06:44:35 PM
And now we have a 4 week wait until the next SHIELD episode... :(
I am actually grateful for this. Because the Darkholde is apparently a big deal in the Doctor Strange film, and what happens there will in turn affect Agents of SHIELD, it means that I have a few weeks in which I can hopefully build up the capacity to go and see Doctor Strange soon. [I've read that the 3D in it is far better than in Marvel's previous films, and that it adds a lot to the storytelling, so I plan to see it in IMAX 3D.]
Quote from: LucasM on November 02, 2016, 07:19:10 PM
Quote from: k1 on November 02, 2016, 06:44:35 PM
And now we have a 4 week wait until the next SHIELD episode... :(
I am actually grateful for this. Because the Darkholde is apparently a big deal in the Doctor Strange film, and what happens there will in turn affect Agents of SHIELD, it means that I have a few weeks in which I can hopefully build up the capacity to go and see Doctor Strange soon. [I've read that the 3D in it is far better than in Marvel's previous films, and that it adds a lot to the storytelling, so I plan to see it in IMAX 3D.]
There is no mention of the Darkhold in Dr Strange.
As yet, I have seen no connection.
Any nods to Shuma Gorath?
None that I caught.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 02, 2016, 08:31:15 PM
Quote from: LucasM on November 02, 2016, 07:19:10 PM
Quote from: k1 on November 02, 2016, 06:44:35 PM
And now we have a 4 week wait until the next SHIELD episode... :(
I am actually grateful for this. Because the Darkholde is apparently a big deal in the Doctor Strange film, and what happens there will in turn affect Agents of SHIELD, it means that I have a few weeks in which I can hopefully build up the capacity to go and see Doctor Strange soon. [I've read that the 3D in it is far better than in Marvel's previous films, and that it adds a lot to the storytelling, so I plan to see it in IMAX 3D.]
There is no mention of the Darkhold in Dr Strange.
As yet, I have seen no connection.
Cool. It was Jed Whedon in THIS (http://mcuexchange.com/agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-will-tie-in-with-doctor-strange-and-fury-could-be-returning-to-the-show/) article that said that AoS and DrS were tied closely together with the 'boxes' (all that was revealed at that point, though I believe 'the book' was also mentioned in another article I read) connecting with Doctor Strange, and that the film would then affect Agents of SHIELD. [The latter is almost a given anyway, with film-to-TV history for the MCU consistently demonstrating that.]
When re-reading the article, it wasn't as clear-cut as I'd remembered. Jed said:
QuoteWe are introducing a different supernatural element of the MCU, which happens to coincide with the release of Doctor Strange. So that's what's in the box — we can't tell you, but something along those lines...I think you will be rewarded for [watching both Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Doctor Strange]. Some of the questions that we're asking right at the top will be answered by the film and directly after the film. We're starting to explore some of the same worlds.
That does NOT say the box contents themselves cross with Doctor Strange, just that, "some of the questions that we're asking right at the top will be answered by the film and directly after the film". So the
ideas from SHIELD cross over and are "answered" in the film, more so than items themselves... or at least that's the way I'm now reading that.
I must have been more out of it than I thought when I read that originally, as generally if I remember something
at all it is more accurate than what I thought. [Unless the other article, which I can't yet find, where they mentioned 'the book' specifically, said something that retroactively altered my memory of what Jed Whedon had said.]
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15094287_1406462892704934_2291234779209531270_n.jpg?oh=852f529275e47a15f6a38b6103622717&oe=58D2EF85)
Two things: they should have added an extra 's' to make it 'Assguardian'. And the person posting it should have written, "And here it is for posteriority".
EDIT: OK, three things: Charmin also could have (but wouldn't have) said, "With our otherworldly softness, we make thure you don't have a Thore ass after wiping."
Wondering where that Inhumans movie has gone? Well.....
QuoteLOS ANGELES — One of Marvel Entertainment's most sprawling superhero mythologies, the Inhumans, is headed to the small screen in a major way.
But the Inhuman likes of Black Bolt, Crystal and Lockjaw, the teleporting dog, will first appear on big screens. As in the biggest.
Imax Corporation, Marvel and the ABC broadcast network announced a partnership on Monday to introduce — and finance — a lavish new television series that will focus on the Inhuman royal family. Under the agreement, a version that combines the initial two episodes of "Marvel's The Inhumans," shot entirely with Imax cameras, will play exclusively for two weeks next September on Imax screens worldwide.
Shortly thereafter, the episodes — edited to include additional scenes — will run on ABC, with new installments unspooling in typical prime-time fashion. (The look of the series on TV will be enhanced due to Imax technology.)
So TV episodes shown on IMAX and then back to TV.
Huh.
Quote from: Compound on November 14, 2016, 04:29:55 PM
Wondering where that Inhumans movie has gone? Well.....
QuoteLOS ANGELES — One of Marvel Entertainment's most sprawling superhero mythologies, the Inhumans, is headed to the small screen in a major way.
But the Inhuman likes of Black Bolt, Crystal and Lockjaw, the teleporting dog, will first appear on big screens. As in the biggest.
Imax Corporation, Marvel and the ABC broadcast network announced a partnership on Monday to introduce — and finance — a lavish new television series that will focus on the Inhuman royal family. Under the agreement, a version that combines the initial two episodes of "Marvel's The Inhumans," shot entirely with Imax cameras, will play exclusively for two weeks next September on Imax screens worldwide.
Shortly thereafter, the episodes — edited to include additional scenes — will run on ABC, with new installments unspooling in typical prime-time fashion. (The look of the series on TV will be enhanced due to Imax technology.)
So TV episodes shown on IMAX and then back to TV.
Good news, I think. But if they turn it into a 'King of Queens'-type show ;D, I'll be very upset. [Y'know: cuz Black Bolt is King, and Medusa is Queen.... (<crickets>)]
Could be cool. I think the Inhumans lends itself better to a series rather than a single movie.
Quote from: k1 on November 14, 2016, 05:09:28 PM
Could be cool. I think the Inhumans lends itself better to a series rather than a single movie.
Agree.
In thinking about it (for all of maybe 2-3 minutes) my personal preference would be for a less broadcast/prime-timey venue. Though CBS is too 'gentle' (i.e. needing to be a bit too mainstream for the unusual kinds of stories I think the Inhumans demand), I think Netflix's Marvel would be too dark for it, and Freeform [Cloak and Dagger] is aimed too young... we need a Goldilocks zone for serialized Marvel TV properties to be adult-complex without being soul-wrenchingly dark.
New info on it. Apparently it will be an eight episode mini-series, not an ongoing series. I'm thinking there's both pros and cons to this. Some of them: pros include it having a more well-defined, and therefore possibly more complex, plot; cons include that there won't be more than roughly six hours of it (when commercials are removed).
QuoteMarvel, ABC Set 'The Inhumans' TV Series (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/marvel-abc-set-inhumans-tv-series-947296)
The comic book studio — which previously abandoned plans for an Inhumans feature film — is now set to team with ABC Studios for an eight-episode live-action drama series set to premiere in the fall of 2017.
Few details are known about the project, including producers, cast and premise. The first two episodes of the series will debut in Imax theaters for two weeks in summer 2017 before moving to ABC in September where they will be followed by six subsequent new episodes.
Sources note that this is not the planned Inhumans feature film, which was initially set for July 2019 but pulled from the schedule. It is also not a spinoff of Marvel drama Agents of SHIELD, which has spent a good deal of time exploring a storyline about its Inhumans.
With this the case, it not 'interacting' with Agents of SHIELD sounds like a good idea, as that would dilute the content/characterization/plot by not having full focus on the Inhumans' royal family and court. Without Agents of SHIELD already explaining who the Inhumans are, it would have had to use screen time with an origin, but now can mostly just jump in with people presumably knowing who/what 'Inhumans' are.
This final line in the article confuses me a bit, however:
QuoteThe Inhumans TV series will also be filmed completely with Imax cameras.
If only the first two episodes will be shown in IMAX theaters, what's the point of the highly-expensive, difficult-to-maneuver cameras being used for
all of it? It does, however, bode very well for how epic it may be, as IMAX isn't used for just talking heads.
Quote from: LucasM on November 15, 2016, 10:47:56 AM
This final line in the article confuses me a bit, however:
QuoteThe Inhumans TV series will also be filmed completely with Imax cameras.
If only the first two episodes will be shown in IMAX theaters, what's the point of the highly-expensive, difficult-to-maneuver cameras being used for all of it? It does, however, bode very well for how epic it may be, as IMAX isn't used for just talking heads.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's a promotional thing for IMAX.
Quote from: Darth Geek on November 15, 2016, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: LucasM on November 15, 2016, 10:47:56 AM
This final line in the article confuses me a bit, however:
QuoteThe Inhumans TV series will also be filmed completely with Imax cameras.
If only the first two episodes will be shown in IMAX theaters, what's the point of the highly-expensive, difficult-to-maneuver cameras being used for all of it? It does, however, bode very well for how epic it may be, as IMAX isn't used for just talking heads.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's a promotional thing for IMAX.
Given the pricey nature of operating IMAX cameras, it seems a bit excessive given the small size of most Americans' TVs. However, I guess having "Brought to you by IMAX" in big honkin' letters on each and every episode
would be good PR for them. Plus it doesn't cost IMAX
themselves all that much to use cameras etc. that they already have. The difference between the lost revenue from what they could charge to rent them out vs the actual operating cost the only loss in the equation. So, yeah, makes sense now. Thanks. Plus, I suppose, it would make 4K releases of the hard copies more desirable as well, so bigger $ on the back end may be possible as well.
And heck, if they are helping foot the bill to give it a bigger budget so the special effects and sets won't look 'TV quality', more power to them. :)
Quote from: Darth Geek on November 15, 2016, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: LucasM on November 15, 2016, 10:47:56 AM
If only the first two episodes will be shown in IMAX theaters, what's the point of the highly-expensive, difficult-to-maneuver cameras being used for all of it? It does, however, bode very well for how epic it may be, as IMAX isn't used for just talking heads.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's a promotional thing for IMAX.
Maybe they're aiming for the 4k market. I'm just guessing, but stuff filmed on IMAX might look better on 4k sets. Right now, I don't think there's a lot of programming that takes advantage of 4k, so maybe Disney's thinking if they put a show of theirs in that format, they can capture that market. (shrug) Or option 2- a decision made with booze helping.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 01, 2016, 06:30:25 PM
Hey, I'd love more, more, more too! I can't wait until there is at least one new MCU release a week! That's the world I want to live in. But, in 2017 we're getting:
Iron Fist
Defenders
Punisher
Guardians of the Galaxy 2
Spider-Man
Thor Ragnarok
Agents of SHIELD
Damage Control
Cloak & Dagger
So, that's a pretty great slate for one year! :D
(I suspect you are probably right this will be the only Defenders series we get, but I think there's a possibility of a Heroes For Hire series)
Someone even did a graphic for this. But still... that averages out to just barely over an hour of new Marvel a week and only if one 'doses' themselves accordingly! >:( ( ;D )
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/15123018_1557567100926523_5741382436275580078_o.jpg)
Great little interview with Kevin Feige. Talks about Spider-Man, Brie Larson as Captain Marvel, diversity in the films, and that a crossover with Fox's properties like with Sony for Spider-Man, is "an impossibility at this juncture".
http://variety.com/2016/film/news/marvel-kevin-feige-interview-spider-man-captain-marvel-diversity-1201923851/ (http://variety.com/2016/film/news/marvel-kevin-feige-interview-spider-man-captain-marvel-diversity-1201923851/)
If anyone cares, I just updated my 'crossover index/interactions' post (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019). I corrected a couple things, and added some things to film or TV stuff already there, but also added known upcoming releases into the list.
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15232103_1224278884277502_3990677309836146173_n.jpg?oh=96cbed3d226e3be2ad7047f5ed5a5099&oe=58B53E29)
Quote from: LucasM on November 30, 2016, 12:06:28 PM
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15232103_1224278884277502_3990677309836146173_n.jpg?oh=96cbed3d226e3be2ad7047f5ed5a5099&oe=58B53E29)
why isn't it called the thancopter?
Because it is true to continuity (http://www.cbr.com/i-love-ya-but-youre-strange-the-birth-of-the-thanos-copter/)!
If they can work Thanos' helicopter into MCU continuity, I'll be a happy man.
Marvel And Netflix Confirm Luke Cage Season 2 (http://comicbook.com/2016/12/04/marvel-and-netflix-confirm-luke-cage-season-2/)
QuoteMarvel and Netflix have officially confirmed that Marvel's Luke Cage will be getting a second season.
The announcement was made with a tweet that featured a video set to the tune of the Luke Cage opening theme, sent out with Cage's own mantra, "Always forward."
That makes Marvel three-for-three with second season renewals on Netflix. Marvel's Daredevil was renewed for a second season on Netflix and has since earned a third. Marvel's Jessica Jones has also been renewed for a second season.
No release date was named. There was simply a neon sign in the window of Pop's Barber Shop that reads "Season 2 Coming Soon." Luke Cage Season 2 will presumably follow Marvel's Iron Fist and the crossover Marvel's Defenders series, which will both land on Netflix in 2017.
Luke Cage star Mike Colter has teased that the series' second season may see Luke teaming up with soon-to-be fellow Defender Iron Fist, played in the Marvel Cinematic Universe by Game of Thrones alum Finn Jones. Both characters are best known for their time as the crime-fighting-for-profit duo called Heroes for Hire.
In addition to Iron Fist and Defenders, Marvel also has Daredevil Season 3, Jessica Jones Season 2 and the first season of Daredevil spin-off Marvel's Punisher queued up for Netflix, giving superhero streamers plenty to look forward to.
Part of the next to last paragraph is deceptive. What Colter said was (http://comicbook.com/2016/10/31/luke-cage-iron-fist-heroes-hire-netflix-mcu/):
QuoteWhile at LA Comic-Con over the weekend, Mike Colter teased the Heroes for Hire team up to fans, saying, "Finn Jones I was just hanging out with him yesterday. So [I'm] going back to New York, start filming... We're getting ready to do 'Heroes for Hire' eventually, come on."
To be clear: Colter isn't saying they are filming Heroes for Hire right now; the shoot in NYC is for The Defenders. He's just (half-) jokingly alluding to him and Jones keeping in communication because eventually they are going to unite for HfH. So file this under actor hopes with a side of Marvel long-term planning, but not an official confirmation... yet.
"We're getting ready to do 'Heroes for Hire' eventually, come on," means 'we're getting to know each other better because we hope there will be a Heroes for Hire show, because how
couldn't there be one'. That's pretty different from "teased that the series' second season may see Luke teaming up with soon-to-be fellow Defender Iron Fist". The article is basically click-bait level 'reporting' for that aspect of what it said.
Quote from: LucasM on November 30, 2016, 12:06:28 PM
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15232103_1224278884277502_3990677309836146173_n.jpg?oh=96cbed3d226e3be2ad7047f5ed5a5099&oe=58B53E29)
I KNOW this is taking the comic too seriously, but:
Thor 3 and GotG both take place off planet, and might all happen during the exact time of Civil War though, and if we don't see/hear from Thanos during a film, doesn't mean he hasn't done something somewhere in the universe towards his goals anyway.
I had hoped this thread to be more discussion of content. I guess since currently there's not much active, that's not really possible. So here's another graphic on Marvel TV:
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/15304303_1577896812226885_366177486081903126_o.jpg)
(the pic is actually much bigger than what shows here)
I wonder if Damage Control is quietly disappearing?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on December 06, 2016, 03:59:48 PM
I wonder if Damage Control is quietly disappearing?
Talk of it certainly seems to have vanished. After your question, I did a couple searches, and can't find any newer info since about January of this year. Possibly a crib death?
Other news:
Marvel's 'Inhumans' Sets 'Dexter' Grad as Showrunner (Exclusive) (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/marvels-inhumans-sets-dexter-grad-as-showrunner-947311)
QuoteScott Buck, who is currently overseeing Netflix's Marvel show 'Iron Fist,' will do the same with the forthcoming ABC drama.
ABC and Marvel are turning to a familiar face to oversee The Inhumans.
Dexter grad Scott Buck has been tapped to serve as showrunner on ABC's straight-to-series Marvel and Imax drama, The Hollywood Reporter has learned.
The Inhumans, a race of superhumans with diverse and unique powers, were first introduced in Marvel Comics by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in 1965. Since then, they have become among the most popular characters in the Marvel Universe. ABC's The Inhumans will explore the never-before-told epic adventure of Black Bolt and the royal family.
Buck will serve as showrunner on the drama series, with the first two episodes set to exclusively unspool in Imax theaters over a two-week period starting Labor Day Weekend 2017 before the drama debuts on ABC in September in a groundbreaking, first-of-its-kind collaboration that helps cut through the crowded fall landscape.
The Inhumans deal extends Marvel's relationship with Buck, who is currently serving as showrunner on the comic book powerhouse's Netflix drama Iron Fist. Iron Fist is Marvel and Netflix's fourth series, with the fifth — mini The Defenders — set to feature stars from the former as well as Daredevil, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage.
Iron Fist marks Buck's first post-Dexter gig. Buck served as showrunner for the final three seasons of Showtime's Michael C. Hall serial-killer-with-a-code drama after taking over for Clyde Phillips. Buck's credits also include Six Feet Under, Rome and Coach. He's repped by CAA.
Picked up straight to series Nov. 14, The Inhumans is ABC's latest Marvel collaboration. The live-action TV series is not taking the place of the planned feature film and is not a spinoff of ABC's Marvel drama Agents of SHIELD. This becomes ABC's third Marvel series, following SHIELD and the late and great Agent Carter. Inhumans is produced by Marvel, ABC Studios and Imax, with all episodes set to be filmed with Imax cameras.
Quote from: LucasM on December 06, 2016, 05:51:19 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on December 06, 2016, 03:59:48 PM
I wonder if Damage Control is quietly disappearing?
Talk of it certainly seems to have vanished. After your question, I did a couple searches, and can't find any newer info since about January of this year. Possibly a crib death?
I wasn't convinced it was going to be great anyway, but I'm always hungry for more MCU.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on December 06, 2016, 06:13:13 PM
Quote from: LucasM on December 06, 2016, 05:51:19 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on December 06, 2016, 03:59:48 PM
I wonder if Damage Control is quietly disappearing?
Talk of it certainly seems to have vanished. After your question, I did a couple searches, and can't find any newer info since about January of this year. Possibly a crib death?
I wasn't convinced it was going to be great anyway, but I'm always hungry for more MCU.
Yeah, I agree (on both parts). I think for Damage Control to truly be funny, it would need a budget almost rivaling Agents of SHIELD (and that budget for a 1/2 hour comedy). Because it would actually have to show catastrophe on a real scale to have the 'antics' play off them comedically. If the environment isn't believable, the comedy would be likely to fall flat. Honestly, if they could re-use theatrical catastrophic set pieces already created for the MCU films (i.e. the damaged areas are already built in the computer), it would collapse the budget enormously... of course, then they'd be using top-tier special effects houses, which are not only pricier than those used for TV special effects, but are also booked to capacity for years in advance, I would think.
But I guess we'll get an 'also-ran' with DC's upcoming 'Powerless' in early 2017 (a mid-season replacement). If you aren't following DC as much, it is a 1/2-hour comedy of an insurance company dealing with superhero fallout (not nearly the budgetary requirements of Damage Control, as they likely only have to show photos of much of the damage they are dealing with). It apparently stars a RiffTrax film alum, Vanessa Hudgens from High School Musical (who apparently has been performing successfully as a lead on Broadway recently).
Back a couple pages (possibly even the bottom of page 1 of this thread) I'd started discussing
Captain America: Civil War, and I'd intended to get into it from the standpoint of the psychological concepts of moral development as delineated by Lawrence Kohlberg. [I did my Master's thesis research using those stages and dogmatism as described by Milton Rokeach, seeing how they interacted. (My theory: that only those who were not dogmatic could reach higher moral development levels. While my subject pool was too narrow to get conclusive results, they appeared to support that.)]
Here's a quick run-down of the moral stages, from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development):
QuoteLevel 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?)
(Paying for a benefit)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)
To put it simply, in my evaluation of his behavior, Tony Stark varies from stage 2 to stage 4 (tops), while Steve Rogers is most likely in stage 6 (and has been at that stage since he first appeared as the scrawny kid who 'took it outside' to keep a jerk from causing additional emotional pain to a woman suffering from a loved one being [lost?/injured?/absent?] in the war).
So (quoting the Wikipedia page with the exception of the MCU names):
Tony Stark =
QuoteStage two (self-interest driven) expresses the "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one's reputation or relationships to groups of people. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further the individual's own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" mentality.[2] The lack of a societal perspective in the pre-conventional level is quite different from the social contract (stage five), as all actions at this stage have the purpose of serving the individual's own needs or interests. For the stage two theorist, the world's perspective is often seen as morally relative.
...but during the film, out of guilt, Tony at least appears to get to:
QuoteStage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.[2]
Steve Rogers, however, is at:
QuoteStage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.[18] This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another's shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.[19] The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.[15]
I just thought this was a different 'take' on the film, and one I find more interesting than much of what has been written about it before (e.g. "who was right/wrong?"). I'd hoped to use more of my own text in the writing of this, but the further we get past the film, the more apparent it is that that is unlikely to ever happen, so I figured I'd at least put this out there.
Discuss. :)
New Agents of SHIELD spin-off news. Sadly not the Most Wanted one, but....
http://comicbook.com/2016/12/07/marvel-announces-new-digital-tv-series/
QuoteMarvel's Agents of SHIELD was all set to receive its own spinoff series in Most Wanted, but dreams were dashed when ABC didn't pick up the pilot. Now Agents of SHIELD is getting another spinoff project, this time in the form of a digital show called Slingshot.
The digital series will follow Elena "Yo-Yo" Rodriguez (played by Natalia Cordova-Buckley), who says of her role "There's a lot of me in Yo-Yo and a lot of Yo-Yo in me." The web series is actually a prequel to the start of season 4, showing how she comes to terms with her powers and giving it a bit of insight into the character's past.
Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot takes place shortly before the beginning of Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Season 4. The digital series features Elena "Yo-Yo" Rodriguez, an Inhuman with the ability to move at super-speed. As a person with powers, she must sign the Sokovia Accords. However, the restrictions of the Accords are in direct conflict with a personal mission she's desperate to fulfill, one that will test her abilities and will include tense encounters with S.H.I.E.L.D. team members.
Slingshot launches on December 13, which is also when Marvel's Agents of SHIELD returns to ABC.
I love Yo-Yo and can't wait for this, but she's not who I'd pick for a spinoff...
Wonder if Slingshot will be watchable outside of the US?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on December 07, 2016, 08:50:46 PM
Wonder if Slingshot will be watchable outside of the US?
From the Agents of SHIELD thread:
Quote from: LucasM on December 13, 2016, 04:12:31 PM
'Slingshot' micro-series up and running. Netflix style (all available at one). Starts here: http://abc.go.com/shows/marvels-agents-of-shield-slingshot/episode-guide/season-01/01-vendetta
So you'll have to let us know, EJG III, if it works for those outside the US. I hope so. While it wasn't mind-blowing, altogether it was a nice 'short solo episode' of AoS.
I do hope they add it as an extra to the Blus for this season. [comment outside the purview of this thread: I'm still ticked that NONE of the versions of the first X-Men film has contained the 1/2-hour made for TV show that was aired as a real statement by Senator Kelly on the dangers of mutants. It was on the Monday before the film released (if I'm remembering correctly). And it's never been seen since. >:(]
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/15380599_10154852170404588_4253294033517478998_n.jpg?oh=9e3ea631d8ce7adef0b90a1e08d49f85&oe=58AF1749)
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15541458_1587619461254620_7544096308837927248_n.jpg?oh=6ad8bb239a7e7c6d8a83a4ef76470bfe&oe=58F23FB4)
;D
Quote from: LucasM on December 13, 2016, 07:55:54 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on December 07, 2016, 08:50:46 PM
Wonder if Slingshot will be watchable outside of the US?
From the Agents of SHIELD thread:
Quote from: LucasM on December 13, 2016, 04:12:31 PM
'Slingshot' micro-series up and running. Netflix style (all available at one). Starts here: http://abc.go.com/shows/marvels-agents-of-shield-slingshot/episode-guide/season-01/01-vendetta
So you'll have to let us know, EJG III, if it works for those outside the US. I hope so. While it wasn't mind-blowing, altogether it was a nice 'short solo episode' of AoS.
not in the great white north, anyways:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyiqR55s.png&hash=a8120e050898818e0e6393f13da4634ec82eb40f)
Quote from: goflyblind on December 13, 2016, 09:15:58 PM
Quote from: LucasM on December 13, 2016, 07:55:54 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on December 07, 2016, 08:50:46 PM
Wonder if Slingshot will be watchable outside of the US?
From the Agents of SHIELD thread:
Quote from: LucasM on December 13, 2016, 04:12:31 PM
'Slingshot' micro-series up and running. Netflix style (all available at one). Starts here: http://abc.go.com/shows/marvels-agents-of-shield-slingshot/episode-guide/season-01/01-vendetta
So you'll have to let us know, EJG III, if it works for those outside the US. I hope so. While it wasn't mind-blowing, altogether it was a nice 'short solo episode' of AoS.
not in the great white north, anyways:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyiqR55s.png&hash=a8120e050898818e0e6393f13da4634ec82eb40f)
>:( That sucks!
People not from the US can go suck eggs, as usual.
http://mcuexchange.com/speculation-damage-control-might-debut-in-spider-man-homecoming/
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on December 15, 2016, 06:12:45 PM
http://mcuexchange.com/speculation-damage-control-might-debut-in-spider-man-homecoming/
Cool, thanks for the link! Seems pretty likely it's Damage Control there. And Damage Control certainly fits better with the more fun/quirky 'neighborhood' of Spidey than, say, it would have in Captain America: Civil War. ;D
What may be happening is they didn't think it'd have enough steam to premiere on its own, so - like Coulson's film appearances ultimately ushering in Agents of SHIELD - possibly Spider-Man: Homecoming will be the introduction of the concept so that when it does appear on TV (next Fall, maybe?) it will already have some built-in followers. (More followers than those who know it from comics or who will follow anything Marvel does on film, at any rate.)
Yeah, I think the same thing. Hope that's the case anyway.
QuotePeter Dinklage Eyed for a Key Role in 'Avengers: Infinity War' (EXCLUSIVE) (http://variety.com/2017/film/news/peter-dinklage-avengers-infinity-war-1201954237/)
Are Tyrion Lannister and Tony Stark about to cross paths?
Sources tell Variety that "Game of Thrones" star Peter Dinklage is in early talks for a key role in Marvel's "Avengers: Infinity War."
Marvel had no comment.
Production on the seventh season of "Game of Thrones" recently wrapped. Since the schedule for the show has moved from a summer shoot to a fall shoot, Dinklage's schedule allowed him to board the latest "Avengers" pic which is expected to shoot sometime in early summer.
The plan is shoot the next two "Avengers" films ("Infinity War" and a yet untitled sequel) back-to-back. Sources indicate Dinklage is expected to appear in both.
Plot details are vague, other then the superhero team returning to face the Marvel mega-villain Thanos (voiced by Josh Brolin). Dinklage's role is also unknown at this time.
Dinklage is one of the few new cast members to be added to the franchise. Previous stars like Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans are on board to return.
After directing the last two installments in the "Captain America" franchise, Anthony and Joe Russo now take over the reigns of directing the "Avengers" franchise, with the previous two pics directed by Joss Whedon. "Avengers: Infinity War" has a release date of May 4, 2018.
I'm with the buzz on Facebook, he'd be a wonderful Pip the Troll, Adam Warlock's friend and sidekick during the Infinity War/Infinity Gauntlet/Infinity Watch/etc. series (who then went on to have his own adventures later).
He'd be great in any part (size irrelevant), but I'm hoping for Pip because it would mean Warlock's basically confirmed (finally).
Here's Pip being Pip, and meeting Gamora for the first time in what is also - I believe - the first time Starlin introduced/created the character people know so well from 'Guardians of the Galaxy':
Spoiler
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi432.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fqq49%2FLucasM06%2FStrange%2520Tales%2520180%2520Warlock-25_zpsfyfr5q7j.jpg&hash=bc87ec8920347339ebbae49fd9a67084ef4d1b35)
Could he be Uatu, the Watcher? That could be interesting and add a whole new dynamic to the Infinity War.
The Watcher didn't really play any role in the Infinity ___ stories (e.g. Gauntlet, War, Crusade, etc.). While I'm sure Peter Dinklage could play an amazing Watcher, I certainly hope that the MCU isn't going to stray that far from the source material. [Plus, The Watcher started and was mainly a Fantastic Four-related character for a good portion of his early appearances, so may very well be part of the character license to FOX.]
Pip the troll, on the other hand, was pretty integral to all the Inifinity ___ stories, and (at least as of 2014's Thanos vs Hulk) still has/had possession of the 'Space' gem in the comics.
Don't expect it to match the comic in anything but name, or you are likely to be disappointed, going by all that has gone before.
I saw someone suggest he'd be a great MODOK, which is hard to deny...
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on January 12, 2017, 03:38:50 PM
I saw someone suggest he'd be a great MODOK, which is hard to deny...
YES!!! That would be great.
Quote from: LucasM on January 12, 2017, 12:34:24 AM
The Watcher didn't really play any role in the Infinity ___ stories (e.g. Gauntlet, War, Crusade, etc.). While I'm sure Peter Dinklage could play an amazing Watcher, I certainly hope that the MCU isn't going to stray that far from the source material.
That's true. If he's Pip then I got to wonder who's going to be Adam Warlock.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on January 12, 2017, 03:38:50 PM
Don't expect it to match the comic in anything but name, or you are likely to be disappointed, going by all that has gone before.
I saw someone suggest he'd be a great MODOK, which is hard to deny...
I don't expect it to match the comic (hence my "I certainly hope..." comment), because yeah, they've changed all sorts of things. Some biggies ranging from who created Ultron, to pretty much everything about Civil War, to where just about every Infinity Gem thus far was, or who it was in the possession of.
But if they are going to introduce new characters anyway, I would hope that they at least did characters that had some bearing on the original, rather than random ones from elsewhere. With Warlock likely (Gunn having said that the cocoon in GotG 1 was indeed his, and it being broken open after the explosion), it would make sense to have his 'side-kick' present. And Pip played a "key role" in the Thanos/gauntlet war and the position they apparently approached Peter Dinklage for was for "a key role" in the films. [In addition: Pip was based partly on Jack Kirby (the tribute inspiring both Pip's smaller stature and the cigars, as well as his tough attitude) - his appearing would be the closest we might ever get to a JK cameo to balance out those of Stan Lee.]
While he would be good as MODOK, I just don't see MODOK playing a key role in the films... Uatu, yes (if interfering as he did with the FF against Galactus in FF #49). But if he does join the production, I'd rather PD had a more involved and active role, rather than 'Watching' from the sidelines. Now if he played one of the larger, more cosmic characters (Infinity, etc.) that would be awesome as well.
OK... this is actually off-topic for this thread (as the thread's mission statement is about film/TV content), but it is something I figured out that may be of interest to more than just me.
When anticipating Daredevil Season 1 on Blu-ray, people here said that other Netflix shows usually appeared for home video purchase roughly a year after release (or just before or just after the next season drops). Well, Daredevil Season 1 on Blu-ray went well beyond Netflix's apparent norm for this. It was 577 days from when Daredevil Season 1 appeared on Netflix, and when it appeared on Blu-ray. For simplicities' sake I used that same number (presuming there's some contractual thing that says it has to be over 18 months) to calculate the likely time the other series will hit home video. So here's roughly when we might expect the other Marvel/Netflix shows to appear on Blu-ray:
Daredevil on Netflix: April 10, 2015 - on Blu-ray: November 8, 2016
Season 2 on Netflix: March 18, 2016 - projected on Blu-ray: ~Oct 16, 2017
Jessica Jones on Netflix: Nov 20, 2015 - projected on Blu-ray: ~June 20, 2017
Luke Cage on Netflix: Sept 30, 2016 - projected on Blu-ray: ~Apr 30, 2018
Iron Fist on Netflix: March 17, 2017 - projected on Blu-ray: ~Oct 15, 2018
So: DON'T go marking your calendar for buying these! ::) [It does, however, bode well for the possibility of being able to add two more Blu-ray seasons to our collections at some point this year.]
http://www.avclub.com/article/freeforms-cloak-and-dagger-casts-its-cloak-and-dag-249382
Freeform's Cloak And Dagger casts its Cloak and Dagger
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on January 30, 2017, 04:53:46 PM
http://www.avclub.com/article/freeforms-cloak-and-dagger-casts-its-cloak-and-dag-249382
Freeform's Cloak And Dagger casts its Cloak and Dagger
A tad young looking (especially him), but given that it is being framed as a sort-of supernatural Dawson's Creek-ish 'teen love' thing, I guess that shouldn't be a surprise, so they'd have a few potential years of episodes before they looked way too old to pursue the roles any longer.
Quote from: LucasM on January 30, 2017, 08:16:12 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on January 30, 2017, 04:53:46 PM
http://www.avclub.com/article/freeforms-cloak-and-dagger-casts-its-cloak-and-dag-249382
Freeform's Cloak And Dagger casts its Cloak and Dagger
A tad young looking (especially him), but given that it is being framed as a sort-of supernatural Dawson's Creek-ish 'teen love' thing, I guess that shouldn't be a surprise, so they'd have a few potential years of episodes before they looked way too old to pursue the roles any longer.
They were 17 and 16 when they debuted in the comics.
Firefox (with NoScript and other spyware prevention) wasn't showing his picture on that page, so I'd done a Google Image search which showed a very young teen. When you responded, I did another search, and what showed up this time seems to make it clear that what I saw before was possibly a picture of Tyrone Johnson from maybe 3-4 years ago. The one that I was able to get to turn up this time looks fine to me:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg13.deviantart.net%2Fbe50%2Fi%2F2015%2F108%2F0%2F9%2Fmarvel_movie_casting__cloak_and_dagger_by_myths_of_genesis-d8q71xt.jpg&hash=bc34e93eaabedc9b85150452ab55f5028eeeb468)
So: apologies for not being sure the previous pic I'd commented on was current, a bit distracted today. [See 'Pets' thread for details.]
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/l/t31.0-8/16462908_1678360805513818_7933629727327444916_o.jpg?oh=527daef3d7a6ebdf982abafa2370ec74&oe=59101576)
'Marvel's Runaways' Is Cast [Pic from Marvel Cinematic Universe Facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/MarvelCinematicUniverse/photos/a.255014641181782.86037.217181691631744/1678360805513818/?type=3&theater). (an unofficial page)]
QuoteMeet the cast of Marvel's RUNAWAYS! (http://bit.ly/2k62IFv)
• Allegra Acosta ("100 Things to do Before High School," "Just Add Magic") as Molly Hernandez, the youngest and most innocent member of her friend group, is known for her peppy positivity and a deep yearning to belong.
• Gregg Sulkin ("Faking It," "Don't Hang Up," "Anti Social") as Chase Stein is a lacrosse-playing, high school heartthrob. While many write him off as a dumb jock, Chase exhibits flashes of untapped brilliance in engineering, not unlike his wildly successful father's.
• Ariela Barer ("New Girl," "One Day at a Time") as Gert Yorkes is a purple-haired, bespectacled, contemporary riot grrrl. Never passing up a moment to stand on a soapbox, Gert sometimes wields her persona as a brash social justice warrior to mask her true feelings.
• Virginia Gardner ("Goat," "Little Bitches") as Karolina Dean, model-perfect exterior with a lot going on behind her professionally whitened smile, is burdened by the lofty expectations and responsibilities put upon her by her parents. Underneath her veneer of privilege and perfection, Karolina is experiencing a newfound eagerness to explore her identity and pursue her own desires.
• Lyrica Okano ("The Affair," "Unforgettable") Nico Minoru–tough, intelligent, and independent–embodies teenage angst. A budding "Wiccan," Nico's carefully crafted goth appearance isolates her from her peers and family, but maybe what she really needs is someone to talk to.
• Rhenzy Feliz ("Teen Wolf," "Casual") as Alex Wilder is a loud-and-proud nerd. Admittedly a bit of a loner, Alex spends much of his free-time playing video games, but deep down, what he wants most is to reunite his childhood group of friends.
Yay! I'm so glad this is fiiiiinally happening.
Yes. And that it is happening with Marvel Studios care (vs. being done by outside parties like earlier Spider-Man films, the FF films, etc.). :) They have demonstrated with just about everything they've produced that they know the qualities of their properties' that make them interesting and enjoyable. And the casting - as usual - looks pretty much spot-on.
This Marvel year is turning out better and better! ;D
TV:
Iron Fist
Defenders
Punisher
Inhumans
Runaways
Cloak and Dagger
Agents of SHIELD
Film:
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 . . . . May 5, 2017
Spider-Man: Homecoming . . . . July 7, 2017
Thor: Ragnarok . . . . November 3, 2017
Even more good news:
QuoteHulu has Ordered 'Runaways' as a "Straight-to-Series" Show (http://mcuexchange.com/hulu-ordered-runaways-straight-series-show/)
...press release from Freeform... states "Marvel Studios and ABC Signature are also in pre-production on straight-to-series "Marvel's Runaways" for Hulu." This is new information. Even yesterday, major trades like Deadline were calling this a pilot order. For those new to Hollywood lingo, a pilot is an order of a single episode which a studio then uses to determine if they want to order a whole or half season. A show might get a pilot and be deemed unworthy of a pick up (see Most Wanted). "Straight-to-series," however, means that the network has picked up an entire season of a show even before seeing the pilot. These sorts of orders typically include financial penalties if a show is not eventually produced. This means that Hulu is almost certainly taking a whole season. (One caveat, Damage Control was also reported as straught-to-series, but that show appears to have died.)
Given the recent buzz around Runaways this isn't a total surprise. Still, for MCU fans it's nice to know that a full arc is coming and the show won't be pulled midway. Streaming services tend toward the season at a time thinking, but Hulu is a little different. Since Hulu is owned by major networks, they tend to work like major networks, including their propensity to release a show a week at a time. The good news for Runaways seems to just keep coming.
I missed out on the Runaways. I picked up one for some crossover event a few years back and it seems to have that mix of melancholy and good writing that probably deserves all its accolades, but isn't my cup of tea comics-wise. I'll give the show a chance for sure, though.
Quote from: Pak-Man on February 03, 2017, 06:21:51 PM
I missed out on the Runaways. I picked up one for some crossover event a few years back and it seems to have that mix of melancholy and good writing that probably deserves all its accolades, but isn't my cup of tea comics-wise. I'll give the show a chance for sure, though.
The original run was excellent - depending on what crossover you got, I doubt you was it at its best.
The Civil War crossover with Young Avengers was particularly average from memory.
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13000277_1152761244734429_958108615565922413_n.jpg?oh=d6bd17e67ca3d15b16ce589b213a0ece&oe=590D879F)
;D
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16508538_1684858978197334_894098180391811291_n.png?oh=78bf53eb08324bc3101130cd2f076746&oe=5900C257)
I thought it was kind of cool how Baron Mordo changed sides with that being his(At least for now) his sole motivation.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/namor_the_submariner/more-evidence-would-seem-to-confirm-that-marvel-has-a-namor-a149014
Rumors of a Namor project in active development.
Namor's a tough sell. He's not the most charming Marvel hero..
Quote from: Pak-Man on February 20, 2017, 10:25:01 PM
Namor's a tough sell. He's not the most charming Marvel hero..
Ha! I was just saying over in that other thread:
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on February 20, 2017, 10:31:39 PM
I think it's more to do with the tone difference in the approach by both companies. Marvel have turned some really average and unlikely properties into massive successes. DC have choked on some pretty easy sells.
Every time they've announced a project that seems like a difficult sell, they've pulled it off.
I'm very curious to see what they do with him.
There was a time where I was like 'Iron Man can't possibly make an entertaining movie.'
'OK, but Captain America is dated and lame.'
'OK, but get ready, Thor is going to sink this ship.'
Granted on all counts, and I'll be there on opening weekend and expect to leave with a smile on my face. No idea how they'll pull it off, though.
Thinking about it, I'm kind of more interested in them trying these 'impossible' characters than a lot of the safe bets.
I wonder how long we'll have to wait till we get Man-Thing?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on February 20, 2017, 11:15:45 PM
Thinking about it, I'm kind of more interested in them trying these 'impossible' characters than a lot of the safe bets.
Very much agree with this. Marvel's creations are such a rich collection of varying personalities, abilities, and limitations. I'm much more excited to see them avoid the safe bets and go with the characters that few outside of we, who know that comic universe well, have even heard about.
In addition to that, the non-comic-fan public will tire of Marvel films
MUCH less rapidly with them getting the unexpected and underexposed delivered to them. Heck, until Holland made his appearance (nailing it), even most people who love the character were saying, "OK: enough with the Spider-Man films!"
And, personally, combining the above two: I'd rather that - since Sony still possesses the film rights to Spider-Man - that Marvel Studios would put out three of their 'own' properties each year. In other words, in years with a Spider-Man film, there would be four Marvel film releases, instead of having just three (two 'pure' Marvel Studios plus one MS/Sony Spidey film currently; my thought would be three Marvel Studios regardless, and if MS/Sony put out a Spidey film in a given year it would be a bonus). [Yes, I realize that regardless of it being 'officially' a Sony picture, Marvel Studios still does all the prep work for it, so it is in no way less effort for them to produce a Spider-Man picture with Sony than it is to produce an 'independent' film of their own.]
But back to that possibility, if it was the option of another Spider-Man film or something else, I'd actually prefer something else, regardless of Spidey being my lifetime fave Marvel character. (Amazing Spider-Man 44 was the first comic I remember buying and deliberately keeping track of, ultimately starting me collecting [insanely happy I have a page of original art from that issue!]. I was also Spider-Man for Halloween when I was either 10 or 11 years old, back when mothers made Halloween costumes for such things from scratch because there weren't any official costumes, just one of those thin plastic masks was all there was premade.)
(For fave characters, Adam Warlock is a very easy second, beyond that it gets far messier. :) I am still hopeful for a Warlock/Magus/Universal Church of Truth film. Given that Feige recently said that the reason that the film titles for 2020 are not released is not because they don't know what they will be, but because releasing the titles could be considered spoilers for Infinity War. No bigger spoiler than the presence of Adam Warlock, it seems to me. ;D)
Actually, it'd be cool if Marvel committed to release one B-Lister a year. Maybe do them as February/March releases. Spend the rest of the year giving us the Hulks and Captain Marvels, but give us a Great Lakes Avengers or Howard the Duck (Lucas didn't ruin him forever! There's still a movie to be had there!) once a year.
Quote from: Pak-Man on February 21, 2017, 06:59:05 AM
Actually, it'd be cool if Marvel committed to release one B-Lister a year. Maybe do them as February/March releases. Spend the rest of the year giving us the Hulks and Captain Marvels, but give us a Great Lakes Avengers or Howard the Duck (Lucas didn't ruin him forever! There's still a movie to be had there!) once a year.
To me, the simple solution to that is Netflix movies. Less risk and cost.
ALSO I wonder if they would be ballsy enough to make one of their waves 2099?
It would be a fun way to have a reboot and not have a reboot at the same time. Flash forward for 5 or 7 films. Back to the regular timeline after that.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on February 21, 2017, 04:02:47 PM
ALSO I wonder if they would be ballsy enough to make one of their waves 2099?
It would be a fun way to have a reboot and not have a reboot at the same time. Flash forward for 5 or 7 films. Back to the regular timeline after that.
That would work if they want a clean slate of changing casting.
;D
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16830758_1703777432972155_285943481876540266_n.jpg?oh=6d9fdd07a9a900860485045a47f8732f&oe=593DCC0F)
I wonder if Dr. Strange ever accidentally summons a demon or something while waving his arms just trying to get the damn sensor controlled paper towel dispenser to work.
Quote from: Darth Geek on February 22, 2017, 01:27:56 PM
I wonder if Dr. Strange ever accidentally summons a demon or something while waving his arms just trying to get the damn sensor controlled paper towel dispenser to work.
COL (chuckle out loud ;) )
'Marvel's Inhumans' ABC series:
Anson Mount is Black Bolt (http://deadline.com/2017/02/marvels-inhumans-anson-mount-black-bolt-casting-abc-1202027526/)
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16999034_1711410855542146_3639515190792362838_n.jpg?oh=d5a9369b570f5751d8bc029edfcf19ec&oe=59288CCA)
Serinda Swan is Medusa (https://news.marvel.com/tv/60593/serinda-swan-cast-marvels-inhumans-series-abc/?linkId=35018593):
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17098268_1712771512072747_8817417582114437090_n.jpg?oh=6af934411fc66957b58f9431af499152&oe=596F1492)
Iwan Rheon is Maximus the Mad (http://mcuexchange.com/marvels-inhumans-casts-game-thrones-star-iwan-rheon-maximus-mad/):
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/16797904_1702760996407132_8537835527360856998_o.jpg?oh=50c0406d69f1b71e25f332a4f8f7569b&oe=5937E92A)
Building on the expansion of the previous post yesterday, here's some more Inhumans casting news. Now with extended royal family.:
Marvel's Inhumans casts Ken Leung as Karnak (http://ew.com/tv/2017/03/02/marvels-inhumans-ken-leung-karnak/)
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16999123_1713833895299842_2290853130091853549_n.jpg?oh=2243f995d861940e795c306ccc0b999c&oe=5931DD4F)
And the Inhumans' cast fills out the rest of the way (see previous two posts). Ewe Ikwuakor, Isabelle Cornish, Mike Moh and Sonya Balmores are playing Gorgon, Crystal, Triton and Auran respectively.
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16939240_1715212695161962_5330982859660186059_n.jpg?oh=8577603342131c861a05fba1f5e4cd76&oe=593C7BDA)
Oh, and apparently they've confirmed Lockjaw as being present (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/marvels-inhumans-full-cast-983021), though no-one's been stated to be playing him yet. ;)
Oh, and it began filming today (http://heroichollywood.com/marvels-inhumans-begins-filming-today/). :)
I am so incredibly looking forward to this series. Possibly as much or more than The Defenders, and possibly above everything else releasing this year.
Lockjaw's stand-in on set:
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16997706_1718142034869028_99973309212043127_n.png?oh=5b73e3e7f1b577997f35f6fb1eeb88a0&oe=5927DD4C)
Or it's just how Lockjaw looks now. Like, maybe he joined Blue Man Group and just got back from a funeral.
Uh oh. Overwhelmingly negative reviews for the first six eps of Iron Fist.
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17156105_10154972279713700_1209265529466496033_n.jpg?oh=c973c59c26d86bfeea24fddfa82070fe&oe=5935165A)
Shouldn't this be an ad for "TH'ORÉAL"?
Quote from: LucasM on March 08, 2017, 06:42:42 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on March 08, 2017, 05:15:41 PM
Uh oh. Overwhelmingly negative reviews for the first six eps of Iron Fist.
Coming from TV/Film critics, or comics 'experts'?
Sadly, from pretty much everyone:
http://www.slashfilm.com/iron-fist-reviews/
Well, I've now seen the first six episodes of Iron Fist, the same group that the pre-release critics saw, and I'm enjoying it. Not as much as the other three Netflix series (...'yet', I'll hold that final assessment until I'm done with all 13 eps, probably tonight), but so far I'm enjoying it more than I've enjoyed Agents of SHIELD.
It was interesting to see (even if in a throw-away line) the first reference to another Marvel/Netflix character by name.
I'm only two eps in and I'm not hating it, but I'm certainly not loving it.
David Wenham is powerfully miscast, in my opinion (maybe my opinion will change as the series goes on).
Every time I start to get into it, there is a scene that is like it is written by an alien. The ipod/iphone conversation in the park was bananas.
I hope it gets up on its feet, and I will be watching it through to the end, but it's the worst Netflix Marvel show by a long shot right now.
I agree. My wife and I are 4 episodes in and really enjoying it so far. It's fun.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on March 17, 2017, 06:25:08 PM
I'm only two eps in and I'm not hating it, but I'm certainly not loving it.
David Wenham is powerfully miscast, in my opinion (maybe my opinion will change as the series goes on).
Every time I start to get into it, there is a scene that is like it is written by an alien. The ipod/iphone conversation in the park was bananas.
I hope it gets up on its feet, and I will be watching it through to the end, but it's the worst Netflix Marvel show by a long shot right now.
No major spoilers in here I don't think. I kept most comments as general as possible (partly because I just didn't feel like messing with making and labeling spoiler areas). Anyone knowing a bit about the character shouldn't have any new reveals in here.
I will say that I was quite iffy on it from the first two episodes as well. For me the biggest discomfort in watching those was because, having worked for years in psychiatric hospitals, what was shown was all-too-accurate for some. [i.e. assumed psychiatric illness before even seeing a patient.]
Not sure what you mean with the iPod/iPhone as one of the "written by aliens" statement. These are two people, one of whom has no real clue what's happened (smart phone tech), and the other who was likely impressed by someone having a 1st-gen iPod (or maybe just 'one that still worked' ;) ). Both - to the 'civilized' world - ARE 'aliens'... or is that not what you were referring to? [Possibly referring to phrasing of the statements in the conversations?]
The show has changed tone a few times now. Each time exploring a different aspect of the character, and how his Western-world-alien self reacts to the very different milieux that he's placed into, with aspects of his traumatized 10-year-old lost-self coming through in each.
http://www.avclub.com/article/sony-developing-spider-man-spin-about-black-cat-an-252566
Starting with episode 7, I am enjoying the series a lot more. Only three more eps for me to go.
Maybe I'll queue it up after I finish Six Feet Under (just started season 4).
Cloak and Dagger is getting 10 episodes, and so is the oft-rumored New Warriors show featuring Squirrel Girl!!
http://www.avclub.com/article/squirrel-girls-coming-tv-freeforms-new-warriors-se-253237
Quote from: Pak-Man on April 05, 2017, 03:54:17 PM
Cloak and Dagger is getting 10 episodes, and so is the oft-rumored New Warriors show featuring Squirrel Girl!!
http://www.avclub.com/article/squirrel-girls-coming-tv-freeforms-new-warriors-se-253237
I have a friend who is so mad every time a new MCU project is announced that isn't Moon Knight. Looking forward to sharing this with him.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on April 05, 2017, 04:30:20 PM
Quote from: Pak-Man on April 05, 2017, 03:54:17 PM
Cloak and Dagger is getting 10 episodes, and so is the oft-rumored New Warriors show featuring Squirrel Girl!!
http://www.avclub.com/article/squirrel-girls-coming-tv-freeforms-new-warriors-se-253237
I have a friend who is so mad every time a new MCU project is announced that isn't Moon Knight. Looking forward to sharing this with him.
A little sadistic streak there, eh, EJG III? ;)
Though you can also reassure him that, with the apparent success of the non-MCU 'Legion' (got a 2nd season before the first eight episode one finished), the possibility of a true split-personality character may have just increased. FOX/FX tried the difficult task of broaching more difficult storytelling methods (seriously: making an originally Sienkiewicz-drawn series into a live-action series would be 'difficult' at best). With that, the chances of others (like MCU) taking the chance of bringing out less mainstream content likely increased a bit. [Granted FOX had the chance and didn't get into Deadpool's less stable personality in his first film, but there was only so much they could introduce in under two hours... possibly the next one.]
I feel like it's just a matter of time with most of their characters at this point.
Quote from: LucasM on April 05, 2017, 05:55:12 PM
[Granted FOX had the chance and didn't get into Deadpool's less stable personality in his first film, but there was only so much they could introduce in under two hours... possibly the next one.]
Well if you want to get technical, Deadpool doesn't have multiple personalities so much as he has various voices in his head. And those voices both ended up actually being different people.
The Defenders has a release date: August 18.
QuoteThe Defenders Announces Premiere Date in First Teaser (http://www.tvguide.com/news/the-defenders-premiere-date-teaser/)
In the brief teaser released on YouTube, Matt Murdock (Charlie Cox), Jessica Jones (Krysten Ritter), Luke Cage (Mike Colter) and Danny Rand (Finn Jones) are riding an elevator in Midland Circle Financial, the mysterious corporation that was behind the literal plot hole in Daredevil's second season. After a few awkward moments riding in silence, Jessica Jones smashes the security camera at the 08:18:20:17 mark.
If that wasn't proof enough for you of The Defenders' premiere date (which we totally get if it wasn't), if you type in the numbers in the teaser's upper left-hand corner into your browser it will redirect you to the website for The New York Bulletin, the newspaper where Daredevil's Karen Page (Deborah Ann Woll) works. At the bottom of the page, there's a note to watch The Defenders beginning Aug. 18.
The numbers in the upper corner of the vid are: 23.253.120.81 and lead to: http://nybulletin.com/ where, in small grey letters at the bottom of the page, it says, "Watch "Marvel's The Defenders" All Episodes Streaming Only on Netflix August 18 | © 2017 MARVEL & ABC Studios"
Why are they doing viral marketing for the combination of four huge TV shows?
Quote from: Darth Geek on April 08, 2017, 12:21:46 PM
Why are they doing viral marketing for the combination of four huge TV shows?
Yeah, it makes no sense. Unless they just think it is 'fun' and helps add to the feeling of being a 'participant' in the MCU instead of just a 'viewer'. [Sort of like Stan Lee's Soapbox helped people reading the '60s comics feel like they were part of the in crowd.]
Bexayse the most recent one was a bit of a flop and they want to excite people?
The New Warriors roster is in!
http://www.avclub.com/article/freeform-shows-all-heroes-its-new-warriors-show-254001
We've got Squirrel Girl, Mr. Immortal, Night Thrasher, Speedball, Microbe and Debrii. This should be a fun show.
Now that I know it's sort of a mash-up between the New Warriors and the Great Lake Avengers, I'm into this. I'm hoping the tone will be like a more upbeat Venture Brothers. Is Ben Edlund still on Supernatural, because I would kill to have him make the switch to this show.
Oh, and the Cloak and Dagger preview is out. Looks different than I expected, but it is making me quite interested.
Happy news (at least I think it is, given some of the Feige comments, not positive yet)! Contains reference to future character in the MCU that hasn't been shown yet, and has not yet been saturating the media on the MCU. If you aren't wanting a spoiler (til it is shoved in your face by an advertising blitz), then don't open the spoiler.
Spoiler
From article "Meet and Greet: Adam Warlock (http://mcuexchange.com/meet-and-greet-adam-warlock-guardians-of-the-galaxy-3/)". The article has a nice history of Warlock, though it has MASSIVE comic storyline spoilers in it, for those who want to read the series fresh (which I recommend, for the Starlin parts (http://amazon.com/gp/product/0785188479) at least).
QuoteAs it stands, Warlock always serves as the ultimate foil to Thanos and, for that reason, but it appears his presence in the MCU will have a different purpose. Recently James Gunn revealed that Adam Warlock played a major role in an early draft of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, but was removed because the movie seemed to have too many characters. Kevin Feige then confirmed that we will see Warlock in future cosmic films saying, "He's not in Infinity War. But he will be a part of the future Marvel cosmic universe and a pretty important part of that," and later clarifying "if he appears anywhere in the future, it'll be in Guardians." So while he may not play the role that many are expecting, it seems we are finally going to meet one of Marvel's strangest characters, possibly as soon as May, 2020, if not sooner (perhaps in one of the 5 post-credit scenes for Vol. 2).
Pissed that Feige says, "he's not in Infinity War". But hopefully at the very least, before Avengers Untitled 4. Because GotG 3 [recently confirmed written and directed by Gunn! :)] won't be out before that. i.e. I hope they don't pull a 'we haven't introduced Hank Pym yet, so let's have Tony Stark create Ultron' BS with him and the Infinity stones. If they do things at least reasonably (for the character), the Avengers will LOSE Infinity War ('Avengers 3'), and only through Warlock will everything be saved from Thanos, when Warlock finally intervenes before and during 'untitled Avengers 4'.
There really are going to be 5 after credit scenes in Guardians of the Galaxy 2?
Quote from: Darth Geek on April 22, 2017, 12:15:42 PM
There really are going to be 5 after credit scenes in Guardians of the Galaxy 2?
Yeah, that's what both Gunn and Feige have said. Apparently a lot of mini set-ups for the future films.
I'm still hoping that Death as a character is established in one of the MCU movies prior to Infinity War.
Quote from: LucasM on April 22, 2017, 12:25:29 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on April 22, 2017, 12:15:42 PM
There really are going to be 5 after credit scenes in Guardians of the Galaxy 2?
Yeah, that's what both Gunn and Feige have said. Apparently a lot of mini set-ups for the future films.
I hope the next GotG movie just rolls the credits after the first scene and the movie is post credits.
Really enjoyed Guardians vol 2.
Might try to sneak away from work on friday.
Lucky other countries. We still have to wait until a week from Friday.
it's weird how most stuff we have to wait, but for marvel we often get it early.
Quote from: Darth Geek on April 22, 2017, 02:50:53 PM
I'm still hoping that Death as a character is established in one of the MCU movies prior to Infinity War.
I heard from a friend of mine (who runs a comic book and collectables shop, so he gets some information early) that Hela will be Thanos' love interest instead of Death. I'm fine with that, since she is the Goddess of Death in Norse mythology. And that means she will be established as a character before Infinity War, so we don't have to spend time in that already surely crowded movie establishing her.
It does make me wonder if Thanos will have an appearance in Thor Ragnarok like he did in Guardians of the Galaxy. I hope so. It's been 9 years and most of what we know about Thanos is just from that little bit in Guardians.
Full Inhumans royal family cast in costume. I believe the Medusa hair is a 'stand-in' and that it will, in the series, be entirely computer generated (and something closer to a real red color, as in the books). At least, I certainly hope so!
(https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/000254980hr.jpg?w=2700&resize=750%2C500)
Quote from: LucasM on May 06, 2017, 07:58:09 PM
Full Inhumans royal family cast in costume. I believe the Medusa hair is a 'stand-in' and that it will, in the series, be entirely computer generated (and something closer to a real red color, as in the books). At least, I certainly hope so!
(https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/000254980hr.jpg?w=2700&resize=750%2C500)
Where's the dog?
Quote from: Blasé on May 06, 2017, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LucasM on May 06, 2017, 07:58:09 PM
Full Inhumans royal family cast in costume. I believe the Medusa hair is a 'stand-in' and that it will, in the series, be entirely computer generated (and something closer to a real red color, as in the books). At least, I certainly hope so!
(https://ewedit.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/000254980hr.jpg?w=2700&resize=750%2C500)
Where's the dog?
Lockjaw is in post. (Previous pics above or on previous pages show the blue stand-in which was happily pretty accurate for both size and detail.) I'm guessing they don't have the full CGI details for him down yet... either that, or they want that particular reveal for themselves, rather than via Entertainment Mag.
A great article, lenghty, includes factual assessments of everything from the Shi'ar to Kang to Ego (who is actually shared between the MCU and Fox) to the Skrulls to the Badoon and more:
The Facts About The Live-Action Rights Of Marvel Characters (http://mcuexchange.com/the-facts-about-the-live-action-rights-of-marvel-characters/)
'Daredevil' Season 3, 'Luke Cage' & 'Jessica Jones' Season 2 All Seemingly Confirmed For 2018 (https://mcuexchange.com/daredevil-season-3-date/)
Certainly would be nice if there were a guaranteed three-seasons of MCU/Netflix shows each year, just as there are three MCU films each year. Then all the gravy on top of that, gravy such as The Inhumans (though 2017, it is still a bonus over Marvel SOP), Cloak and Dagger, The Runaways, etc.
Yes, it is a very good time to be a Marvel fan. ;D
A thought came to me: since the MCU is apparently substituting Hela for Death (for Thanos's love interest), I wonder if they may also substitute the Red Skull for Mephisto's role in the Infinity Gauntlet saga (at least as someone for Thanos to talk to and give exposition to)? [I have heard nothing of anyone approaching Weaving for a return to the role recently. But they re-cast Rhodey, so that doesn't necessarily mean the Red Skull won't return.]
Though, with the film potentially only 2-2 1/2 hours long, Thanos's exposition may have to be limited to direct contact with other major characters (or to himself or Hela), so a distorted cognitive mirror like Mephisto served in the original may not be possible simply for time reasons (i.e. they may not be able to afford 'inactive' time with exposition to more peripheral characters).
It was just a thought since the Red Skull was transported 'out there' and could easily (well, in the MCU's 'easy' ;)) have ended up with Thanos.
Squirrel Girl has been cast! (Also Mister Immortal!)
http://www.avclub.com/article/stop-presses-weve-got-squirrel-girl-casting-news-257901
Quote from: Pak-Man on July 10, 2017, 03:57:42 PM
Squirrel Girl has been cast! (Also Mister Immortal!)
http://www.avclub.com/article/stop-presses-weve-got-squirrel-girl-casting-news-257901
Nice! I love whenever Milana Vayntrub is on @midnight!
Images from the D23 Expo. Infinity War cast photos (only two of them). The pics are huge, but I've set them to just fill the column width here (right click & select 'View Image' to see full size).
Spoiler
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/19054888_319026641858288_2976085565996647525_o.jpg?oh=2836094f71b5b6060e77e96c9ef97c20&oe=59C697F9)
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/20121350_319026235191662_536386181808916733_o.jpg?oh=33d0c6d50998dd0b423065ce6d8ffbfa&oe=59F73FBA)
Here are some more things from D23. These, some might consider spoilers for Infinity War. [The second one I did, but by the time I realized it would be I couldn't un-see it, as it was initially in an online video and they gave no spoiler warning.]
The first, a prop [crap, noticed a character to the right in this pic, also]:
Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEzpUUpU0AAzrKK.jpg)
The second, a character or characters that had not previously been announced as participating (hopefully that is vague enough):
Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEzojyPVwAAWDdI.jpg)
A prop for a CGI character.
Quote from: BathTub on July 16, 2017, 04:47:44 PM
A prop for a CGI character.
:) Yeah. I suspect there will be some scenes in which real actors will interact directly with it (or be in the same frame as it is) where a physical item would be needed. Unless they just made it for the actors to have a size comparison, "this is what you're gaping at,"-type thing (a la the big blue Lockjaw stand-in).
(https://i.redd.it/onaf60dzbfbz.jpg)
Oh that was big, what's the trick to make it scale?
BathTub, Inside the opening "img" code, change it to "img width=___" with the "___" the number of pixels wide you want it. I just go with 600 usually (like below). Or you can change it to "img height=___" if it is taller than wide, like posters (that are roughly 2x3). For those, I find that going with "height=600" generally makes it so it comfortably fits on one screen, vertically, though not filling the width of the columns here.
(https://i.redd.it/onaf60dzbfbz.jpg)
Quote from: BathTub on July 23, 2017, 04:42:40 PM
(https://i.redd.it/onaf60dzbfbz.jpg)
Is Thanos wearing slacks?
Here is another poster of interest (I put the Ragnarok one HERE (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=29736.msg976813#msg976813), since people had been discussing that release there).
I think, second to Doctor Strange, the below is the film I've been looking forward to the most (certainly of any of the tentpole series . . . and given Adam Warlock won't be in Infinity War [basically like filming The Killing Joke without Batman], possibly anticipating this more than that film, as well. Though since Adam W is supposed to be in Avengers 4 against Thanos, that's still got my interest quite high):
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20292642_322206388206980_4109287751641798740_n.jpg?oh=7069aa922150984e16e488a15be17f0d&oe=59F9EF91)
Quote from: BathTub on July 23, 2017, 04:42:40 PM
(https://i.redd.it/onaf60dzbfbz.jpg)
how much payroll is contained in this image? almost a billion dollars?
Cast photo, combining both the cast of Thor: Ragnarok and Black Panther.
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/20286853_323906014703684_5422683524750525978_o.jpg?oh=94cfec808df3cc9556ed108f3915267e&oe=5A04E83D)
NOTE: picture is huge, use right-click 'View Image'.
Just saw this. The article is lengthy, so the majority of the body of it is in a spoiler.
QuoteDisney Ends Netflix Deal: How It Could Impact the MCU
(https://mcuexchange.com/disney-netflix-mcu/)
In an unexpected turn of events, it was revealed yesterday that Disney would be ending their Netflix contract as part of the company's plan to create their own streaming service for 2019. The announcement raised a lot of concerns from fans because of its potential effects to the MCU, particularly the Netflix shows. This is a topic that can be confusing to those who don't carefully watch this part of the entertainment business, so we are going to break it down for our readers as simply as we know how.
Q: So what happened?
A: Not much actually happened yesterday. Disney simply made a statement that they were no longer going to sell the rights to their new films for TV and streaming after the current contract is up. Instead, they are going to create their own streaming service to which fans can subscribe. (I'm calling it Mouseflix for now, a Netflix for all Disney, all the time.) Such a project is a major undertaking and will be years in the making. But the contracts in discussion here are usually signed years ahead. Most likely Disney was beginning to get to the time frame where such deals needed renegotiation, so they had to go public on their plans if for no other reason than the various suitors for that deal (Netflix, Showtime, etc.) would start to realize something is up and leak that info themselves. Still, nothing actually changed yesterday as far as viewer access to content. (Disney has bought up an expensive streaming company previously owned by MLB, as part of the ground work for this project.)
Q: So when will something change?
A: Currently Disney's deal with Netflix runs through all the 2019 releases. So everything will run basically as per usual until 2020 since there is a six-month delay on film releases to Netflix. So it'll be three years, give or take, until something is different.
Q: How does this affect Marvel movies?
A: Many fans will have noticed that beginning with 2016 releases, Marvel movies now go to Netflix about six months after release. This contract was a major coup for Netflix. Previously that kind of access to recent films was bought up by HBO, Showtime, or another premium cable company. Currently, Captain America: Civil War and Doctor Strange are on Netflix and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 should arrive around Christmas. (Note, Spider-Man: Homecoming is not part of this deal as it is not a Disney distributed deal.) Because this contract runs through the 2019 films, every single film Marvel Studios has announced will go to Netflix. Avengers 4 is the last film on the slate (remember the Spidey sequel is Sony) and its May 2019 release date means it is part of the current contract. What is unclear is how long Netflix gets to keep a movie. Captain America: Civil War will stay for some period, but eventually will expire after a set number of months or after the contract is over or something. (For example, Iron Man is currently on Hulu but that wasn't the original deal made. Hulu is surely the third or fourth company to obtain the rights to that film for a season of time.) Phase Four films will not be part of the new deal (unless Marvel announces one between July and December of 2019). They will go over to Disney's streaming service.
Q: Does this make it likely that the MCU back catalog of films will be available on the new service?
A: This is yet to be seen. My guess would be that Disney will need a lot of content to make the new service sound appealing, and the Phase 1 and Phase 2 films would be a valuable asset in that effort. I'd bet that we see the first dozen MCU films as a cornerstone of the marketing of the new service, plus Phase 3 films if they have expired at Netflix. Note that years ago Disney cleaned things up by purchasing back the distribution rights to their Phase 1 films that were distributed by Paramount and Universal.
Q: What about Daredevil, The Defenders, Jessica Jones, etc.?
A: It appears that this means nothing for the Netflix TV shows. Reports are that they will continue to work as per usual. It is important to realize the distinction here. Films are produced by Disney and Marvel Studios. Disney pays for them, has creative control over them, and then sells their rights for TV and streaming purposes. The Netflix MCU shows, however, are a collaborative effort between Netflix and Marvel TV. Netflix helps to fund them and, typically, by funding the production also owns the rights to them forever. To use a metaphor, the films are like a piece of art that an artist allows a museum to loan, with the expectation that they own the painting, can take it back, and can later show it at another museum on loan. The TV shows, however, are like the artists doing a commission piece for a gallery. Once it is finished, the gallery owns it and can do with it as they please. Marvel simply cannot take the already produced seasons of these shows from Netflix, because Netflix paid for their creation. If Marvel wanted to not renew the deal and produce their own content, that's theoretically possible. But it would also mean they'd have to pay the production costs out of pocket that Netflix has been paying until now. Others have wondered if Disney even wants these shows in a streaming service. Wouldn't it be weird to have The Punisher in a lineup between Frozen and That's So Raven? All signs point to the Netflix MCU shows staying put. That said, there is always a possibility that Marvel would finish out whatever shows the contractually must do with Netflix and then move future seasons to the new Disney streaming service.
Q: Any other MCU issues?
A: I've not seen this mentioned in the media at large, but note that Freeform is an ABC/Disney network. It's terribly likely that Cloak and Dagger and New Warriors will one day end up as a Disney Streaming Service exclusive show, the same way Daredevil is a Netflix exclusive show. They could hypothetically do the same thing with Inhumans and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Forcing fans of those shows to buy the new service (and not keeping the shows on Hulu or something) will drive up subscriptions. It will be interesting to see how nice Disney plays with Hulu on TV content since they 25% own that service. How ABC's and Freeform's interests as TV networks play into this is yet to be seen.
Q: Any other Marvel implications?
A: While it isn't MCU, Disney does produce a lot of Marvel animation through its Disney XD channel. It is safe to assume that most all Disney XD Marvel toons will move to this new service.
Q: Can you give me a three sentence summary?
A: Disney is creating a new subscription channel that will likely carry MCU movies, Freeform and ABC shows, and Disney XD animation. Most likely some MCU content will be exclusive to this service, forcing MCU fans who want that content to pay for another service. For now, it appears this will do nothing to the Netflix produced MCU shows.
I just was listening to one of the tunes from Guardians of the Galaxy, and thought of something... there are only two people in the MCU that have been shown to be highly aware of and involved with music appreciation.
So I would just love it if, in some 'down time' during either Avengers: Infinity War or Avengers 4: Untitled, there were a scene of Peter Quill and Tony Stark having an active conversation about the relative merits of assorted styles of music. ;D
You haven't seen Dr Strange yet then?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on August 13, 2017, 06:34:22 PM
You haven't seen Dr Strange yet then?
I've seen it (actually over 10 times). But Strange didn't seem to be as obsessed with music. While he seemed to like it well enough as evidenced by tapping his foot in the OR, his having the music in the OR was almost more of a Trivial Pursuit thing. He never paid attention to it beyond that point. I cannot recall him ever being shown to be listening to music at all after his accident. (e.g. If he was really an equivalent-intensity music fan as Quill and Stark, he would not have had his assistant do the random search in the
middle of the Earth, Wind and Fire tune. And if he was really a music fan where it was an integral part of his life, while he was in Kamar-Taj, during the break where he was trying to get himself to write to Christine, he would have already had music playing on the laptop as he thought about what he was going to say. For comparison: I have iTunes on before I even open my browser or e-mail program. Turning on music is the first thing I do after booting up my computer.)
Strange certainly never had specific music chosen when going 'into battle' like Stark (e.g. commandeering the sound system of a quinjet to play his tunes when first attacking Loki in
The Avengers, but to Stark music was clearly a big deal to him in general [cranking it while working on various suit upgrades across his films, for instance]), or Quill (e.g. just about any time he is on-screen doing something ;), with the easiest examples 'Cherry Bomb' prepping for battle, things like 'O-O-H Child' for the dance off with Ronin, and playing and sharing it to express his feelings toward Gamora (well, in the first film, lust at least... the second...[spoilers avoided]), but also just a number of times in the course of just 'events' on the ship [again, in Vol.2, near the end was a powerful/meaningful one]).
So, while I think Strange would be good if either Stark or Quill wanted to know who played bass on a particular tune, the ones who appear to have strong opinions and
life-enhancing relationships with it, are just Stark and Quill.
EDIT: added the stuff in the parentheses at the end of the first paragraph.
Note: trying to write as much of this post as possible without spoilers.
Have now seen the entire Defenders series. And it is easily my favorite Marvel/Netflix series.
With this, I realized there is something that has been sorely missed in the solo M/N series: anything funny (if there was 'funny' in prior series, it was easily forgotten for me). Also this felt far more like a 'culmination of what went before' than 'The Avengers' did for its assorted series. What happened before actually had impact in this, and merged the previous series into a whole that was bigger than its parts. [Of course, that may not be the case by the time Avengers 4 is done, which will be the true culmination of those series.]
Don't get me wrong, I love 'The Avengers' film. But this has it beat, hands down, for maintaining and increasing characterization depth for each of the parties involved (including adding depth to a number of the secondary characters). With 'The Avengers', if you didn't already know the characters from their prior films, you'd have one hell of a time grasping who they were - it added to their characters, but the characterization in the film was so light, it would be difficult to get who they were enough to really care what they did from just that film. I think with 'The Defenders', you could. I do realize there's about three films-length of story in 'The Defenders', so not a wholly equivalent comparison. But what I am referring to is the density of characterization between the two: 'The Defenders' beats 'The Avengers' with one iron fist tied behind its back.
A few high points (no major plot spoilers, but spoilers, nevertheless):
* The meetings of the characters from across series, both major and minor. Each was handled smoothly and believably (well... 'believable' for a series with someone with unbreakable skin, a blind ninja, a hyper-powerful short skinny woman, and a guy whose hand glows and has the power of a small bomb in it ;) ).
* That Luke wore a yellow tee for much of it. I'm a sucker for the 'classic' look (though glad he didn't retrieve the tiara). :) [Danny's green hoodie was hardly noticeable as green, so didn't quite make it... but they're getting closer. I believe Loeb said he'd be in (roughly) full garb at some point in his future, however.]
* The fact that Iron Fist actually got to do some serious martial arts, rather than the crap he was left with in his own series. Here, he was at least on par with Daredevil and almost Elektra with what he was able to do.
* When the four finally came together - to take a post-action-scene elevator ride together (even a tiny bit of Muzak in the elevator would've been too much silly, however, so I praise them for their restraint).
* The interplay between the characters, both trash talking, and when they got along (especially enjoyed the interactions between Jessica and Matt, particularly when it was just the two of them as the series progressed :) ).
* The (ultimately) clear explanation of the motivations of those involved in The Hand with New York, and how The Hand came about. [It's been AGES since I read an Iron Fist comic, so I had no memory of any of that... if, indeed, it was loyal to the comics.]
* The final reveal of what the hole was for. Wow! Who knew such stuff was under Manhattan? ;D
I think I'll turn around and start watching it again tonight.
EDIT:
MAJOR SPOILER inside (related to ep. 8 conclusion):
The one thing that was very noticeable is Madame Gao at the end of the series. The other four members of The Hand were very clearly dead (two or three decapitated [if not three, the other clearly died somehow], one impaled on rebar). Madame Gao just stood and disappeared into the falling dust of the collapsing shaft. However, Elektra and Daredevil also disappeared into the falling dust and debris near the end... and Daredevil, well, Matt, is in the church being cared for by nuns and wakes up. If Matt survived, then it seems likely to me that we will see both Elektra and Madame Gao again.
So... when Madame Gao comes back, with the other four members of The Hand gone, will she call herself "The Finger"? ;D [I bet I know which finger she'd be....]
Well, I watched the first two episodes of The Inhumans - the 'movie' that people were massively ripped off for if they paid to see it in an IMAX theater (there's not even special effects visual grandeur to make up for the rest of it).
My core review:
The Inhumans episodes one and two have all the emotional impact of a Wikipedia entry on the Inhumans.
NONE of the actors pulled off the intensity of those they were supposed to be representing (Karnak came closest, second to that would be Lockjaw - but even he was 'iffy'). None of the events were severe enough to give a shit about, because we didn't know the characters well enough to care what happened to them. And, for this, instead of 'Maximus the Mad' they could have called him 'Maxius the ever-so-slightly neurotic'.
Other points (some spoilery, for those not having seen the first two episodes yet):
Triton looked like shit. Always the most visually striking of the Inhumans, especially when drawn by Jack Kirby, in this show he was just 'a skinny green guy with gills' (who they dispose of within maybe a minute of being on screen). No scales, no funky ears, NOTHING showing immediately on sight just how thoroughly aquatic he is (one could never make the mistake of thinking Triton was a land-dweller with Kirby's Triton). Even the green looked like shitty make-up.
Karnak would never have stepped on a loose bit of soil on Hawaii. He sees ALL faults and weaknesses around him. It is impossible for that character to make that stupid a mistake.
Obviously with Black Bolt, "his slightest whisper can destroy a city," yet in the flashback, his almost-normal-volume question of "why?" to his parents splats them into a fine spray on the wall but it doesn't explode the walls? It doesn't even have effect on the very light furniture? Or even slightly disturb the wood stacked by the fireplace the parents were splattered around? What a crock of shit! The room would've been DUST with that loud a word. His power was a light switch, not a dimmer switch that got stronger as time went on.
With Medusa, given how little attention was paid to such a massive event, while not cannon (that I know of), it would have been more impactful if while she was being shaved it physically hurt - as if there were nerves in each strand of her hair. [To those unfamiliar with her, it would have at least given a better idea of the pure horror of that act by Maximus.]
Was initially impressed from the pre-production stuff that they kept Gorgon's hooves. But then he walked on them as if they were regular feet with the forward-facing lowest part of the hoof flat on the ground. MASSIVE fail!
Produced for TV by the same person as brought us Iron Fist. And, in comparison, Iron Fist is fucking Shakespeare. At least in Iron Fist you had a pretty clear idea who the main characters were by the end of the second episode. In The Inhumans, they are virtually interchangeable except for their powers - those powers that were even demonstrated in more than passing fashion.
Quote from: LucasM on August 10, 2017, 03:40:27 PM
Just saw this. The article is lengthy, so the majority of the body of it is in a spoiler.
QuoteDisney Ends Netflix Deal: How It Could Impact the MCU
(https://mcuexchange.com/disney-netflix-mcu/)
In an unexpected turn of events, it was revealed yesterday that Disney would be ending their Netflix contract as part of the company's plan to create their own streaming service for 2019. The announcement raised a lot of concerns from fans because of its potential effects to the MCU, particularly the Netflix shows. This is a topic that can be confusing to those who don't carefully watch this part of the entertainment business, so we are going to break it down for our readers as simply as we know how.
God damnit. ANOTHER streaming service? KNOCK IT OFF, HOLLYWOOD.
Quote from: LucasM on October 02, 2017, 03:34:07 AM
Well, I watched the first two episodes of The Inhumans - the 'movie' that people were massively ripped off for if they paid to see it in an IMAX theater (there's not even special effects visual grandeur to make up for the rest of it).
I saw some wretched movie in late 2012 about a bunch of 20 somethings who go to Moscow for some vacation, and a bunch of invisible aliens attack. The movie was only available in 3D (with the marked up price), but made virtually no use of it.
I can't believe how many viewings of Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2 it took me to realize something. When the ship is leaving the Sovereign, and "Lake Shore Drive" is playing, infant Groot is lying on the glass looking out at the spectacle.
He's meant to remind one of the 1980s-era suction-cup Garfield dolls people stuck to their car windows! ;D Sheesh! Took me long enough. :)
I'll have to watch out for that the next time I watch GOTG 2 again. :)
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22448311_10155313289119864_4005605055667973150_n.jpg?oh=14aabcc4f19da263902a04ef9f7b7d04&oe=5A7A0C81)
Every new thing I see about this (though being a spoiler-phobe, I won't watch the trailer that is out) makes me more and more excited to see it. Even this friggin' poster has such an incredible aesthetic! The 'futuristic Africanized art deco' is awesome. :)
Yes!
Just a couple of weeks till Thor 3, which I am also super excited about.
I really enjoyed the comments some people added online in response to the Black Panther poster:
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22448311_10155313289119864_4005605055667973150_n.jpg?oh=14aabcc4f19da263902a04ef9f7b7d04&oe=5A7A0C81)
These comments:
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F78.media.tumblr.com%2F188860a66b0e148fa244448404c9fc58%2Ftumblr_oy00xxWUQI1qewacoo1_500.png&hash=ac9582b1949b21c6cad11fccf68f061dc0fe70fb)
I'm really looking forward to this but I got to admit I'm stoked as hell for Infinity War!
Yeah, I'm more excited for Infinity War, because I want to see the culmination of this journey and how they're going to do it all.
Black Panther looks really good, just like most of the rest of the Marvel movies are.
I hope that after they're done all this, they release all the movies in one bigass box set. How many is it by now? I lost count years ago.
Quote from: Retro Muppet Pastor on October 18, 2017, 11:14:55 AM
I hope that after they're done all this, they release all the movies in one bigass box set. How many is it by now? I lost count years ago.
16 so far. The problem with a box set is that not only would it be prohibitively expensive, but the only way this series is going to end is if there are several disasters in a row.
Well, last night I was about to look at the TV Guide to see about tonight's Inhumans episode, and my thought was, "please, god, let it be the last one!"
I wonder if that was the reception for this series that they were going for?
Quote from: LucasM on November 10, 2017, 05:28:06 PM
Well, last night I was about to look at the TV Guide to see about tonight's Inhumans episode, and my thought was, "please, god, let it be the last one!"
I wonder if that was the reception for this series that they were going for?
I haven't been able to bring myself to watch past the first ep yet...
I have a hard time getting into the TV stuff. I haven't even watched the Defenders yet. I'm a lot more interested in the movies.
Yeah the whole 'iron fist is bollocks' reaction has stopped me from watching it or Defenders yet.
Quote from: Russoguru on November 10, 2017, 07:51:33 PM
I have a hard time getting into the TV stuff. I haven't even watched the Defenders yet. I'm a lot more interested in the movies.
Iron Fist was not good, but much easier to watch than Inhumans. I really liked most of the defenders though
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 10, 2017, 08:05:16 PM
Quote from: Russoguru on November 10, 2017, 07:51:33 PM
I have a hard time getting into the TV stuff. I haven't even watched the Defenders yet. I'm a lot more interested in the movies.
Iron Fist was not good, but much easier to watch than Inhumans. I really liked most of the defenders though
I watched Iron Fist after watching The Defenders, so I was able to overlook the bad parts a bit easier.
The Defenders is a bit slow to start, but once they all meet up I loved it, I think I've rewatched from that point until the end 3 times now.
Binge watched a lot of The Punisher last night.
So they decided not to start with an origin story, letting his origin come out as the show goes along for those that don't know it.
While that was refreshing the first several episodes are just not good, I almost stopped watching after the first 2.
But I think it improves greatly as it goes, the characters and plot get more and more interesting.
I've enjoyed the first two episodes so far. It does get a little slow at times though
I finished watching The Punisher last night. I agree with both MartyS and k1, the first two episodes were really slow and uninvolving. I thought it was just my general dislike for the character until the third and fourth episodes (or so) pulled me in.
My overall feeling about it is that I am unlikely to watch it a second time, like Inhumans, but for VERY different reasons. The contrast between the two is extreme, and the reason I am unlikely to rewatch The Punisher is because it was well structured, well written, well directed, and well acted. But it was BRUTAL to watch. Yes, the violence had consequences, but it was depicted far too accurately*, and there was just far too much of it for my tolerance level. Not to mention the unceasing emotional loss and agony and depression/futility. I'm glad I saw it, as it was quite good, but I just won't be watching it again.
*"accurately" with exception to anyone fixing a piercing wound (e.g. digging out a bullet). The skin is highly elastic, and with the speed and impact of a bullet (or any other fast-moving object) the skin stretches inward as the bullet penetrates, then springs back to being almost closed immediately after. Gunshots don't have larger-than-bullet entrance holes where you can dig out the bullet and have a larger-than-bullet hole left in the skin and muscle (unless you are really bad at digging them out). It is possible with hollow points that is different, I don't know about that, but if that was what was used, I don't believe the bullets wouldn't be intact when removed. Any here with more firearm-injury knowledge that can answer that? And, yes, exit wounds are a different thing entirely, but I'm talking about every film and TV show - including this one - that has entry wounds as large or larger than the caliber of the bullet being pulled out. That pulls me out of such stories every time.
Quote from: LucasM on November 19, 2017, 11:46:23 AMI'm glad I saw it, as it was quite good, but I just won't be watching it again.
I'm with you on that, I probably won't be watching it again, just a bit too draining emotionally.
I guess the next one up is season 2 of Jessica Jones? Or will it be season 3 of Daredevil? I read that Jessica Jones is done or close to done, haven't seen any news about Daredevil.
Jones is next. I think Daredevil just started filming.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 19, 2017, 04:45:00 PM
Jones is next. I think Daredevil just started filming.
Yes. Jones is next, probably airing in March. Then Luke Cage season 2, likely August. (Some resource gave Oct 1 of next year, but I believe that is more likely to be Daredevil's release, so have removed that from my crossovers/release post (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019). That seems WAY late in the year, given it finished filming in early Nov I think it was.) And EJG III is right, Daredevil season 3 just started filming this week (https://mcuexchange.com/daredevil-season-3-begins-filming-week/), so will be late in the year (probably the early Oct time The Punisher was originally going to get if not for the Las Vegas shooting, and the resource I believe mistakenly attributed to Luke Cage season 2's release).
It is odd that all the filming is done in a crunch from Sept (JJ) to Dec (DD), yet they'll be spread out through 2018 for consumption.
I try to keep my crossovers/release post (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019) updated with actual dates as soon as I read new release date information. But I do try to at the very least keep things not released yet in order relative to one-another if there is no known release date yet.
Well, I wonder what their actual contract with Disney says, now that they plan to take it all back from Netflix.
I wonder if Disney will be keeping up these series after they launch their own service...
I certainly hope that the Marvel/Netflix contracts didn't say that the series would always be a joint venture. I suspect that Marvel, with the previous Spider-man stresses, and the continuing X-Men and FF stresses, would be too smart to permanently tie characters to providers. So I would hope they can take their toys and go when the contracts run out.
I just updated the Spider-Man: Homecoming entry in my crossovers/release post (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019), and it was substantial enough I felt it might warrant sharing as a new post, since I suspect people don't routinely re-visit the crossover/release post. Here's what I added:
Spider-Man: Homecoming . . . . July 7, 2017
There are indications in the film, and vague and obfuscating comments by Feige (sadly can no longer find those to link to), that this film is actually not taking place 'in sequence', and is not meant to be taking place in 2017 (which means Civil War also did not take place when it was released, as Homecoming is just two months later than the events of Civil War). This also fits with the fact that the second MCU Spider-Man film will not be released until July of 2019, yet is about the school year directly following Peter's 'Homecoming' school year. [I gotta' say: I always loved the double meaning of that title! Both referring to the homecoming dance, but also that Spider-Man was FINALLY coming back to Marvel control.]
Marvel apparently has a huge scroll for film continuity (https://mcuexchange.com/spider-man-homecoming-mcu-timeline/), but since they aren't sharing that (given that it includes where the MCU is going, and things from its past they don't necessarily want to reveal yet), there's no official word on what is going on and how it all fits together. I do believe that Feige said that it would all make sense (after Avengers 3+4 I think it was), so I guess we just have to wait.
First look at character 'Old Lace' (the dino) from the Runaways Hulu TV series:
Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPGLYgYUIAAQ7u8.jpg) (https://mcuexchange.com/first-look-old-lace-runaways/)
Oh, and she is being done practically for the most part (in contrast to the Inhumans, where Lockjaw was all digital and sucked up all the cash that should have been used for decent scripts and making Attilan look regal).
We watched the first two eps last night. Quite promising
I'm not interested in any TV rendition, but a few days ago, after seeing Thor: Ragnarok, I made up an Amazon shopping list of all the movies.
Did I put the wrong thing on my list or was Bruce Banner played by a different actor in the original movie?
If you got Ed Norton and not Eric Bana, you're fine. The story was Norton didn't play well with others, so they booted him when Avengers came to be.
Quote from: Pak-Man on November 22, 2017, 07:49:51 AM
If you got Ed Norton and not Eric Bana, you're fine. The story was Norton didn't play well with others, so they booted him when Avengers came to be.
Any in universe explanation on the sudden change of appearance in
Darrin Bruce Banner?
Nope. He's just Mark Ruffalo all of the sudden. Really, they keep it very ambiguous that anything in The Incredible Hulk ever happened at all. Other than the footage of the movie that shows in Iron Man 2, none of the characters or situations from Incredible Hulk are ever mentioned again.
Quote from: Pak-Man on November 22, 2017, 09:29:49 AM
Nope. He's just Mark Ruffalo all of the sudden. Really, they keep it very ambiguous that anything in The Incredible Hulk ever happened at all. Other than the footage of the movie that shows in Iron Man 2, none of the characters or situations from Incredible Hulk are ever mentioned again.
Also conveniently removing the need to cast Liv Tyler in additional roles.
Quote from: Retro Muppet Pastor on November 22, 2017, 05:29:21 AM
I'm not interested in any TV rendition, but a few days ago, after seeing Thor: Ragnarok, I made up an Amazon shopping list of all the movies.
Did I put the wrong thing on my list or was Bruce Banner played by a different actor in the original movie?
Have you seen many of the other films? None of them are very Thor: Ragnarok-like (Even the other Thor movies).
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 22, 2017, 03:47:48 PM
Quote from: Retro Muppet Pastor on November 22, 2017, 05:29:21 AM
I'm not interested in any TV rendition, but a few days ago, after seeing Thor: Ragnarok, I made up an Amazon shopping list of all the movies.
Did I put the wrong thing on my list or was Bruce Banner played by a different actor in the original movie?
Have you seen many of the other films? None of them are very Thor: Ragnarok-like (Even the other Thor movies).
Oh yeah. I've seen all of them. I think. It's kinda hard to keep track. I saw probably about half in theaters, half from Netflix when I eventually remembered. I didn't see the Spiderman movie though.
I liked most of them okay. I kinda hated Captain America 3 though, because I felt like I was just watching another Avengers movie.
Something bothered me about Ant Man. The power of the suit was that the special chemical made you shrink by reducing the space between your atoms. Okay, I'll suspend disbelief and accept that. But how did he then shrink beyond the atomic level?
Quote from: Retro Muppet Pastor on November 22, 2017, 04:09:13 PM
Something bothered me about Ant Man. The power of the suit was that the special chemical made you shrink by reducing the space between your atoms. Okay, I'll suspend disbelief and accept that. But how did he then shrink beyond the atomic level?
Yeah, that annoyed me a lot in that movie too. Even for comic book sci-fi nonsense it's pretty bad.
But by that point I was already so annoyed by that movie anyway.
Well, the image in the first post of this thread could get a WHOLE lot simpler!
Quote
BREAKING: Disney/Fox Deal Gaining Momentum, Could Be Imminent (https://mcuexchange.com/breaking-disney-fox-deal-gaining-momentum-imminent/)
November 28, 2017 Charles Murphy
In what should not be surprising but, nonetheless, encouraging news, it appears that after recently walking away from the negotiation table, Disney and Fox have reopened the talks that would see Fox sell its television and films studios to Disney.
According to Deadline, talks have begun to progress rapidly and both sides have gone dark, prompting the speculation that they are close on a deal. Disney made similar rapid and silent progress in its purchase of Lucasfilm back in 2012, so it's possible that fans of the X-Men, Fantastic Four and related characters may be looking at a pretty damn good Christmas present: Marvel Studios and Kevin Feige having access to just about every character ever dreamed up by Marvel Comics creators! With Marvel still able to realign its film slate following Avengers 4, this news could NOT come at a more opportune time.
We don't expect we'll hear much of anything unless the deal either falls apart or goes through, but we've been of the mind that there is no way Disney would let the rights to Doctor Doom, Galactus, the Silver Surfer and more end up in the hands of another studio when they have the opportunity to get them back. Keep your fingers crossed friends! Feige and Stan Lee's dreams of uniting all the characters under one banner could be coming true!
Now wouldn't that be incredible? It would also - hopefully - mean an uptick to six films a year that were connected to one-another, since FOX has been ramping up to putting out 2-3 a year. The films would not necessarily be in one continuous storyline, though that would be possible, too. But at least they would be in the same universe. An MCU film every other month? Sounds like heaven to me! ;D
I don't want the fox garbage to just suddenly be part of the MCU. They need a hard reboot if those characters are coming in.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 28, 2017, 07:18:23 PM
I don't want the fox garbage to just suddenly be part of the MCU. They need a hard reboot if those characters are coming in.
deadpool, of course, would have to comment on it all the time.
Quote from: goflyblind on November 28, 2017, 07:30:08 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on November 28, 2017, 07:18:23 PM
I don't want the fox garbage to just suddenly be part of the MCU. They need a hard reboot if those characters are coming in.
deadpool, of course, would have to comment on it all the time.
Without question the X-Men and FF would have to be "Spider-Manned" into the MCU (i.e. all prior films and actors ignored completely)!
Not sure if this was being implied with goflyblind's comment, but the only exception I would make would be Deadpool... or, even if continuity was not the same with his two films, keeping on Ryan Reynolds and his creative team (possibly just changing things like Colossus, etc.), because Reynolds is so perfect in the role. But, as goflyblind said, he'd be making comments on the changes, turning to the camera, "is it just me, or didn't he look and act different the last time I saw him?" and such.
I can't comprehend the sheer cost of actors in that movie.
I'm only bothered by Black Widow being blonde.
Chris Evans with a beard is the sexiest thing I have ever seen.
I went ahead and ordered all the movies on DVD. Amazon refuses to sell Thor 2 or Captain America to non-Prime members, so I had to go get those from WalMart. 16 movies, about 10 bucks apiece.
Update. Yeah, that pic in the first post may get a whole lot simpler soon.
QuoteBREAKING: Disney and Fox Closing In On Deal; May Be Finalized Next Week (https://mcuexchange.com/fox-disney-deal-finalize/)
That elusive Fox-Disney deal that everyone has been talking about in the past few weeks made some huge strides this past couple of days when 2 big reports dropped regarding its status. One dropped last weekend, stating that the House of Mouse has re-entered talks to purchase several of the companies media assets after reports surfaced that the deal was off. Another dropped last night, stating that Fox has the hots for Disney more than any of the other companies interested in purchasing them, given how they're a more "strategic fit" and how they present "less regulatory hurdles". And just now, CNBC dropped a bombshell to top it all off: Disney and Fox are actually closing in on a deal and an announcement may be made next week.
"Walt Disney Co. and 21st Century Fox are closing in on a deal and it could come as soon as next week, according to sources familiar with the matter."
So holy shit. This might actually happen after all. We didn't think this would be possible in a billion years but here we are, closing in on what could be the biggest entertainment corporation deal in history. The trajectory of this whole Fox-Disney fiasco is a classic Hollywood play: Disney enters lukewarm talks with Fox but it goes nowhere. Fox makes the deal public by letting everyone know what was happening. A bunch of other companies quickly fall in line to negotiate. Suddenly, Disney realizes how important the deal is. Now we're here. 2017 is going to end on a Fantastic note.
Like, in theory I should be worried about one company that has proved to have some questionable practices buying another big company to become even more ridiculously powerful... but I want a good Fantastic Four movie.
Yes, I too, am a little leery of one company having such incredible dominance in entertainment [seriously: Disney characters, Jim Henson's legacy, Marvel, Star Wars, now everything Fox Studios may have going for it (e.g. the Avatar series)?]... but Damn: a good FF story? Galactus as something other than a cloud? A truly brooding, self-aware Silver Surfer? Much less more accurate X-Men? [I still think they could leave Deadpool 'as is'.]
And now to this:
QuoteREPORT: Disney and Fox May Have Closed the Deal (https://i.imgur.com/N1Zp0zO.jpg)
According to a report that surfaced late last night, Disney and Fox have closed the deal that would bring the X-Men, Fantastic Four and related characters into the MCU! The report is a bit fuzzy on whether or not it's reporting on CNBC's earlier report, or if it is citing it's own sources, so we are going to hold off on popping the champagne open until the official release, which is expected some time next week.
Click the title for the full article.
TODAY'S NEWS:
QuoteThe Fox-Disney Deal Has Been Finalized; Welcome Home, Fantastic Four & X-Men (https://mcuexchange.com/disney-deal-xmen-mcu-finalized/)
A year ago it was purely fantasy; last spring the rhetoric began to change; today it's reality. Disney has officially announced a deal that, among many other non-MCU-related factors, will bring the live-action rights to the X-Men and Fantastic Four to Marvel Studios.
Talks between Disney and Fox had been on again, off again over the past few months, as Fox explored its options and courted other suitors. With the recent news that Comcast, the last non-Disney player on the board, had left the game, it was only a matter of time before Bob Iger added to his already impressive legacy at Disney. In an official release...
QuoteCombining with Disney are 21st Century Fox's critically acclaimed film production businesses, including Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Fox 2000, which together offer diverse and compelling storytelling businesses and are the homes of Avatar, X-Men, Fantastic Four and Deadpool, as well as The Grand Budapest Hotel, Hidden Figures, Gone Girl, The Shape of Water and The Martian—and its storied television creative units, Twentieth Century Fox Television, FX Productions and Fox21, which have brought The Americans, This Is Us, Modern Family, The Simpsons and so many more hit TV series to viewers across the globe. Disney will also acquire FX Networks, National Geographic Partners, Fox Sports Regional Networks, Fox Networks Group International, Star India and Fox's interests in Hulu, Sky plc, Tata Sky and Endemol Shine Group.
The acquisition of this stellar collection of businesses from 21st Century Fox reflects the increasing consumer demand for a rich diversity of entertainment experiences that are more compelling, accessible and convenient than ever before," said Robert A. Iger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company. "We're honored and grateful that Rupert Murdoch has entrusted us with the future of businesses he spent a lifetime building, and we're excited about this extraordinary opportunity to significantly increase our portfolio of well-loved franchises and branded content to greatly enhance our growing direct-to-consumer offerings. The deal will also substantially expand our international reach, allowing us to offer world-class storytelling and innovative distribution platforms to more consumers in key markets around the world."
We are extremely proud of all that we have built at 21st Century Fox, and I firmly believe that this combination with Disney will unlock even more value for shareholders as the new Disney continues to set the pace in what is an exciting and dynamic industry," said Rupert Murdoch, Executive Chairman of 21st Century Fox. "Furthermore, I'm convinced that this combination, under Bob Iger's leadership, will be one of the greatest companies in the world. I'm grateful and encouraged that Bob has agreed to stay on, and is committed to succeeding with a combined team that is second to none.
At the request of both 21st Century Fox and the Disney Board of Directors, Mr. Iger has agreed to continue as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Walt Disney Company through the end of calendar year 2021.
When considering this strategic acquisition, it was important to the Board that Bob remain as Chairman and CEO through 2021 to provide the vision and proven leadership required to successfully complete and integrate such a massive, complex undertaking," said Orin C. Smith, Lead Independent Director of the Disney Board. "We share the belief of our counterparts at 21st Century Fox that extending his tenure is in the best interests of our company and our shareholders, and will be critical to Disney's ability to effectively drive long-term value from this extraordinary acquisition.
And one more time, here's the key piece for all of us MCU fans:
QuoteThe agreement also provides Disney with the opportunity to reunite the X-Men, Fantastic Four and Deadpool with the Marvel family under one roof and create richer, more complex worlds of inter-related characters and stories that audiences have shown they love.
While we are all feeling like kids on Christmas morning with our shiny new toys, it's probably going to be a while before we get any sort of concrete plan for how Kevin Feige and his crew plan to introduce mutants into the MCU. Feige has been clear that Avengers 4 is the end of a 22-film run, so it's hard to imagine any of the new characters playing too much of a role in that film. However, beginning in 2020, the sky is the limit!
We'll have much more for you on this story as it develops, but for now celebrate with your friends. The floodgates are open and the MCU will never be the same!!
Supplemental good news:
QuoteDisney CEO Bob Iger Sees An "Opportunity" For R-Rated Marvel Studios Films Down the Line (https://mcuexchange.com/bob-iger-marvel-studio-r-rated/)
Today's Disney/Fox deal is a dream come true for us here at the MCU Exchange and appears to be the gift that will keep on giving. While many fans were certain that Deadpool, one of Fox's most successful Marvel properties, would not continue under a Marvel Studios banner (despite Kevin Feige saying it was distinct possibility), Disney boss Bob Iger sees things a little differently:
QuoteBen Fritz [Twitter]
Iger specifically calls out "Deadpool," wants to keep making sequels. "There may be an opportunity for an R-rated Marvel brand as long as we let audiences know what's coming."
While many pundits are going to be shocked that "family friendly" Disney would consider an R-rated film, those pundits may not entirely familiar with the types of films that Disney has produced in the past and continues to produce now. This deal, like any other business deal, comes down to money. Bob Iger will walk away from Disney with a very impressive legacy because he knows HOW to make money and he knows Deadpool sequels will make money. Interestingly enough, bringing Deadpool into Marvel Studios could also help open the door for other comic book characters who may be better served in R-rated films as well, so there's plenty to think about here. Of course Deadpool could also pop up just about anywhere now, just like he does in the comics, and can be used to his full intended effect.
They should make the X-Men a separate universe and then just do cross-overs rather than fully same universe.
I was thinking something similar. Maybe for shits and giggles they can cameo in each others movies but keeping those continuities separate is fine. Until, lets say, 10 more years, when they decide to reboot both franchises, then they can consolidate.
Just give me my Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer movies. And Doctor Doom. Shit, I got to start dream casting Dr. Doom.
Before writing more, I'll say that there are VERY few X-Men films that I think stand up to the quality of the MCU ones ('The Wolverine' and 'Days of Future Past' being a bit better than the weakest MCU films, with 'Logan' being better than over 1/2 the MCU films, [Deadpool is 'sort-of' an X-Men film, so it also fits here, as it is at least as enjoyable and well done as most MCU films]). So my personal hope is that they will simply finish all the already-planned X-Men films that were already in production, then reboot the series within the MCU.
That is with the exception of Deadpool, who will happily stay 'as is' (apparently, according to Iger, and implied by Feige), but hopefully will make brief guest appearances in the occasional PG-13 MCU film. Though he never interacted with any of the mainstream X-Men or appeared in any mainstream X-Men film, he could at least be making reference to his being oddly suddenly PG-13 when in a standard MCU film, and as goflyblind commented making snarky remarks about actor differences (as he did with the Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy confusion in his first film).
BUT, with the MCU now containing mutants and the FF, I would personally like to see - beyond Avengers 4 - there being two 'streams' of films. One, the cosmic ones that Feige/Gunn have already been planning and working on [Guardians, Doctor Strange, Captain Marvel, hopefully Adam Warlock, etc.], and the second being terrestrial films (such as X-Men, Spider-Man, any remaining-living Avengers, etc.) These streams would alternate at the theater, with no more than two months going by at any given time without a Marvel entry there. ;D An alternative might be: a PG-13 strain of films, and an R strain (possibly in a 4:2 ratio)... bringing us more Deadpool, Moon Knight, etc. [A 'Marvel Knights MAX' film series, as it were.] Or some combination of the two (i.e. combining the celestial/terrestraial with the PG-13/R in various ways).
Since Marvel now has all the 20th C Fox film-making resources, that should not be an issue in the production side of things. Each studio would continue putting out the number of films they'd planned, they'd just be coordinated with one-another better. It will, however, be a BIG increase in what Feige would be doing, unless he delegates more than what he's already done with first Whedon (for phase 2), then the Russos (for phase 3), and Gunn (for phase 4). [Or am I 'out of phase' there?]
I do see the FF as easily fitting in to the cosmic era of the MCU - Galactus and the Silver Surfer done correctly comes immediately to mind - because the FF are, at their core, science fiction. Possibly one of the 2021 or 2022 MCU films will be the FF. Or has Feige been playing this very close to the vest and had insider info on the return and already planned for their return? (An admittedly weak possibility contributing to why there are no titles beyond 2019.)
In the cosmic realm, I'd love to see Whedon's run on Astonishing X-Men done in film (beyond the animated comics version). A GOOD Dark Phoenix story is unlikely, as there is already one well into production (due out this year?), but the X-Men's link to things like the Shi'ar can have them in the cosmic MCU as well.
It occurs to me I had what I think is a fun idea: film versions of Marvel Team-Up and Marvel Two-in-One. The catch would be each film would be a short double bill team-up movie: that way, all of the characters who survive Infinity War can do a short return if they want.
Still want a Black Widow movie, too, and I actually have great ideas for the premise and villains.
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on December 14, 2017, 04:37:10 PM
Just give me my Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer movies. And Doctor Doom. Shit, I got to start dream casting Dr. Doom.
Dr. Doom is like Judge Dredd, we should never see his face. Just get an actor that has a recognizable voice and doesn't mind being in the suit the whole time.
That's what some people thought. However, it was announced that they totally did on the day the merger was official.
The definitive answer on Disney/Marvel getting all their characters back, and more. (And, apparently, my post yesterday with my lengthy delineated desire for 'what would happen' is pretty much what Iger has in mind! YAY! :) )
QuoteX-Men, Fantastic Four and Deadpool Will Expand the MCU, According To Bob Iger (https://mcuexchange.com/bob-iger-xmen-deadpool-fantastic-four-mcu/)
Speaking yesterday with investors, Disney CEO Bob Iger offered some more insight into the company's plans for their newly acquired properties. While most people didn't really think Marvel Studios would sit on their hands after acquiring the live-action rights to the X-Men, Fantastic Four and related characters, some pundits have maintained that the characters, especially the X-Men, would stay in their own sandbox. Iger doesn't agree:
QuoteWe're also looking forward to expanding the Marvel Cinematic Universe to include X-Men, Fantastic Four and Deadpool. Basically Fox — 20th Century Fox Studios — has some interesting tentpole opportunities, we obviously are going to continue to support that. What they've done obviously with Avatar, and what they did with Deadpool, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Planet of the Apes is another one. We'll stay in that business. Not all of it will be branded anything other than what it's branded today, as a for instance. How much we will create under that banner, we're still uncertain. It's going to take a while from a regulatory perspective. They'll continue to develop in that period of time and at such time as we close this deal and have control, we'll take stock and really look carefully at what their slate looks like going forward and how many movies it would make sense to make.
And so it seems that for the time being, Fox will proceed as usual with films like X-Men: Dark Phoenix, New Mutants, Deadpool 2 and maybe even Gambit and X-Force. However, once the deal has been approved and Disney takes full ownership of Fox's studios (potentially 12-18 months from now), we are likely to see Disney hand creative control over these properties to Kevin Feige.
To that end, another report cites that unnamed "insiders" are already hearing that combining the new properties with the robust planned MCU slate could come at the expense of some of Fox's future plans. Future New Mutants films and other X-films in development (an X-23 spinoff was mentioned) could potentially be pushed to Disney's upcoming streaming platform while Feige focuses on giving the X-Men and Fantastic Four (and their incredible villains) the treatment they deserve. So while we may never get to see that Multiple Man film, it seems like we might have a chance of seeing Spidey sit on a rooftop with the Human Torch or see Reed Richards talk science with T'Challa. Guess it's a little give and take.
I was just thinking about it, and am kind-of impressed by Disney's audacity in these events:
"Since the X-Men is such a financially successful franchise, and the FF had good enough returns that they kept trying to make them, it would cost us too much to buy back the rights to the X-Men and Fantastic Four . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . Fuck it: let's just buy the studio!"
[Yes, I know that the production/distribution assets of 20th C F were a bigger draw than these film rights, but I like my 'behind the scenes' conversation for what went on. :) ]
Ooh! I just realized that Black Panther could potentially get his bride. (Are they still together? I never keep up with his corner of the MU.)
Quote from: Pak-Man on December 15, 2017, 07:46:31 PM
Ooh! I just realized that Black Panther could potentially get his bride. (Are they still together? I never keep up with his corner of the MU.)
Good point! They were in the second to most recent Black Panther series, but I haven't read the newest stuff.
Quote from: LucasM on December 15, 2017, 03:36:09 PM
The definitive answer on Disney/Marvel getting all their characters back, and more.
Does that include Namor? I think he's stuck with Universal or something. Also, I guess for reasons, Marvel can use Hulk all they want, but he can't have his own movie (which I think is also a Universal thing). Hope that means I won't be denied a She-Hulk movie.
They CAN do a Hulk solo movie, but Universal would get that sweet distribution money, and Disney doesn't wanna share.
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on December 19, 2017, 11:19:49 AM
Quote from: LucasM on December 15, 2017, 03:36:09 PM
The definitive answer on Disney/Marvel getting all their characters back, and more.
Does that include Namor? I think he's stuck with Universal or something. Also, I guess for reasons, Marvel can use Hulk all they want, but he can't have his own movie (which I think is also a Universal thing). Hope that means I won't be denied a She-Hulk movie.
Pretty sure Marvel confirmed they had Namor back ages ago?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on December 19, 2017, 04:26:53 PM
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on December 19, 2017, 11:19:49 AM
Quote from: LucasM on December 15, 2017, 03:36:09 PM
The definitive answer on Disney/Marvel getting all their characters back, and more.
Does that include Namor? I think he's stuck with Universal or something. Also, I guess for reasons, Marvel can use Hulk all they want, but he can't have his own movie (which I think is also a Universal thing). Hope that means I won't be denied a She-Hulk movie.
Pretty sure Marvel confirmed they had Namor back ages ago?
If I remember correctly, Universal had rights to Namor on TV, but not for film (though I read it in an article ages ago, the image in the first post for this thread has "NBC" in the 'Universal' 1/2 of the bubble Namor is in, supporting that). Which might have suggested that Namor could be used in the MCU films, but simultaneously an independent Namor TV series by Universal could have been made. [a la The Flash TV series and the DCU Flash being unconnected.]
Please note the date on the article:
QuoteThe Rights For Namor The Sub-Mariner Apparently Back At Marvel... (https://mcuexchange.com/the-rights-for-namor-the-sub-mariner-apparently-back-at-marvel-brian-tee-wants-the-role/)
June 3, 2016
The MCU is on course to expand quite a bit over the next few years with characters such as Doctor Strange and Captain Marvel hitting the big screen soon. Among that, we've also got several other smaller roles in the upcoming Thor: Ragnarok and Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 2. As for other new characters, we don't know exactly where Marvel will go next since big properties such as the X-Men and Fantastic Four sit with other studios. However one that it seems they've gotten back recently is Namor the Sub-Mariner.
In his appearance on Kevin Smith's Fatman on Batman podcast, Joe Quesada, Chief Creative Officer for Marvel Studios, was questioned on if we would ever see Namor in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While he couldn't confirm or deny any plans for a movie based on the character, he did seemingly confirm that the rights for the character on the big screen are back with Marvel Studios.
QuoteI can't speak for studios...As far as I know, yeah we do. It's not at Fox, it's not at Sony...Yeah.
Obviously this doesn't tell us that we'll be seeing a movie based on the character anytime soon, but at least we know he has the potential to join the MCU at some point in the future. The rights for Namor were previously thought to be held by Universal Pictures, with Kevin Feige stating that it was "complicated". For now, we'll just have to wait and see.
Johnny Unusual and EJG III, it seems you are both right. ;) The conflicting info here lends a bit of question to the idea of the rights belonging cleanly to one or the other. The key part of the quote making it still unclear, is Feige's statement it was "complicated". Of course, that was the most recent reference I could find on https://mcuexchange.com/ and it is over a year and a half old, so who knows what may have happened in the interim. It appears that the image in the first post related this: with their being 'joint custody' of the character. [Odd that the person making the image didn't include the Hulk in a 'joint custody' position.]
At the very least, I would think that, like is apparently true of most such rights arrangements, if Universal doesn't have something in production by a certain number of years, the rights revert to Marvel automatically. [Prior to the 20th C Fox purchase, that was the way it was believed they'd get the FF back, as 20th C was having diminishing returns on their attempts.] So it could be the rights are 'iffy', and Marvel is just waiting it out.
I kinda' wonder if the same is true for the Hulk at Universal (waiting on rights to revert)? Or if the MCU using the character in group films keeps Universal's rights ownership renewed as there is 'something' being produced out there with the Hulk in it.
EDIT:
Looked further. Then, there's this, from a list, "10 Amazing Characters Marvel Studios Still Can't Use (http://www.thegeektwins.com/2017/12/10-amazing-characters-marvel-studios.html)"
Article printed online 12/17/2017, so apparently current. (Most other characters in their list are Hulk-related, Namor-related, or Spider-Man related [Carnage, Venom]. To me, none but She-Hulk and Namor themselves fit the "Amazing" category, though Namorita would've been nice in the New Warriors.)
Quote2. Namor
Namor the Sub-Mariner is a mutant underwater superhero that has super strength, can breathe underwater and fly. The live-action movie rights to Namor were purchased by Universal Studios along with Hulk in the 1990s. They never used Namor and never made a movie although some planning for a movie was done in 1996.
When asked about the rights for Namor Kevin Feige said, "It's slightly more complicated than that. Let's put it this way – there are entanglements that make it less easy. There are older contracts that still involve other parties that mean we need to work things out before we move forward on it. As opposed to an Iron Man or any of the Avengers or any of the other Marvel characters where we could just put them in."
So, for now, Marvel can't make a Namor movie without some work and money changing hands. Since most people haven't even heard of Namor it's not a huge draw.
Just did a substantial overhaul of the first post in this thread (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg961925#msg961925) adding a new (additional) rights graphic. Since most people likely don't revisit such things, I figured I'd best announce the update. :)
People actually care about Namor? The only impression I ever got about him was that he was a arrogant asshat.
That's what makes him fun.
Quote from: Darth Geek on December 19, 2017, 06:58:14 PM
People actually care about Namor? The only impression I ever got about him was that he was a arrogant asshat.
His original incarnation (1939-to pre-"Marvel"), when written/drawn by Everett himself, were Namor as a great anti-hero. Since coming back in FF #4, I see him best used (by those writers at Marvel trying to utilize him) as a major FF antagonist. He doesn't do much for me by himself. But for me, that is actually not the fault of the character, it is a problem with the writers (simplifying him to nothing but "an arrogant asshat"), or him often being assigned to writers who really don't have any idea what to do with him so they try to do just 'regular' superhero-y stuff with him. Heck, I even got bored with John Byrne's take on him (~ mid-'80s), when I liked most of what Byrne was doing at the time. Sadly it is possible that the only person who knew how to write and draw him
really well was his creator.
[I am incredibly happy to have a page of Everett art from his '70s return to Namor (Sub-Mariner #51, p.15). It was the 2nd issue of Namorita, with both of them on the page. Absolutely
stunning artwork with so much more detail than the printed comic was able to show (e.g. Everett used an Exacto blade to cut little streams of tiny bubbles in every panel)! It is actually the only one of the many original comic art pieces I have framed and on display.]
The Bill Everett Namor stuff I've read has mostly been excellent especially his later artwork.
While I am COMPLETELY disinterested in Namor, I have no doubt Marvel Studios would have me rushing to Toys R Us to get a figure for my desk by the end of the movie if they made one.
I created a new useful list. It is a chart of the mid-and-end-credit scenes on the assorted home video releases of the MCU. (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962020#msg962020) [<= The blue there is a link to the post where the list resides.]
Quote from: Pak-Man on December 20, 2017, 07:56:42 AM
While I am COMPLETELY disinterested in Namor, I have no doubt Marvel Studios would have me rushing to Toys R Us to get a figure for my desk by the end of the movie if they made one.
Yeah, Namor is definitely the Aquaman of the MCU... what? Too on the nose? ;D
(https://i1.wp.com/mcuexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EMP_FEB18_SubsCover.jpg?w=790&ssl=1)
Last nights episode of SHIELD was the best one of the season. This has been a weird story line. Not sure that the show will last past this season though which is a shame.
Quote from: Russoguru on December 22, 2017, 06:39:11 PM
Quote from: Pak-Man on December 20, 2017, 07:56:42 AM
While I am COMPLETELY disinterested in Namor, I have no doubt Marvel Studios would have me rushing to Toys R Us to get a figure for my desk by the end of the movie if they made one.
Yeah, Namor is definitely the Aquaman of the MCU... what? Too on the nose? ;D
Technically, Aquaman is the Namor of DC... Namor was created by Bill Everett in 1938, and was first published in April 1939. Aquaman was first published in November 1941. But, yes, the DCU is beating the MCU in creating a water-character on film. So the general public will think he was 'first'.
Quote from: k1 on December 23, 2017, 03:52:55 AM
Last nights episode of SHIELD was the best one of the season. This has been a weird story line. Not sure that the show will last past this season though which is a shame.
I think that every season.
QuoteFINALLY! We Have a 'Cloak And Dagger' Premiere Date (https://mcuexchange.com/marvel-cloak-dagger-premiere-date/)
Let the countdown begin, because at the winter TCAs, Freeform announced that Cloak And Dagger will be coming to television on Thursday, June 7. According to Variety, Cloak and Dagger will have a monstrous two-hour premiere.
QuoteThis may be the only new show that we see on cable television for the MCU, as we recently learned that there won't be any new Marvel projects on ABC this year.
[Article title is a link to a very slightly expanded article.]
Brie Larson on set in Captain Marvel suit.
Spoiler
(https://i0.wp.com/mcuexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Captain-Marvel-Suit-01.jpg?ssl=1) (https://mcuexchange.com/captain-marvel-brie-larson-costume/)
Picture is link to article with five more pictures.
Ooo, old school. I like it.
(https://i.imgur.com/N1n35Dy.jpg)
(link to embiggen: https://i.imgur.com/N1n35Dy.jpg )
I have been looking for an HQ copy of that since first seeing a tiny useless copy on Facebook! Thanks, goflyblind!
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0739/9215/collections/image_ff39b6f7-2dbe-4b44-b26b-5b072e731755_800x800.progressive.jpg?v=1513566043)
Found the Stan Lee cameo!
Wow I can be slow at times!
Was just watching The Avengers again (9th time), and only now - having just recently watched the Blu-rays of Season 3 of Agents of SHIELD (imported from the UK) - did it finally register that Powers Boothe's Gideon Malick was on the World Security Council in The Avengers (he is listed in the credits there as "World Security Council Member #1" and, obviously, only appears by voice and in heavy shadow)!
No wonder in The Avengers he was so bent out of shape at Thor taking the Tesseract back to Asgard. It also makes the apparent ease of his vote for nuking midtown clear, because it would eliminate not only the age-old enemy of Hydra, Captain America, but also eliminate further potential enemies in the rest of the Avengers.
OK... I reworded what I wrote just above and integrated it into my massive crossover list (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019).
But I've added something new to the post just following that, the one that previously just had the end credit scene checklist in it. This is a little something that I've been working on recently.
A little (unnecessary) history first. I first watched Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2 in 2D. Fine, no big deal. But when I got the 3D Blu-ray, I noticed something: a fair number of scenes were massively improved by an expanded aspect ratio. Now, the first film I believe I experienced the shifting screen ratio on was 'The Dark Knight', where powerful scenes were made more powerful by the shift from the 2.35:1 of the majority of the film to the 1.77:1 full HD screen. Well, MCU films do that as well - but ONLY in the 3D versions of the films (no 2D versions have the screen-filling scenes uncropped). That pisses me off a bit, because I don't always want to watch films in 3D, but I DO always want to get the impact of the IMAX scenes. >:(
So, here's a link to the post that has the new list (and the older, end-credit-scene checklist as well). 3D Blu-rays that have the exclusive MCU IMAX scenes in the expanded ratio on them, and the chart of the mid- and end-credit scenes on the assorted home video releases of the MCU films. (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962020#msg962020)
So far there appear to be only four films where this is the case (though I will now be more attentive while re-watching others, in case I missed some). But given Disney's track record across their output, I think Thor: Ragnarok and Black Panther are likely to do this as well. Sadly, Disney isn't releasing Ragnarok domestically in 3D at all (GotGv2 was only available in 3D in an exclusive Best Buy steelbook with the 4K version which sold out pretty much immediately). So I've already got my UK 3D copy of Ragnarok ordered.
EDIT:
Here is an example of JUST how much difference this makes, with side-by-side images for 2D and IMAX scenes for the first Guardians of the Galaxy (https://imgur.com/a/Igpfi).
Quote from: LucasM on February 10, 2018, 05:12:37 PM
But I think Thor: Ragnarok is likely to do this as well. Sadly, Disney isn't releasing that domestically in 3D at all (GotGv2 was only available in 3D in an exclusive Best Buy steelbook with the 4K version which sold out pretty much immediately).
That's wierd. Is the 3D fad starting to die down finally?
For those who may have seen my post that DG quoted the tiny selection from (or not), I recently edited it to add a link with screen-shot comparisons between the regular and IMAX scenes in Guardians 1 (I also added the link to the 1st-page post with the full list).
Even though I've watched it a dozen times, I haven't written much (if anything) on the film. But here are the main problems I notice with the Doctor Strange film.
First and foremost:
There is no 8th cervical vertebra! So Pangborn could NOT have had a "complete C7-C8 severing" of his spinal cord. This irritates the shit out of me every time I see the film! [There are seven cervical vertebrae, then the ribs start with the thoracic vertebrae, when they end the lumbar vertebrae take over. It is really friggin' simple, and with all the medical jargon they went through, there is NO excuse for missing this! As someone who has had multiple spinal injuries (and a C6-C7 fusion), this is particularly irritating to me.]
Second, and VERY minor (but still distracting for a couple seconds):
Right after the scene in the medical staff office, in which Strange says to put a "stent down the brachial artery into the radial", as he is wheeled into the OR on a stretcher, both hands have the massive fixators all over. These were LONG gone by this time, and would not be needed any longer (as they are for holding bones together while they repair). They are also clearly missing in the very next shot when both of his arms are being operated on at the same time for the stent placement. [Obviously the 'wheeling into the OR with fixators on' shot was initially filmed for use earlier in the movie, but they likely felt it slowed the film where it was shot for, and they used it here 'since it was available'. But continuity is a Marvel trademark - or at least providing acceptable retroactive explanations when they goof up. ;D But there are no 'acceptable explanations' for this or the previous 'C7-C8' error other than 'we fucked up'.]
Third, and this is only an aesthetic point, and only applies to the 3D version:
When Strange wakes briefly after his accident, while being wheeled into the ER/OR, his left eye is completely swollen shut. He looks and sees both Christine Palmer and his hands. It is a POV shot... BUT FOR THE VIEWER, IT IS VISIBLE IN BOTH EYES, AND IN 3D! The IDEAL for this shot - since it is a POV shot - would be that the left eye of the 3D image would be BLACK. So the viewer would have the same 'swollen shut eye' effect as Steven himself had. Like I said: an aesthetic point.
OK, other than that I really enjoyed the film. It is tied with Spider-Man: Homecoming for my favorite MCU film. But these three things bug me, in massively decreasing order as the list progresses. ;)
I've watched Doctor Strange a few times and never noticed the bad vertebra numbering.
That would be a cool idea for them to have tried with the 3D, I wonder how it would look doing that.
I stopped getting the Marvel films in 3D because the 3D was disappointing, none of them are shot with 3D cameras, they are post processed into 3D and it shows.
The vertebra numbering seems like an odd mistake since they clearly would have had a medical adviser for the movie.
The idea of effecting the 3D in that one shot is interesting, but I think it would have just confused the average moviegoer and looked like a mistake.
Yeah, you can't have things like 'fixators' and 'radial and brachial arteries' and 'blood in the pericardial sac' and so much more (as well as all the attendant visuals) and not have a medical advisor on the film. Personally, for "C7-C8", I think their license to practice film medicine should be revoked!
And with the 3D right-eye only POV shot, yeah, I realized when I proposed it that nearly 100% of viewers (possibly most everyone but me ;) ) would think that there was something wrong with either the presentation or the 3D disc for home video. It was just a personal aesthetic preference I figured I'd share. If one wants their 3D truly immersive, then it should be consistently so, is all I was expressing (sort-of the visual equivalent of motion-controlled chairs in theme rides).
MartyS, the 3D has improved with Marvel. I think they are paying more attention to it (= "money for it"). Doctor Strange I felt had some of the best converted 3D I've seen, almost rivaling the conversion of Pacific Rim. The thing that bugs me with these films, is that they don't just automatically have all of the CGI effects rendered in 3D in the first place. (The cost difference between having the CGI houses render a second eye's worth of film and the 3D-conversion house creating it from nothing may be substantial, however. I don't know about that. I would think with more complex shots, it would be cheaper for the CGI house to do it.) It would seem that would give a FAR more genuine 3D effect to the whole film, because it would, effectively, be 'shooting with a 3D camera' for that part to begin with. Then all they'd have to do is convert the 2D stuff that fit into that environment. In the CGI-filled MCU, that would be 90% of many of the more difficult shots to begin with (e.g. Ancient One's initial fight with Kaecilius before Strange's introduction, Strange's initial trip through alternate realities, Kaecilius demonstrating his new Dark Dimension power in the church, the New York chase, Strange's entire meeting and interaction with Dormammu).
When I hear "Complete" and "C7 - C8" I think action figure collecting. On some scales an action figure in C7-8 condition would be worn but still functional but I don't think it's quite clever enough to be a joke.
Quote from: Pak-Man on February 12, 2018, 06:30:42 PM
When I hear "Complete" and "C7 - C8" I think action figure collecting. On some scales an action figure in C7-8 condition would be worn but still functional but I don't think it's quite clever enough to be a joke.
I don't get into action figures. But from what you said, here's a start... possibly you can alter and refine it. :)
"Shit, man... I completely cracked the neck of my Pangborn action figure... damn thing's a C7-C8 for sure!"
Since this is more 'technical stuff' rather than 'content stuff', this belongs more in the 'Phase 3 Lineup' thread, I posted it there first, and I'll likely delete it from here shortly, but felt there might be a chance people might miss it there, but follow this thread. So here's some important news. :)
Avengers: Infinity War release date moved up a week! Release day now April 27!
Quote'Avengers: Infinity War' Release Date Moves Up One Week to April (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/avengers-infinity-war-release-date-moves-april-1089951)
Marvel Studios and Disney' biggest superhero mashup yet is hitting North American theaters earlier than expected.
Avengers: Infinity War will now unfurl April 27, a week before its earlier launch date of May 4. In other words, the summer box office will kick off earlier than expected (the first weekend in May is historically considered the official start of the summer season).
The move means that the comic book blockbuster, directed by Anthony and Joe Russo, will open day-and-date around the globe, reducing the possibility of spoilers marring the experience for North American audiences. Marvel president Kevin Feige has said the film will have big ramifications for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, so much so that the title for 2019's Avengers 4 has not yet been revealed, as the name itself would be a spoiler.
Aaaand... there's more:
QuoteRelease Dates Revealed for Six New Untitled Marvel Films (https://mcuexchange.com/new-release-dates-mcu-2022/)
Disney has moved up the release of one of its 2020 Marvel releases to July 31, 2020 (previously August 7, 2020). After that, six slots have been carved out on May 7, 2021, July 30, 2021, Nov. 5, 2021, Feb. 18, 2022, May 6, 2022, and July 29, 2022.
All this new info has been added to/updated in my Crossover Index (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019) and my End Credit Index (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962020#msg962020).
OK... took 'til I was working on updating the two lists on the first page that I noticed something:
For 2022, the three films all cluster in the first part of the year. So far, Marvel has only done this with Avengers 3 + 4 (presumably from their interactions with both the films immediately before and after them).
However, there is another thought I had: what if this is the first indicator that Marvel is gearing up for integrating the 21st Century Fox assets (both production and characters)? Feige et al could be simply 'holding back' an additional film date for November 2022 that would be made using the 20th C F studios &/or with (please, oh PLEASE!!) the FF.
If they do a Fantastic Four movie... please for the love of God don't make it another damn origin movie. We've already tried this three ways: The Corman way, the high budget way, and the dark-high budget way, and none of them produced a good movie. In fact I would dare say they were all awful and I have no desire to ever watch them again. The CLOSEST, the CLOSEST they got to making a good FF movie was that Rise of the Silver Surfer movie, and even that was still fairly bad... but still the best FF movie... sad to say.
I am pretty sure they'll do it right. They managed to make Spider-Man interesting again.
I hope so for the sake of the characters. Maybe it would be best to test the waters and have them appear in a future Avengers movie or something THEN make a Fantastic Four movie, kind of like what they did with Black Panther.
Okay... only two days from 'Jessica Jones' season 2. :) Looking forward to it, but it is supposed to be 'darker' in emotional tone (as well as more noire visually). I hope it does not approach being as emotionally dark as the soul-sucking pit that was 'The Punisher'.
In more Marvel/Netflix news, Luke Cage season 2's release date was just announced (and updated in my crossover/release list (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019)). It is:
Luke Cage season 2 . . . . June 22, 2018
From this, the Netflix shows are serving as 'palate cleansers' between the three cinema releases for this year, even with the three theatrical films bunched so close together. (We also get the New Warriors tossed in there as a happy bonus. :) )
Loved the first season of The Punisher, even though it was quite dark, although I'm a little concerned about the story they are rumored to be adapting for the next season.
I hope JJ s2 can live up to the first!
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on March 06, 2018, 07:42:30 PM
Loved the first season of The Punisher, even though it was quite dark, although I'm a little concerned about the story they are rumored to be adapting for the next season.
"Black Like Me"?
(https://theunspokendecade.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/punisher-black.png)
So the run time of Avengers Infinity war has been revealed to be a whopping 2 hours and 36 minutes. I'm not sure whether to be worried or not, wondering if they can tell the whole story in a compelling way in that much time.
This is either the best or worst idea ever, but they should do what the comics do. Tell the core story through the big summer crossover event (Avengers) and then add to the story through their other monthly titles (Captain Marvel, Guardians 3, etc..)
Quote from: Pak-Man on March 07, 2018, 04:13:25 PM
This is either the best or worst idea ever, but they should do what the comics do. Tell the core story through the big summer crossover event (Avengers) and then add to the story through their other monthly titles (Captain Marvel, Guardians 3, etc..)
Isn't that kind of what they do though?
So far they've been more like a bridge. I'm envisioning something like, "While all that was going on, here's what Thor was up to!"
So a TV show?
I think what Pak is saying is more like the company-wide crossover 'events', where the 'main event' takes place in its own series, but for the bigger story on what individual characters do, one gets referred to their solo series. Problem with that here, is that there's only two films between the two Avengers/Thanos films, and they are over six months apart, with one taking place to a large degree in the 1990s, so not much to work with.
Though they stopped calling them "Infinity War Parts 1 & 2", they are still Avengers & everyone else/Thanos films. So I don't expect the entire (comic-equivalent Infinity Gauntlet) plot to be wrapped up in 'A:IW'. But they said the two films were very different in tone, so what I suspect is that they will have varying degrees of Thanos and Thanos-introspection in them. (i.e. one may be a more 'personal' Thanos drama, the other a more 'public' Thanos drama.)
I still wish we knew more about Thanos going into Infinity War. We don't even know about his relationship with Hela (assuming they do that part of the storyline, which I hope they do). So that's just more stuff they have to spend time establishing in an already packed movie.
Quote from: Darth Geek on March 08, 2018, 06:02:47 AM
I still wish we knew more about Thanos going into Infinity War. We don't even know about his relationship with Hela...
ROAD TRIP MOVIE!
Some thoughts:
on Jessica Jones season 2
spoiler is about a throw-away line that I believe relates to a future film release
One of the 'crazies' that were interviewed while trying to find new cases, said, "lizards wearing human skins are taking over the government." This is most likely a veiled reference to the Captain Marvel film, which takes place either largely or entirely in the 1990s, and features the Skrulls - lizard-like creatures who 'take on human skins' as they morph into others.
My thoughts on Thor: Ragnarok:
While I've seen this four times now, I've only seen the 3D/IMAX-footage version once (last night). Honestly, it is a better film with the IMAX footage (3D or not). I haven't found the film terribly endearing - it might be the best Thor film, but not by much. Some of the ad-libbed dialog sounds ad-libbed - which means: it sounds sloppy, like someone is making up stuff they think someone else would say then saying it... which is NOT smooth as most genuine conversation tends to be. A fair amount of what I assume was supposed to be intended as amusing, wasn't (of course, I had to turn off 'What We Do In the Shadows' by about 10 minutes in - basically I gave up when the credits started rolling, because I found that film so irritating). The Hulk acting like a pouting 3-year-old was massively annoying, bordering on angering, not funny.
And, finally, Zep's 'Immigrant Song' was a PERFECT choice for a Thor fight, though it feels intensely out of place since there is no other major popular music featured prominently in any other Thor film, or in the rest of this one. However, the fact that 'Immigrant Song' was used TWICE massively decreased the effect and power of the tune in EITHER instance. But in particular for the bridge scene it felt like, "yeah... dude... we couldn't think of anything else we could play... so here's Zep again: WOOOOO!!!" The tune should have just been saved and used only for the bridge fight, and not used in the first, short, post-'comedic' Surtur confrontation... after all, it is about Vikings immigrating, which is what the Asgardians were about to do, if they survived the bridge fight.
Just curious if anyone else thinks the Asgardian actor playing Loki in the play was an uncredited Matt Damon? That is an oddly left-out-of-end-credits attribution (the actors playing the actors playing Thor, Sif, and Odin are listed in the end credits, but not the one playing Loki). Since the person was a bit heavier than what Matt normally looks like, it actually looked like it could have been a brother of Damon (since they used Hemsworth's brother for Thor 'lesser-known brothers of actors' didn't seem out of the question), but I looked for pics of Kyle, and it definitely wasn't Kyle.
QuoteMatt Damon plays Loki, Sam Neill plays Odin, and Thor is portrayed by Westworld actor and Chris Hemsworth's real-life older brother, Luke Hemsworth.
https://uproxx.com/hitfix/who-was-in-loki-play-thor-ragnarok-cameos/
MASSIVE spoilers for The Defenders (and other Marvel/Netflix shows). If you've not seen through The Defenders, you may want to skip this post.
OK... I'm just going to say this. It has bothered me since The Defenders, and yet I've seen no-one bring this up.
The entire premise for the Marvel/Netflix series - with what The Hand did with the bones - is ASSININE!
Dragon bones are the core ingredient for the process keeping them alive for, potentially, forever. They have a VERY limited resource, and are running out of it.
So they're grinding it up and selling it like heroin to people on the street for a few bucks? Seriously?
That is the stupidest fucking premise I have heard of. I actually, until near the very end of The Defenders, thought, "seriously, they're going to tell what was REALLY going on, and what the 'something else' was that was being sold as a drug, and it'll be something entirely different, right?!?!" because I simply could not believe that that insane a plot was approved at ANY level of production for those series.
They are running out of what is keeping them alive and they are selling it to average people for a few bucks to use like a drug?
That is idiocy.
Where was it said that they were selling "the substance" on the street? I've watched The Defenders a couple times and do not remember that. I only watched Iron Fist once, but I thought the drugs being sold by The Hand were regular drugs.
It's been a while since watching it, but I remembered this. I had to look through a few articles to find this again. Spoiler-avoider I am, I read this after seeing the series, and it confirmed what I tried to convince myself I hadn't seen, because the idea was so stupid.
Interior quote is from an interview with show-runner Marco Ramirez.
Quote'The Defenders' Showrunner Explains Connections Between 'Iron Fist' Mythology and New York (https://mcuexchange.com/ramirez-defenders-dragon-iron-fist/)
QuoteQ: That dragon skeleton — that wasn't Shou-Lao the Undying's, is it? It's just a pile of bones implying that there had been dragons all over the world and one wound up buried under New York?
A: Yeah, it's the second one. The idea of that was that there had always been this kind of mystery that the Hand can bring people back from the dead, but we never knew exactly how, and it made sense to connect the life-force idea of the chi in the Iron Fist to the idea of the life force [the Hand members] use for various purposes, so we're just saying it's dragon bone that they use, that that's the substance. That felt like the cleanest way to tie everything in.
And it's been set up since Daredevil season 1; Gao operates in the background of New York with drugs made from that ground into powder. It felt like we could make back alley drug deals in New York and dragon mythology all part of the same story, so that was my way of trying to tie them all in.
It seems like a waste to put some of the limited supply of an ancient substance which provides immortality into street drugs, but evidently tying things together was more important than things making sense.
So, yeah: idiocy.
I don't remember it being mentioned in Daredevil either but I've only watched that once and it was a while ago. I still haven't gotten around to season 2, and I'm waiting until I have nothing to do for a while before starting the new season of Jessica Jones, if I get snowed in tomorrow that might be an opportunity.
In The Defenders they only talk about the substance when they argue about how Alexandria used the last of it to create the Black Sky. If Gao could no longer make her drugs you would think that would have come up.
My wife and I also commented on how stupid it was.
LucasM's Deep Thought Riddle for the Day:
What does Tony Stark do to keep in shape? . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Circuit training, of course.
Wow! Two great bits of news in the same day (each title is link to the article):
Disney-Fox Deal Expected To Be Completed By Summer 2019 (https://mcuexchange.com/disney-fox-deal-finalize-2019/)
That's just over a year. Hard to believe after such forlorn feelings with the foundering FOX franchises (try to say that five times fast ;) ).
...and, likely also in 2019:
BREAKING: 'Jessica Jones' Renewed For A Third Season (https://mcuexchange.com/jessica-jones-season-3/)
QuoteJoe Russo Admits The 'Spider-Man: Homecoming' Timeline Change Was A Mistake (https://mcuexchange.com/8-years-later-mistake-homecoming/)
This is referring to the "Eight Years Later" title slate after the Avengers clean-up interrupted by Damage Control in the film. The article, however, does not say what kind of mistake, or what it 'should' have been (if anything). Oddly, the article also refers to Kevin Feige's comment that it would "all make sense" later, and with his having the 'sequence scroll', it is possible it still is correct, as I dare say Kevin Feige is more globally in tune with the MCU than Joe Russo. Of course Kevin Feige can also potentially make mistakes. *gasp!*
Quote from: goflyblind on February 08, 2018, 07:39:22 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/N1n35Dy.jpg)
(link to embiggen: https://i.imgur.com/N1n35Dy.jpg )
I found a listing online for the actors in this picture, but I did not think to save the web address for that list so I could give proper credit. >:(
In the list I found, there are a substantial number of (I presume) directors, few of which I recognize. So if anyone wants to fill in the names for those, please do. :) I've added a blank line with a question mark at the front of it for each person for whom a name is not yet available. I have numbered each of those 'question mark lines', so that if someone wishes to easily add the name for one, they can write, for instance "? 16 is ___". Maybe we can fill in this index completely.
Name list spoilered simply for vertical length.
Names are listed for position, moving left to right, along with the character they play and the primary MCU franchise they're known for.
= = = TOP ROW
? 1
? 2
Michael Rooker (Yondu, Guardians of the Galaxy)
Vin Diesel (Groot, Guardians of the Galaxy)
Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill, The Avengers)
Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury, The Avengers)
? 3
Jeff Goldblum (Grandmaster, Thor)
? 4
? 5
? 6
= = = SECOND ROW
? 7
Laurence Fishburne (Bill Foster, Ant-Man)
Linda Cardellini (Laura Barton, The Avengers)
? 8
Sebastian Stan (Winter Soldier, Captain America)
? 9
Mark Ruffalo (Hulk, The Avengers)
Ty Simpkins (Harley Keener, Iron Man) - NOT THERE (that I can see)
Brie Larson (Captain Marvel, Captain Marvel)
Michael Douglas (Hank Pym, Ant-Man)
? 10
? 11
Michelle Pfieffer (Janet Van Dyne, Ant-Man)
? 12
Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter, Captain America)
Pom Klementieff (Mantis, Guardians of the Galaxy)
? 13
Benedict Wong (Wong, Doctor Strange)
= = = THIRD ROW
? 14
? 15
Tessa Thompson (Valkryie, Thor)
? 16
Don Cheadle (War Machine, Iron Man)
Tom Holland (Spider-Man, Spider-Man)
James Gunn - DIRECTOR, GotG 1+2
Dave Bautista (Drax, Guardians of the Galaxy)
Michael Pena (Luis, Ant-Man)
Anthony Mackie (Falcon, Captain America)
Evangeline Lilly (Wasp, Ant-Man)
Joe Russo - DIRECTOR, CA 2+3, Avengers 3+4, and more
Anthony Russo - DIRECTOR, CA 2+3, Avengers 3+4, and more
Chris Pratt (Star-Lord, Guardians of the Galaxy)
Chadwick Boseman (Black Panther, Black Panther)
Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange, Doctor Strange)
Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch, The Avengers)
Joss Whedon - DIRECTOR, Avengers 1 + 2, and more
Paul Bettany (Vision, The Avengers)
? 17
Frank Grillo (Crossbones, Captain America)
? 18
? 19
Letitia Wright (Shuri, Black Panther)
? 20
= = = FOURTH ROW
Sean Gunn (Kraglin, Guardians of the Galaxy)
Hannah John-Kamen (Ghost, Ant-Man)
? 21
? 22
Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye, The Avengers)
Paul Rudd (Ant-Man, Ant-Man)
? 23
Zoe Saldana (Gamora, Guardians of the Galaxy)
Angela Bassett (Ramonda, Black Panther)
Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan, Iron Man) - DIRECTOR, IM1
Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Thor)
Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts, Iron Man)
Chris Evans (Captain America, Captain America)
Stan Lee (Tons of Cameos, Every MCU Movie)
Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow, The Avengers)
? 24
Kurt Russell (Ego, Guardians of the Galaxy)
Danai Gurira (Okoye, Black Panther)
William Hurt (Thaddeus Ross, Incredible Hulk)
? 25
Karen Gillan (Nebula, Guardians of the Galaxy)
? 26
Emily VanCamp (Sharon Carter, Captain America)
? 27
= = = FRONT ROW
Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man, Iron Man)
Kevin Feige - MCU's GOD
https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/7w69wn/10_years_in_the_making/dtxtyhb/?st=jdetldo1&sh=74c96248
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on April 28, 2018, 03:20:47 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/7w69wn/10_years_in_the_making/dtxtyhb/?st=jdetldo1&sh=74c96248
Well... my post was a significant waste of effort. ::)
Sorry :(
Even better... through digging around in those pages, ultimately found a link to this:
(https://i.redditmedia.com/eNYedn80lSDZzLBydXB48Cbi1w5DcgRXMnyQRX5anPI.png?s=0e2ad082b6b96e64e9058bfc926d5fb3)
Pic is same size as the original one, so the names are actually readable.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on April 28, 2018, 03:24:14 PM
Sorry :(
Not at all your fault. When I was looking, I may not have looked hard enough (or long enough)... either that, or when I DID look (shortly after the pic came out) no-one had identified everyone yet, so that there may not have been any full listings at that time that I could have found. <shrug>
so, is agents of shield connected any more? ??? since they did the things they did this season, it hasn't seemed like it at all.
There's an infinity war reference in the newest episode.
I need to get caught up with Agents. I'm still way back in last season's LMD storyline.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on April 29, 2018, 02:39:25 PM
There's an infinity war reference in the newest episode.
If you sneeze you'll miss it.
I'm wondering how they work in the aftermath of Infinity War to it.
Theory
it might be why the background characters are getting more air time
Well, much as I avoid spoilers, I've seen a couple images from Avengers: Infinity War.
I have to say, I'm not as impressed as I think I should be by the gauntlet itself:
Spoiler
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/ea251c1bdf8a74015979b3cdfad2a9c0/tumblr_p8dy0gmpl61qewacoo1_500.jpg)
- - - CAUTION: NOT a true spoiler! - - -
Quote from: LucasM on May 09, 2018, 01:29:46 AM
- - - CAUTION: NOT a true spoiler! - - -
well, it
did spoil my breakfast.
The Disney buyout of Fox may not happen after all. Comcast is trying to outbid Disney with more cash. Read more HERE (https://mcuexchange.com/comcast-outbid-disney-fox/).
[Please don't answer if the answer is in Infinity War (though I kinda' doubt its in there).]
From Avengers: Age of Ultron: Is anyone ever going to address that there's (what: a 1/4 TON?) of vibranium embedded deep in the crater under where Sokovia used to be, or spread out on the surface in the area? Clearly, from the internal workings of Ultron's machine, it was highly refined, so I just can't imagine it would simply turn to dust when the airborne city exploded as the rock did. Any explosion large enough to vaporize vibranium likely would have done as much (or more) damage as letting it hit the ground. [Plus any vibranium-augmented Ultron bodies would be large chunks of easily accessible vibranium to anyone interested.]
And, with that so easily available, why was Everett Ross going to pay a huge sum for a piddling little amount from a plow head in Black Panther, when there's a huge amount just lying around if someone just picked it up or dug it up?
So: who's gonna get all that vibranium and all its benefits? I'd generally think that the Wakandans would have collected it all since they regretted it ever getting away in the first place, but that huge a Wakandan workforce (with highly advanced tools) would have been noticed.
https://news.avclub.com/comcast-doesnt-want-wolverine-and-captain-america-to-fi-1826811614
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 13, 2018, 05:39:33 PM
https://news.avclub.com/comcast-doesnt-want-wolverine-and-captain-america-to-fi-1826811614
Just curious, I didn't see any info in there that wasn't in this article:
Quote from: LucasM on May 23, 2018, 05:39:26 PM
The Disney buyout of Fox may not happen after all. Comcast is trying to outbid Disney with more cash. Read more HERE (https://mcuexchange.com/comcast-outbid-disney-fox/).
Did I miss something new (other than the snark at the end of the article)?
Quote from: LucasM on June 14, 2018, 02:53:21 AM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 13, 2018, 05:39:33 PM
https://news.avclub.com/comcast-doesnt-want-wolverine-and-captain-america-to-fi-1826811614
Just curious, I didn't see any info in there that wasn't in this article:
Quote from: LucasM on May 23, 2018, 05:39:26 PM
The Disney buyout of Fox may not happen after all. Comcast is trying to outbid Disney with more cash. Read more HERE (https://mcuexchange.com/comcast-outbid-disney-fox/).
Did I miss something new (other than the snark at the end of the article)?
Yours reports a 'counter offer "in the advanced stages" that some estimated it to be in the range of $60 billion in cash,' the new one says it happened and what it actually was ($65 billion in cash for the whole lot). Seemed like an update to me.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 14, 2018, 03:48:11 AM
Quote from: LucasM on June 14, 2018, 02:53:21 AM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 13, 2018, 05:39:33 PM
https://news.avclub.com/comcast-doesnt-want-wolverine-and-captain-america-to-fi-1826811614
Just curious, I didn't see any info in there that wasn't in this article:
Quote from: LucasM on May 23, 2018, 05:39:26 PM
The Disney buyout of Fox may not happen after all. Comcast is trying to outbid Disney with more cash. Read more HERE (https://mcuexchange.com/comcast-outbid-disney-fox/).
Did I miss something new (other than the snark at the end of the article)?
Yours reports a 'counter offer "in the advanced stages" that some estimated it to be in the range of $60 billion in cash,' the new one says it happened and what it actually was ($65 billion in cash for the whole lot). Seemed like an update to me.
Indeed - sorry. I posted that in the middle of overall confusion (following two weeks of disruption caused by three cracked teeth and leading to the first of likely two root canals).
Here is the 'final say' on the bidding war:
FANTASTIC: Fox Accepts Disney's $71 Billion Bid Offer (https://mcuexchange.com/outmatching-comcast-fox-accepts-71-billion-bid-from-disney/)
Cloak & Dagger isn't completely terrible. I was worried about the characters being in High School, but it still has a Marvel "Netflix" feel to it. Real slow paced at times, but somewhat interesting to see the origin story progress. (I think Runaways was a little better)
Quote from: LucasM on June 20, 2018, 10:06:02 AM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 14, 2018, 03:48:11 AM
Quote from: LucasM on June 14, 2018, 02:53:21 AM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 13, 2018, 05:39:33 PM
https://news.avclub.com/comcast-doesnt-want-wolverine-and-captain-america-to-fi-1826811614
Just curious, I didn't see any info in there that wasn't in this article:
Quote from: LucasM on May 23, 2018, 05:39:26 PM
The Disney buyout of Fox may not happen after all. Comcast is trying to outbid Disney with more cash. Read more HERE (https://mcuexchange.com/comcast-outbid-disney-fox/).
Did I miss something new (other than the snark at the end of the article)?
Yours reports a 'counter offer "in the advanced stages" that some estimated it to be in the range of $60 billion in cash,' the new one says it happened and what it actually was ($65 billion in cash for the whole lot). Seemed like an update to me.
Indeed - sorry. I posted that in the middle of overall confusion (following two weeks of disruption caused by three cracked teeth and leading to the first of likely two root canals).
Here is the 'final say' on the bidding war:
FANTASTIC: Fox Accepts Disney's $71 Billion Bid Offer (https://mcuexchange.com/outmatching-comcast-fox-accepts-71-billion-bid-from-disney/)
And the final note on this whole stressful (well, to some) event:
ASTONISHING: Comcast Concedes to Disney; Backs Out of Fox Deal (https://mcuexchange.com/comcast-disney-backout-fox/)
We will, (eventually), get MCU Fantastic Four and X-Men!
I get why this is bad in a very general sense, but within the context of this thread and topic - it's pretty great news. More for the Fantastic Four than the X-Men though. I am a bit worried about what adding X-Men will do. BUT they've been pretty consistently smart so far, so I remain fairly optimistic.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 19, 2018, 04:59:36 PM
I get why this is bad in a very general sense, but within the context of this thread and topic - it's pretty great news. More for the Fantastic Four than the X-Men though. I am a bit worried about what adding X-Men will do. BUT they've been pretty consistently smart so far, so I remain fairly optimistic.
I agree. In terms of entertainment monopolies, this is INCREDIBLY bad news. In terms of the MCU, it is basically a sigh of "=FINALLY=!"
I agree on the FF > X-Men for potentially different reasons. The FF have never been done correctly on film, while some of the X-Men films are very, very good (e.g. Days of Future Past, Logan, Deadpool). To me, since the MCU (*cough* Buck/Loeb *cough*) fucked up the could-have-been-wonderful Inhumans franchise beyond repair, I think that the mutants could slip into the vacancy made by the vanishing inhumans (species). [Honestly, I hope that Buck never gets to touch anything in the MCU ever again, between Iron Fist season 1 and the Inhumans.]
My understanding of how the MCU films are being done, is that they will be in longer collections of 'Phases' (e.g. the characters making up the Avengers only cover phases 1-4), so the 'super team' that is currently dominant won't be dominant for the next collection (which will, apparently, be more 'space-based' [with odd outlier, Spider-Man, about as terrestrial as they get]), then they could return to terrestrial films with X-Men. I am hoping that the more cosmic FF stories will fit into the second over-arching phase of films (Phases 5-8 or 5-9), so we wouldn't have to wait another decade to get them. But since Kevin Feige has had VERY long term plans for the MCU for a very long time, it is also possible there won't be any available entries for these properties for quite a few years, regardless. [After the already-in-production non-MCU X-Men films finish, that is.]
Although, with the FOX Studios assets (movie production), it is possible that the MCU could potentially ramp up film production (I am hoping) and add an additional two (or more) films a year where the X-Men-related films used to fall. That way, they could make either FF and X-Men films in parallel with already-planned Feige MCU plans (best option, I think), or else speed up the production of the long-term Feige plans so that they are done and space made for other franchises, sooner.
I'm excited for a well done Fantastic Four movie, but I'm really interested in them finally doing Doctor Doom properly.
I just like that we don't have to settle for Inhumans as the MCU's mutants. And classic pairings that just happened to mix mutants and other superheroes can finally be established. Storm and Black Panther, Deadpool and Hydra Bob, The Great Lakes Avengers can be a thing now... Ooh they can actually pull off House of M.
Quote from: LucasM on July 19, 2018, 05:19:17 PM
Although, with the FOX Studios assets (movie production), it is possible that the MCU could potentially ramp up film production (I am hoping) and add an additional two (or more) films a year where the X-Men-related films used to fall. That way, they could make either FF and X-Men films in parallel with already-planned Feige MCU plans (best option, I think), or else speed up the production of the long-term Feige plans so that they are done and space made for other franchises, sooner.
Long after writing this, I had a thought. I don't think this idea was the intention (as the 20th C FOX purchase was nowhere near likely at the time it would have been scheduled). But this year's Panther, Infinity War, A-M & Wasp films showed up in theaters roughly two months apart. With the FOX studios film-making capacity now at Disney's command, possibly Disney/Marvel will look at the "easily met or greatly exceeded box office predictions" for all three films, and decide that the 'superhero burnout' that everyone who isn't a fan has been predicting since the X-Men first hit, is bullshit, and that the market can - and WILL - welcome as much
GOOD product as they can crank out...
... and with the assets of FOX Studios increasing the number of films they can produce, they'll give us a new MCU entry every-other month.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: k1 on July 07, 2018, 09:26:01 AM
Cloak & Dagger isn't completely terrible. I was worried about the characters being in High School, but it still has a Marvel "Netflix" feel to it. Real slow paced at times, but somewhat interesting to see the origin story progress. (I think Runaways was a little better)
I agree on Cloak & Dagger being watchable. I find it to be roughly of the same caliber as Agents of SHIELD, but with more 'personal' stories for the time being (don't know where they'll go after the father/brother stories finish - if they do). That means I'll continue watching as long as they want to keep making them of at least this quality. Kinda' true of most Marvel product, it seems, as with most of them (with the exception of Inhumans), they've managed to make most of them interesting and involved enough - without feeling contrived - to keep my interest up.
QuoteBREAKING: James Gunn No Longer Directing 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' (https://mcuexchange.com/james-gunn-departs-gotg-vol-3/)
In what might be the biggest blow to the MCU yet, James Gunn has been removed as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. This decision comes right a controversy surrounding deleted tweets by the director that jokingly and disgustingly touched on pedophilia and rape. Gunn has since deleted his account. Walt Disney chairman Alan Horn had this to say on the firing of Gunn:
QuoteThe offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James' Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio's values, and we have severed our business relationship with him.
The entirety of the Guardians franchise was solely Gunn's vision. Guardians was the only MCU franchise whose DNA and essence were distilled purely from Gunn's own voice. Now out of the picture, there's no telling where the third film will end up or if the film will continue production on schedule. We have yet to hear from Gunn's immediate superiors at Marvel Studios so stay tuned here.
Unfortunately, unless he was already scheduled for a solo film of his own, this does not bode well for Adam Warlock's presence in the MCU.
Just to be clear: I think that joking about pedophilia and rape is unacceptable, particularly on social media. So I don't fault Disney's zero tolerance, especially given the image they've cultivated for about 80-90 years now.
Quote from: LucasM on July 20, 2018, 02:30:58 PM
QuoteBREAKING: James Gunn No Longer Directing 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' (https://mcuexchange.com/james-gunn-departs-gotg-vol-3/)
In what might be the biggest blow to the MCU yet, James Gunn has been removed as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. This decision comes right a controversy surrounding deleted tweets by the director that jokingly and disgustingly touched on pedophilia and rape. Gunn has since deleted his account. Walt Disney chairman Alan Horn had this to say on the firing of Gunn:
QuoteThe offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James' Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio's values, and we have severed our business relationship with him.
The entirety of the Guardians franchise was solely Gunn's vision. Guardians was the only MCU franchise whose DNA and essence were distilled purely from Gunn's own voice. Now out of the picture, there's no telling where the third film will end up or if the film will continue production on schedule. We have yet to hear from Gunn's immediate superiors at Marvel Studios so stay tuned here.
Unfortunately, unless he was already scheduled for a solo film of his own, this does not bode well for Adam Warlock's presence in the MCU.
Just to be clear: I think that joking about pedophilia and rape is unacceptable, particularly on social media. So I don't fault Disney's zero tolerance, especially given the image they've cultivated for about 80-90 years now.
Yeah, but he also apologized for those comments 6 years ago.
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 02:50:41 PM
Quote from: LucasM on July 20, 2018, 02:30:58 PM
QuoteBREAKING: James Gunn No Longer Directing 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' (https://mcuexchange.com/james-gunn-departs-gotg-vol-3/)
In what might be the biggest blow to the MCU yet, James Gunn has been removed as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. This decision comes right a controversy surrounding deleted tweets by the director that jokingly and disgustingly touched on pedophilia and rape. Gunn has since deleted his account. Walt Disney chairman Alan Horn had this to say on the firing of Gunn:
QuoteThe offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James' Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio's values, and we have severed our business relationship with him.
The entirety of the Guardians franchise was solely Gunn's vision. Guardians was the only MCU franchise whose DNA and essence were distilled purely from Gunn's own voice. Now out of the picture, there's no telling where the third film will end up or if the film will continue production on schedule. We have yet to hear from Gunn's immediate superiors at Marvel Studios so stay tuned here.
Unfortunately, unless he was already scheduled for a solo film of his own, this does not bode well for Adam Warlock's presence in the MCU.
Just to be clear: I think that joking about pedophilia and rape is unacceptable, particularly on social media. So I don't fault Disney's zero tolerance, especially given the image they've cultivated for about 80-90 years now.
Yeah, but he also apologized for those comments 6 years ago.
He left them up, so if he DID apologise for them (and I've not seen anyone reporting that he has) then he's pretty dumb.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2018, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 02:50:41 PM
Quote from: LucasM on July 20, 2018, 02:30:58 PM
QuoteBREAKING: James Gunn No Longer Directing 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' (https://mcuexchange.com/james-gunn-departs-gotg-vol-3/)
In what might be the biggest blow to the MCU yet, James Gunn has been removed as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. This decision comes right a controversy surrounding deleted tweets by the director that jokingly and disgustingly touched on pedophilia and rape. Gunn has since deleted his account. Walt Disney chairman Alan Horn had this to say on the firing of Gunn:
QuoteThe offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James' Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio's values, and we have severed our business relationship with him.
The entirety of the Guardians franchise was solely Gunn's vision. Guardians was the only MCU franchise whose DNA and essence were distilled purely from Gunn's own voice. Now out of the picture, there's no telling where the third film will end up or if the film will continue production on schedule. We have yet to hear from Gunn's immediate superiors at Marvel Studios so stay tuned here.
Unfortunately, unless he was already scheduled for a solo film of his own, this does not bode well for Adam Warlock's presence in the MCU.
Just to be clear: I think that joking about pedophilia and rape is unacceptable, particularly on social media. So I don't fault Disney's zero tolerance, especially given the image they've cultivated for about 80-90 years now.
Yeah, but he also apologized for those comments 6 years ago.
He left them up, so if he DID apologise for them (and I've not seen anyone reporting that he has) then he's pretty dumb.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796 (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796)
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 06:20:01 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2018, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 02:50:41 PM
Quote from: LucasM on July 20, 2018, 02:30:58 PM
QuoteBREAKING: James Gunn No Longer Directing 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' (https://mcuexchange.com/james-gunn-departs-gotg-vol-3/)
In what might be the biggest blow to the MCU yet, James Gunn has been removed as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. This decision comes right a controversy surrounding deleted tweets by the director that jokingly and disgustingly touched on pedophilia and rape. Gunn has since deleted his account. Walt Disney chairman Alan Horn had this to say on the firing of Gunn:
QuoteThe offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James' Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio's values, and we have severed our business relationship with him.
The entirety of the Guardians franchise was solely Gunn's vision. Guardians was the only MCU franchise whose DNA and essence were distilled purely from Gunn's own voice. Now out of the picture, there's no telling where the third film will end up or if the film will continue production on schedule. We have yet to hear from Gunn's immediate superiors at Marvel Studios so stay tuned here.
Unfortunately, unless he was already scheduled for a solo film of his own, this does not bode well for Adam Warlock's presence in the MCU.
Just to be clear: I think that joking about pedophilia and rape is unacceptable, particularly on social media. So I don't fault Disney's zero tolerance, especially given the image they've cultivated for about 80-90 years now.
Yeah, but he also apologized for those comments 6 years ago.
He left them up, so if he DID apologise for them (and I've not seen anyone reporting that he has) then he's pretty dumb.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796 (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796)
That doesn't cover all of the pedophile and rape jokes. And these blog posts WERE taken down. I don't think you know what this news story is about?
Check the comments here for screenshots:
https://news.avclub.com/james-gunn-fired-from-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-o-1827757055
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2018, 06:39:49 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 06:20:01 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2018, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 02:50:41 PM
Quote from: LucasM on July 20, 2018, 02:30:58 PM
QuoteBREAKING: James Gunn No Longer Directing 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' (https://mcuexchange.com/james-gunn-departs-gotg-vol-3/)
In what might be the biggest blow to the MCU yet, James Gunn has been removed as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. This decision comes right a controversy surrounding deleted tweets by the director that jokingly and disgustingly touched on pedophilia and rape. Gunn has since deleted his account. Walt Disney chairman Alan Horn had this to say on the firing of Gunn:
QuoteThe offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James' Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio's values, and we have severed our business relationship with him.
The entirety of the Guardians franchise was solely Gunn's vision. Guardians was the only MCU franchise whose DNA and essence were distilled purely from Gunn's own voice. Now out of the picture, there's no telling where the third film will end up or if the film will continue production on schedule. We have yet to hear from Gunn's immediate superiors at Marvel Studios so stay tuned here.
Unfortunately, unless he was already scheduled for a solo film of his own, this does not bode well for Adam Warlock's presence in the MCU.
Just to be clear: I think that joking about pedophilia and rape is unacceptable, particularly on social media. So I don't fault Disney's zero tolerance, especially given the image they've cultivated for about 80-90 years now.
Yeah, but he also apologized for those comments 6 years ago.
He left them up, so if he DID apologise for them (and I've not seen anyone reporting that he has) then he's pretty dumb.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796 (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796)
That doesn't cover all of the pedophile and rape jokes. And these blog posts WERE taken down. I don't think you know what this news story is about?
Check the comments here for screenshots:
https://news.avclub.com/james-gunn-fired-from-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-o-1827757055
And in the link you provided there's an update and a continued apology.
EDIT: Please note, the two posts above this were made while I was writing this.
Well, some new depth to the story on James Gunn. It is a whole lot grayer than it initially seemed (though I am unlikely to think of most things as black and white, had he actually done the things he joked about instead of or in addition to joking about them, those would've been clear 'black and white's).
These are from this article: Processing The Firing of James Gunn From Marvel Studios (https://mcuexchange.com/processing-james-gunn-firing/). There are 'endcap' paragraphs on that page that relate to the MCU proper and how it may/may not change from this. I spoilered it just because it is a bit long.
Spoiler
QuoteGunn's departure is a result of comments he made on Twitter nearly a decade ago being circulated by users who disagreed with his political stance. It's important to note that Gunn initially made a name for himself by being offensive. He explains this in his response to the controversy, but also mentions that he's since grown as a person:
QuoteMany people who have followed my career know when I started, I viewed myself as a provocateur, making movies and telling jokes that were outrageous and taboo. As I have discussed publicly many times, as I've developed as a person, so has my work and my humor.
While Disney certainly has every right to fire him, the situation is made even worse when we take into account the circumstances surrounding his termination. Gunn's offensive tweets resurfaced because of political arguments he'd had and an agenda to discredit him. Admittedly, his opponents didn't have to work very hard to find this publicly damning information. Especially because Gunn has publicly apologized for it before. But it's still coming from politically motivated individuals rather than a place of sincerity.
There is a place for edgy and dark humor, but there are also times when it crosses a line. These jokes cross that line and it doesn't help that they're not funny. It's essentially just shock humor with many jokes centered around pedophilia and rape. This humor may work well in a closed group of friends, but Gunn made the unfortunate decision to share them with the world. A lot of the jokes are also centered around him, which makes it look even worse. Although it needs to be said that there haven't been any allegations claiming Gunn has physically or emotionally wronged anyone.
However, it's undeniable that his comments/jokes are pretty vile and he shouldn't have made them. But it's pretty clear that he was a different person a decade ago and has since grown and matured along with his style of humor. Throughout his Marvel career, Gunn has cultivated an honest back and forth with his fans and his responses felt genuine and from the heart. On his Twitter prior to the firing, Gunn further explained the situation:
QuoteIt's not to say I'm better, but I am very, very different than I was a few years ago; today I try to root my work in love and connection and less in anger. My days saying something just because it's shocking and trying to get a reaction are over. In the past, I have apologized for humor of mine that hurt people. I truly felt sorry and meant every word of my apologies.
All of this puts Disney and Marvel in a very awkward position. As previously mentioned, Gunn has been crucial to the development of the cosmic side of the MCU and been a great proponent of the genre. But there's no way that Disney would continue to stand next to a man who publicly joked about having sex with children. It's pretty clear that these were just jokes, but for perhaps the most family-friendly brand on the planet it doesn't matter.
And you may think that Disney is being hypocritical here. And you'd be kinda right. I'm sure they have connections to people who have said/done far worse things. Robert Downy Jr. has a pretty dark history and wasn't always a family-friendly character. But RDJ isn't in the news today joking about rape. You'd be correct that Disney is only severing ties with Gunn because people are upset about what he said. But is that really surprising?
A big topic of discussion lately has been what should the consequences be for stupid comments on social media? In an ideal world, every punishment would adequately match the severity of the crime. But we don't live in that world. Disney's decision to part ways with Gunn is perfectly in line with their history and corporate goals. And while it may be unfair to Gunn, who has made an effort to and succeeded in becoming a better person, it's ultimately Disney's decision to make. And as unfortunate as it is, there's no reason for them to continue to stand next to someone who relied so heavily upon edgy shock humor.
Next paragraph is somewhat political in nature, so some may wish to avoid it.
This statement from the article, in particular, bothered me: "Gunn's offensive tweets resurfaced because of political arguments he'd had and an agenda to discredit him." It bothered me because it means that Disney 'rewarded' political trolls who are - to my view at any rate - FAR more dangerous and damaging than Gunn's original comments, however offensive they may have been. The 'personal smear campaigns' of - in particular - the (G!)OPpressive party here in the US, is incredibly dangerous for freedom as a whole. If people are afraid to speak - at ANY time in their lives - and even say stupid things, then freedom itself will be very hard to sustain. No-one goes through life without having carried a stupid opinion, or making a stupid sick or offensive joke, or whatever, at one time or another. Those in power ALWAYS have more resources to destroy lives than individual people who rise up and call them on their bullshit do. If people are afraid of that power, then we've already lost any liberties we may have had at one point.
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 06:45:28 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2018, 06:39:49 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 06:20:01 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2018, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 02:50:41 PM
Quote from: LucasM on July 20, 2018, 02:30:58 PM
QuoteBREAKING: James Gunn No Longer Directing 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' (https://mcuexchange.com/james-gunn-departs-gotg-vol-3/)
In what might be the biggest blow to the MCU yet, James Gunn has been removed as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. This decision comes right a controversy surrounding deleted tweets by the director that jokingly and disgustingly touched on pedophilia and rape. Gunn has since deleted his account. Walt Disney chairman Alan Horn had this to say on the firing of Gunn:
QuoteThe offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James' Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio's values, and we have severed our business relationship with him.
The entirety of the Guardians franchise was solely Gunn's vision. Guardians was the only MCU franchise whose DNA and essence were distilled purely from Gunn's own voice. Now out of the picture, there's no telling where the third film will end up or if the film will continue production on schedule. We have yet to hear from Gunn's immediate superiors at Marvel Studios so stay tuned here.
Unfortunately, unless he was already scheduled for a solo film of his own, this does not bode well for Adam Warlock's presence in the MCU.
Just to be clear: I think that joking about pedophilia and rape is unacceptable, particularly on social media. So I don't fault Disney's zero tolerance, especially given the image they've cultivated for about 80-90 years now.
Yeah, but he also apologized for those comments 6 years ago.
He left them up, so if he DID apologise for them (and I've not seen anyone reporting that he has) then he's pretty dumb.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796 (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796)
That doesn't cover all of the pedophile and rape jokes. And these blog posts WERE taken down. I don't think you know what this news story is about?
Check the comments here for screenshots:
https://news.avclub.com/james-gunn-fired-from-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-o-1827757055
And in the link you provided there's an update and a continued apology.
I'm aware he has since apologised, he didn't apologise six years ago, which seems to be what you were saying?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2018, 07:06:13 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 06:45:28 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2018, 06:39:49 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 06:20:01 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2018, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 02:50:41 PM
Quote from: LucasM on July 20, 2018, 02:30:58 PM
QuoteBREAKING: James Gunn No Longer Directing 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' (https://mcuexchange.com/james-gunn-departs-gotg-vol-3/)
In what might be the biggest blow to the MCU yet, James Gunn has been removed as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. This decision comes right a controversy surrounding deleted tweets by the director that jokingly and disgustingly touched on pedophilia and rape. Gunn has since deleted his account. Walt Disney chairman Alan Horn had this to say on the firing of Gunn:
QuoteThe offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James' Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio's values, and we have severed our business relationship with him.
The entirety of the Guardians franchise was solely Gunn's vision. Guardians was the only MCU franchise whose DNA and essence were distilled purely from Gunn's own voice. Now out of the picture, there's no telling where the third film will end up or if the film will continue production on schedule. We have yet to hear from Gunn's immediate superiors at Marvel Studios so stay tuned here.
Unfortunately, unless he was already scheduled for a solo film of his own, this does not bode well for Adam Warlock's presence in the MCU.
Just to be clear: I think that joking about pedophilia and rape is unacceptable, particularly on social media. So I don't fault Disney's zero tolerance, especially given the image they've cultivated for about 80-90 years now.
Yeah, but he also apologized for those comments 6 years ago.
He left them up, so if he DID apologise for them (and I've not seen anyone reporting that he has) then he's pretty dumb.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796 (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796)
That doesn't cover all of the pedophile and rape jokes. And these blog posts WERE taken down. I don't think you know what this news story is about?
Check the comments here for screenshots:
https://news.avclub.com/james-gunn-fired-from-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-o-1827757055
And in the link you provided there's an update and a continued apology.
I'm aware he has since apologised, he didn't apologise six years ago, which seems to be what you were saying?
Did you check the date on article I linked to you, because it seems like he did apologize back then?
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 07:11:32 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2018, 07:06:13 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 06:45:28 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2018, 06:39:49 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 06:20:01 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2018, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 20, 2018, 02:50:41 PM
Quote from: LucasM on July 20, 2018, 02:30:58 PM
QuoteBREAKING: James Gunn No Longer Directing 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' (https://mcuexchange.com/james-gunn-departs-gotg-vol-3/)
In what might be the biggest blow to the MCU yet, James Gunn has been removed as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. This decision comes right a controversy surrounding deleted tweets by the director that jokingly and disgustingly touched on pedophilia and rape. Gunn has since deleted his account. Walt Disney chairman Alan Horn had this to say on the firing of Gunn:
QuoteThe offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James' Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio's values, and we have severed our business relationship with him.
The entirety of the Guardians franchise was solely Gunn's vision. Guardians was the only MCU franchise whose DNA and essence were distilled purely from Gunn's own voice. Now out of the picture, there's no telling where the third film will end up or if the film will continue production on schedule. We have yet to hear from Gunn's immediate superiors at Marvel Studios so stay tuned here.
Unfortunately, unless he was already scheduled for a solo film of his own, this does not bode well for Adam Warlock's presence in the MCU.
Just to be clear: I think that joking about pedophilia and rape is unacceptable, particularly on social media. So I don't fault Disney's zero tolerance, especially given the image they've cultivated for about 80-90 years now.
Yeah, but he also apologized for those comments 6 years ago.
He left them up, so if he DID apologise for them (and I've not seen anyone reporting that he has) then he's pretty dumb.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796 (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796)
That doesn't cover all of the pedophile and rape jokes. And these blog posts WERE taken down. I don't think you know what this news story is about?
Check the comments here for screenshots:
https://news.avclub.com/james-gunn-fired-from-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-o-1827757055
And in the link you provided there's an update and a continued apology.
I'm aware he has since apologised, he didn't apologise six years ago, which seems to be what you were saying?
Did you check the date on article I linked to you, because it seems like he did apologize back then?
Just did, don't see anything?
I'm on my phone and maybe missing it - in this article? https://mcuexchange.com/processing-james-gunn-firing/
OK, if there's an apology from him from six years ago for these pedophile and rape jokes, someone please paste it rather than just saying it's in a link, because I can't see it.
I see a link to him apologising for some other shitty things he posted about LGBTQ people, which he also deleted. I see him addressing it very poorly before being fired, and then finally issuing a decent apology too late.
I see nothing of him addressing these 'jokes' that got him fired years ago though?
Further, he didn't get rid of these shitty things if he DID apologise for them. Which at best is stupid.
I really like the two GotG movies, and I really hate the guy that dug these up (who has said and done things in as awful), but Disney did the only logical thing here, and I find it pretty hard to feel sorry for Gunn.
I dunno. It's not like he was working for Disney when he made the bad jokes. Looking at the timeline of his career vs. his tweets, he was in the middle of producing something called "James Gunn's PG Porn." He was clearly cultivating a very different image at the time. He broke free, he's been OK since. Disney must have known SOMETHING about his past when they signed him on for Guardians.
I suspect that, as long as his old quotes remained buried, Disney was fine with him. But when the people trying to wreck his career for the criminal act of disagreeing with their political position brought them to the attention of the media at large, Disney couldn't allow him to remain employed with them, given how it could potentially damage their brand. [Seriously: Disney could not continue to employ someone where it was well known that he'd made jokes about having sex with children. When only a few people knew, no big deal.]
I do agree that he should have deleted them. However, how many of us remember everything we've written and/or have the time to search out and delete things we might - nearly ten years later - regret?
Dunno, but how many of us work for Disney and have a high profile social media account? He should have just had an intern scrub his account. His past isn't a surprise to him.
Didn't get back to that comment, EJG III, but I hadn't thought of an intern doing it. You're right: when he started to get a massive upsurge of followers, his social media accounts should have been scrubbed. I think I just presumed he figured, "Disney already vetted me, there's nothing they have a problem with in my history," and did nothing himself. He may have forgotten the exact comments he'd made, even though he knew there were some that were deliberately extremely provocative because of what he was promoting at the time.
Unrelated to the above:
I thought the following was already accomplished (apparently since the same writer, of a previous article I'd read and quoted here had also), but apparently it was just assumed to be the case before.:
QuoteUNCANNY: Fox Shareholders Vote "Yes" on Disney Deal (https://mcuexchange.com/fox-shareholders-approve-disney/)
Disney finally stands triumphant as Fox and Disney shareholders have voted 'yes' on Disney's bid for 21st Century Fox assets. Now, while the deal is done, the merger isn't. I was actually mistaken in my reading of the situation in my last article about this, as they'll still need regulation approval globally, which I neglected to take into account or mention.
There's apparently a slight possibility that some other country could derail the purchase still. [But, honestly, if the world can somehow approve the toxic merger of Monsanto into Bayer, I can't imagine Disney being an issue.]
Pretty much mirrors my thoughts (though I think he's
very wrong about the chances of Gunn coming back and Disney spinning it into a positive):
Hopefully more people will see past the politics (and through the hypocrisy) of the siuation and reach a more principled position.
I heard this story in passing, but couldn't figure out what James Gunn played in the movies. So then when it turned out he was the director, I didn't care as much.
I wonder why anybody has a Twitter account. It seems like it's all downside and no upside. Does any good ever come of Twitter? I personally think it's the worst invention of the past 10 years.
Quote from: Retro Muppet Pastor on July 29, 2018, 06:04:19 AM
I heard this story in passing, but couldn't figure out what James Gunn played in the movies. So then when it turned out he was the director, I didn't care as much.
I wonder why anybody has a Twitter account. It seems like it's all downside and no upside. Does any good ever come of Twitter? I personally think it's the worst invention of the past 10 years.
He did have a large amount of control over the Guardians films, though. I'll miss his behind the scenes posts and insight. Twitter is alright for keeping in touch, but you also can have a bit of anonymity if you want. Granted the moderation is rather crap.
Quote from: The Lurker on July 29, 2018, 06:40:24 AM
Quote from: Retro Muppet Pastor on July 29, 2018, 06:04:19 AM
I heard this story in passing, but couldn't figure out what James Gunn played in the movies. So then when it turned out he was the director, I didn't care as much.
I wonder why anybody has a Twitter account. It seems like it's all downside and no upside. Does any good ever come of Twitter? I personally think it's the worst invention of the past 10 years.
He did have a large amount of control over the Guardians films, though. I'll miss his behind the scenes posts and insight. Twitter is alright for keeping in touch, but you also can have a bit of anonymity if you want. Granted the moderation is rather crap.
The 280 character limit bothers me the most. By encouraging brevity, it takes pains to discourage insightful thought. Complex thought is out in favor of pursuing popularity through retweets and racking up followers. I've always hated Twitter, but I've been especially hateful of it ever since I learned about the Justine Sacco incident and all the "good" people who went took pains to ruin her life for the sake of popularity.
Anyway, I guess I'm getting off topic.
Quote from: Retro Muppet Pastor on July 29, 2018, 07:36:30 AM
Quote from: The Lurker on July 29, 2018, 06:40:24 AM
Quote from: Retro Muppet Pastor on July 29, 2018, 06:04:19 AM
I heard this story in passing, but couldn't figure out what James Gunn played in the movies. So then when it turned out he was the director, I didn't care as much.
I wonder why anybody has a Twitter account. It seems like it's all downside and no upside. Does any good ever come of Twitter? I personally think it's the worst invention of the past 10 years.
He did have a large amount of control over the Guardians films, though. I'll miss his behind the scenes posts and insight. Twitter is alright for keeping in touch, but you also can have a bit of anonymity if you want. Granted the moderation is rather crap.
The 280 character limit bothers me the most. By encouraging brevity, it takes pains to discourage insightful thought. Complex thought is out in favor of pursuing popularity through retweets and racking up followers. I've always hated Twitter, but I've been especially hateful of it ever since I learned about the Justine Sacco incident and all the "good" people who went took pains to ruin her life for the sake of popularity.
Anyway, I guess I'm getting off topic.
You can just follow the people whose work you enjoy and they will tweet jokes, art, etc all day for free.
Quote from: LucasM on August 13, 2018, 03:34:11 AM
While off Earth, Thor became the same narcissistic, opportunistic, selfish ass he was at the start of the first Thor film. He used - and lied to - both Hulk and Banner to get his own way, and planned to use Banner/Hulk as a powerful weapon in his fight with Hera, regardless of the potential damage it could have caused (Banner thinking he might never be able to change back). He was a manipulative asshole with no concern for anything but his own wants. He basically became Loki.
To be fair, his wants were to save the entire universe from being enslaved by his sister. Not to mention saving his people from her.
And he was also dealing with his father's death and a terrible side of him he only just learned about.
Information from HERE (https://mcuexchange.com/runaways-season-2-premiere-all-episodes/) added to my continually-updated release list (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019):
Runaways season 2 . . . . December 21, 2018 [full season drops at once!]
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode s06e01 . . . . July ?, 2019 [sometime in the month]
Quote from: LucasM on August 13, 2018, 07:04:50 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on August 13, 2018, 05:01:38 PM
Quote from: LucasM on August 13, 2018, 03:34:11 AM
While off Earth, Thor became the same narcissistic, opportunistic, selfish ass he was at the start of the first Thor film. He used - and lied to - both Hulk and Banner to get his own way, and planned to use Banner/Hulk as a powerful weapon in his fight with Hera, regardless of the potential damage it could have caused (Banner thinking he might never be able to change back). He was a manipulative asshole with no concern for anything but his own wants. He basically became Loki.
To be fair, his wants were to save the entire universe from being enslaved by his sister. Not to mention saving his people from her.
And he was also dealing with his father's death and a terrible side of him he only just learned about.
And yet, he couldn't be honest with Banner/Hulk - someone he counts among his few friends - to accomplish that? Someone who already showed his willingness to potentially fight and sacrifice his life to help others at Thor's side in the first two Avenger films? If Thor honestly discussed how horrific Hera's rule of the nine realms would be, and how imminent it would be if not stopped, Banner would be - as he ultimately was on his own - on board regardless of the possible effects to his consciousness potentially being submerged. The manipulation was UGLY on Thor's part.
Also, for me to believe that ANY of what you said was a component of the character in the film, none of Thor's manipulation of Banner/Hulk should have been played for laughs, which ALL of it was. If it had been played with Thor clearly appearing desperate, it would be different. But it was played as funny. The result, as a viewer, was the opposite: I grew to hate Thor in that film.
Despite not caring for it, I've seen Thor: Ragnarok about five times (each time it gets more aversive). There was no indicator in the film that any of what you've written here was intended by the filmmakers to be the explanation for what happened. This is YOUR rationalization of the film to make it palatable. I have no problem with that. But to have it be an actual part of the film, there had to be something in the film itself that said any of this. Thor spent more time mourning Mjolnir in the film than he did saying anything about what his father did prior to Thor's birth. That tells me his emotional priorities.
Banner refused to help, it took Thor manipulating him for it to happen. Also, Hulk is not extremely open to negotiation.
On the other hand, it was funny and fun.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on August 13, 2018, 08:41:12 PM
On the other hand, it was funny and fun.
Yes, apparently to a lot of people it was. I didn't happen to be one of them, and I figured I'd explain why. Not that I think people hang on my every word or something - just felt like expressing my reservations about it.
In retrospect, I should have followed my own rule: "when I am past my limits: don't post anything anywhere". Because ultimately I may have shit on someone else's enjoyment of the film, and I regret that.
EDIT: So I just did the only thing I felt reasonable in those circumstances: I deleted my posts, and I apologize to anyone whose enjoyment was affected by my extended vivisection of the film.
I certainly don't have a problem with you not liking it, I just disagree that his actions didn't make sense. I think his choices may not have been verbalized by the character, but for the reasons I said, I think they were logical.
While I don't agree with all of LucasM's criticisms, I would at least be understanding of them if any of the things in the movie mattered. But they don't, because the movie refuses to take itself seriously AT ALL. Which is my personal biggest criticism of them movie, since a lot of things that happen in it should matter.
ODIN DIES! Seriously, literally the most powerful being in the Marvel Cinematic Universe dies, and the effect looks like a Twilight vampire farted. They only give Thor and Loki a moment to have an emotion before they are back to cracking jokes. There should be galactic ramifications to this, but nope we're on to the next silly scene.
Ragnarok ACTUALLY HAPPENS! The Norse equivalent of Armageddon happens right in front of the characters' eyes and the movie still cracks jokes. The Asgardians lose many of their loved ones, their homes, their heritage, their entire world, and the movie refuses to take it seriously.
The Hulk KILLS PEOPLE! And enjoys it! And the movie shows this to be a fun game. There are no character ramifications for Hulk willingly being a killer. We're still supposed to like him and hope Banner can change back.
So while I did enjoy this film, I don't take the events in it at all seriously because the movie clearly doesn't. It's a comedy first and foremost.
Darth, I think you've hit on it: Thor:Ragnarok was an issue of 'Not Brand Echh'!! But that comic series had no effect on comic continuity for any characters participating, unfortunately this did.
And I think that my criticisms were partly from the standpoint of taking the film as having happened, because it is part of MCU continuity. And (probably because of my background) I couldn't get past the personality issues depicted, which led to my disliking Thor himself in the film, to even reach the level of analysis you put into it for the bigger picture. Of those you mentioned, to me the Hulk "killing for fun" without even a mention that that is wrong stands out as the most egregious. [Because of the way it was designed, I suspect they were tying it to ancient Colusseum 'sports', but the Hulk isn't in ancient Rome, so you are right: he shouldn't get a pass on his behavior.] Most MCU 'heroes' are killers (Iron Man leads the pack, I think, but just barely over Cap (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962088#msg962088) - I think the only one who has never killed is Spider-Man [in the MCU version at least, he didn't give it a second thought it in the 'Amazing' films]). But none have ever done it for sport before and shown the sociopathic glee in doing it that you point out for Hulk in Ragnarok.
QuoteFox Will Be Ready to Close Disney Deal Jan. 1, Says Peter Rice (https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/disney-fox-deal-will-be-ready-to-close-jan-1-says-peter-rice-exclusive-1202976061/)
Fox will be logistically ready for its pending mega-deal with the Walt Disney Co. to close Jan. 1, top exec Peter Rice told employees Wednesday. According to sources present at a town hall meeting on the Fox lot in Los Angeles, Rice reiterated that the deal is still on track to close sometime in the first half of 2019, either in the first or second quarter. But he said that structure of New Fox — down to elements such as human resources and payroll — will be ready to go by Jan. 1. Regulatory processes will likely drag the ultimate closure beyond that date.
Argh - Netflix just cancelled Luke Cage. Iron Fist went earlier in the week, but that wasn't surprising. This is!
Maybe they are going to relaunch them as Heroes for Hire?
Unfortunately, it may be due to the de-coupling of Marvel and Netflix. That said, while I have my doubts, maybe it'll be back on the new Disney streaming service.
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on October 20, 2018, 12:46:11 PM
Unfortunately, it may be due to the de-coupling of Marvel and Netflix. That said, while I have my doubts, maybe it'll be back on the new Disney streaming service.
They previously announced the new streaming service wasn't going to impact on the Netflix shows. Also, reportedly the Luke Cage axing came from Netflix's end, not Disney.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 20, 2018, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on October 20, 2018, 12:46:11 PM
Unfortunately, it may be due to the de-coupling of Marvel and Netflix. That said, while I have my doubts, maybe it'll be back on the new Disney streaming service.
They previously announced the new streaming service wasn't going to impact on the Netflix shows. Also, reportedly the Luke Cage axing came from Netflix's end, not Disney.
That's unfortunate. Well, possibly Disney will feel there's enough value to it to continue it (or a 'Heroes for Hire' show, as you said in the earlier post), even if Netflix didn't think it was profitable enough for them to continue.
Quote from: LucasM on October 20, 2018, 06:55:33 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 20, 2018, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on October 20, 2018, 12:46:11 PM
Unfortunately, it may be due to the de-coupling of Marvel and Netflix. That said, while I have my doubts, maybe it'll be back on the new Disney streaming service.
They previously announced the new streaming service wasn't going to impact on the Netflix shows. Also, reportedly the Luke Cage axing came from Netflix's end, not Disney.
That's unfortunate. Well, possibly Disney will feel there's enough value to it to continue it (or a 'Heroes for Hire' show, as you said in the earlier post), even if Netflix didn't think it was profitable enough for them to continue.
From what I've been reading it was "creative differences" that killed the show, I guess Netflix didn't like the ideas and scripts that were written for season 3 and no one could come up with a compromise.
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on October 20, 2018, 07:35:26 PM
Quote from: LucasM on October 20, 2018, 06:55:33 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 20, 2018, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on October 20, 2018, 12:46:11 PM
Unfortunately, it may be due to the de-coupling of Marvel and Netflix. That said, while I have my doubts, maybe it'll be back on the new Disney streaming service.
They previously announced the new streaming service wasn't going to impact on the Netflix shows. Also, reportedly the Luke Cage axing came from Netflix's end, not Disney.
That's unfortunate. Well, possibly Disney will feel there's enough value to it to continue it (or a 'Heroes for Hire' show, as you said in the earlier post), even if Netflix didn't think it was profitable enough for them to continue.
From what I've been reading it was "creative differences" that killed the show, I guess Netflix didn't like the ideas and scripts that were written for season 3 and no one could come up with a compromise.
That's a shame if it's the case. Usually you just get a new showrunner in that kind of situation though? Netflix are pretty notoriously 'the numbers say this, so this is how you need to structure your show' though.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 21, 2018, 03:18:56 AM
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on October 20, 2018, 07:35:26 PM
Quote from: LucasM on October 20, 2018, 06:55:33 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 20, 2018, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on October 20, 2018, 12:46:11 PM
Unfortunately, it may be due to the de-coupling of Marvel and Netflix. That said, while I have my doubts, maybe it'll be back on the new Disney streaming service.
They previously announced the new streaming service wasn't going to impact on the Netflix shows. Also, reportedly the Luke Cage axing came from Netflix's end, not Disney.
That's unfortunate. Well, possibly Disney will feel there's enough value to it to continue it (or a 'Heroes for Hire' show, as you said in the earlier post), even if Netflix didn't think it was profitable enough for them to continue.
From what I've been reading it was "creative differences" that killed the show, I guess Netflix didn't like the ideas and scripts that were written for season 3 and no one could come up with a compromise.
That's a shame if it's the case. Usually you just get a new showrunner in that kind of situation though? Netflix are pretty notoriously 'the numbers say this, so this is how you need to structure your show' though.
Now I'm reading that the creative differences were between Disney and Marvel, that would make more sense, if those 2 were at a deadlock Netflix would be wasting money trying to keep going no matter what the view numbers were.
You know what I'd LOVE in Avengers 4? Yes, I know it's not going to happen(probably not anytime soon anyway), but I'd love for there to be an Avengers movie where Wanda introduces the Avengers to her Dad.
Quote from: Russoguru on October 21, 2018, 04:16:47 PM
You know what I'd LOVE in Avengers 4? Yes, I know it's not going to happen(probably not anytime soon anyway), but I'd love for there to be an Avengers movie where Wanda introduces the Avengers to her Dad.
"And this is my boyfriend, Vision. He's three years old."
Well in any case Vision is dead and most likely not going to come back. I'd love for Avengers 4 to prove me wrong though.
QuoteBREAKING: Daredevil Cancelled by Netflix (https://mcuexchange.com/breaking-daredevil-cancelled-by-netfix/)
The biggest domino has now fallen, as Netflix, in a statement made to Deadline earlier this evening, has cancelled its headlining Marvel show despite rave reviews over the 3rd season, which aired only a month ago.
QuoteMarvel's Daredevil will not return for a fourth season on Netflix," the streamer said in a statement tonight to Deadline. "We are tremendously proud of the show's last and final season and although it's painful for the fans, we feel it best to close this chapter on a high note. We're thankful to our partners at Marvel, showrunner Erik Oleson, the show's writers, stellar crew and incredible cast including Charlie Cox as Daredevil himself, and we're grateful to the fans who have supported the show over the years.
Given this fairly recent announcements of Iron Fist and Luke Cage cancellations, this hardly comes as a surprise, but does appear to officailly signal that the end of the MCU on Netflix is imminent, and likely will not last beyond Season 3 of Jessica Jones and Season 2 of Punisher. The writing has been on the wall from the noticeable lack of marketing for recent seasons of these shows to the apparent removal of the Defenders Facebook page, but the saddest sign of all being that, while it originally seemed like Netflix and Marvel were entering into a broader agreement by releasing four shows in one year, it now seems possible, if not likely, that this was only because Netflix wanted to get their commitments out of the way so that they could focus on properties produced in house.
Daredevil brought us some truly tremendous moments. From bringing characters like Matt Murdock, Wilson Fisk, and Frank Castle to life to revolutionizing the one-shot fight scene, the show will have a lasting legacy moreso than the other MCU Netflix properties, and you can't help but wonder what Marvel will do with these characters and actors in the longterm. Will they wait years before trying to reboot with a whole new cast, or will they will try to continue the story at some point on the streaming service? My guess would be the former, but we'll just have to wait and see.
Not sure of the likelihood of R-rated material on Disney+, unless the have a "Disney After Hours" with more intense material that can be opted-in for, or under parental control.
Ahhhh shit.
Quote from: Russoguru on October 21, 2018, 04:16:47 PM
You know what I'd LOVE in Avengers 4? Yes, I know it's not going to happen(probably not anytime soon anyway), but I'd love for there to be an Avengers movie where Wanda introduces the Avengers to her Dad.
Weren't her parents killed by a bomb built by Stark Enterprises? Hence her and Pietro's initial hatred of Tony Stark.
Quote from: Pastor of Muppets on November 30, 2018, 01:44:18 AM
Quote from: Russoguru on October 21, 2018, 04:16:47 PM
You know what I'd LOVE in Avengers 4? Yes, I know it's not going to happen(probably not anytime soon anyway), but I'd love for there to be an Avengers movie where Wanda introduces the Avengers to her Dad.
Weren't her parents killed by a bomb built by Stark Enterprises? Hence her and Pietro's initial hatred of Tony Stark.
True. But with Disney's Fox adoption, possibly they can ret-con it to what I think Russoguru was aiming for (possibly revealing that the ones dying with the Stark bomb were the adoptive parents): Wanda introducing the Avengers to her ACTUAL dad, Magneto. :)
https://news.avclub.com/forget-iron-fist-marvel-studios-is-making-a-shang-chi-1830839668
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on December 04, 2018, 12:06:37 AM
https://news.avclub.com/forget-iron-fist-marvel-studios-is-making-a-shang-chi-1830839668
If they want an Asian character, I'd rather see a spinoff movie or show based on Wong from the Dr. Strange movie.
Quote from: Darth Geek on December 04, 2018, 10:11:12 AM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on December 04, 2018, 12:06:37 AM
https://news.avclub.com/forget-iron-fist-marvel-studios-is-making-a-shang-chi-1830839668
If they want an Asian character, I'd rather see a spinoff movie or show based on Wong from the Dr. Strange movie.
Why not both?* Shang Chi is fun. Plus, he's the son of Fu Man Chu, so there's a MST3K connection to the MCU now.
(* I'd argue it's better for them to give the first Asian character their own franchise rather than making them spin out of a white dude's anyway)
https://www.polygon.com/2018/12/6/18128947/avengers-infinity-war-thanos-snap-name
So, even though we still don't know the title of the fourth Avengers movie or have a trailer for it. We know this: The survivors of Thanos' snap call it "the Decimation."
:-\ ugh. they could've gone with "the half-ening".
EDIT: Spoilered in case the name of Thanos' snap is a big spoiler to anyone.
So "Decimation" as a word has "decimus" as a root, which means 1/10. It can mean to eliminate all but 1/10th. It's often used to mean, "Destroy most of." It can mean to eliminate 1/10th. But Thanos was pretty clear on his math.
"Division," "Bisection," or "Bifurcation" would all have been great comic-booky words that would have been more technically accurate.
That said, I can't wait for the next one and I'm sure not gonna let pedantry ruin it.
A massive picture of all the dead in the MCU. Spoilery, obviously, if you haven't seen the films.
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/OfD2r0v.jpg)
"Some people move on, not us"... almost sounds like me when I'm talking to my therapist.
QuoteJeph Loeb Says He Won't Be Surprised if Cancelled Marvel-Netflix Shows Get Revived (https://mcuexchange.com/jeph-loeb-netflix-hopeful/)
...
QuoteI would not be surprised if any of those things reemerged. It depends on showrunner, it depends on availability of cast, all of those things. It's not like we're a doctor show where the show got canceled because of bad ratings. These are shows that have very different reasons [for ending], most of which I'm not at liberty to talk about, nor should anyone really care at the end of day.
So possibly Hulu will revive them after the two-year 'no compete' clause that prevents Marvel using these characters again during that time period that was apparently written into the Marvel/Netflix contracts. A Hulu exec already expressed interest (https://mcuexchange.com/hulu-cancelled-marvel-netflix-shows/) in those and other Marvel shows.
And, as expected:
Quote'Jessica Jones' and 'The Punisher' Officially Cancelled by Netflix (https://mcuexchange.com/jessica-jones-punisher-cancelled-netflix/)
Bernthal's The Punisher, however, won't be returning, regardless of Disney/Marvel/Hulu:
QuoteJon Bernthal Bids Goodbye to 'Punisher' Role Ahead of Official Cancellation Announcement (https://mcuexchange.com/jon-bernthal-farewell-punisher-netflix/)
https://news.avclub.com/marvels-taps-destin-daniel-cretton-to-direct-shang-chi-1833273295
QuoteBREAKING: James Gunn Will Return To Direct 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' (https://mcuexchange.com/james-gunn-returns-gotg-vol-3/)
Today, Deadline dropped a huge bombshell on the matter: Gunn's back for the third film. According to the trade, Disney's decision to bring back Gunn into the billion-dollar cosmic universe he built from the ground was made several months ago after several meetings with Gunn and Kevin Feige's Marvel Studios team.
. . .
Shortly after he was fired, Gunn was quickly tapped by the Distinguished Competition to direct the sequel to their mega-hit Suicide Squad, further complicating the situation. Interestingly enough, Gunn has also received Disney's good graces to push through with DC's villain team-up, further delaying an already-delayed Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Okay now I can breathe a sigh of relief, I think. I mean FFS he gave us GOTG 1 and 2, which were both smashes financially and artistically.
QuoteThe Disney-Fox Acquisition To Officially Take Effect Tomorrow (https://mcuexchange.com/fox-disney-acquisition-mcu-effect/)
Quicker than expected - yet longer for FF and X-men to return than it should have been.
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/54433431_10213731036611540_5365722605900791808_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_eui2=AeG0NoR8_IO1mScVwCFkqwvbnkInBebOAsN553OzlV4KS8mBTYA4aqojTdfzD5nZ1I9-X04H9HbGMrdD02wqVdYhVPW276Ebf3VDQW6qHSbppw&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=1c5dcb4334f656bbd822247cd5130392&oe=5D0B6A79)
Frankly, I think its best to not rush into it and it was good they didn't count their chickens or anything. Don't want to end up in with an weaker movie because you were in a rush to get it out there. Plus, there's lots of stuff coming to keep us entertained until they whip up their new big guns.
I thought it might be a better idea that they introduce and use the Fantastic Four in other Avengers films or something. As I recall the FF were on the Avengers roster for a long time.
They may use the FF to change the entire reality. Merge dimensions or something.
An interesting graphic on screen time for core (original) Avengers team members through the four Avengers films. Spoilered since has Endgame screen time included.
Spoiler
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/59502503_2166470870068489_3693009491818708992_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=1d401ff89ed0b62ef20043ccb7576afd&oe=5D2C8559)
I've actually been curious about how that figure works out for the whole MCU. I tried to look it up the other day, but the Internet has failed me. Which character has made the most appearances in the MCU?
Quote from: Pak-Man on May 08, 2019, 03:12:17 PM
I've actually been curious about how that figure works out for the whole MCU. I tried to look it up the other day, but the Internet has failed me. Which character has made the most appearances in the MCU?
According to a movie trivia thing I saw the last time I was at the movies, it's Captain America. I would have guessed Iron Man.
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/59738210_1149300098526961_1532142463731367936_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=1838fbe5dbd9a775ef21cbedd2d963ab&oe=5D776B80)
Apparently Cameron posted this to Facebook or Twitter or some other social media site.
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/61557435_10158086454815752_5294432041482321920_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQlKhzfYAVwYIVQt-oBuEoOlIKHm-3upw6eU3NsAJL0Vyv3hIZHLzTnIo2rAGJsGrWXMta1oOadXy7TTu0U_wLjO&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=1c45521536cd4f96ca7cf7469b28e49f&oe=5D538587)
Quote from: LucasM on June 01, 2019, 06:10:58 PM
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/61557435_10158086454815752_5294432041482321920_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQlKhzfYAVwYIVQt-oBuEoOlIKHm-3upw6eU3NsAJL0Vyv3hIZHLzTnIo2rAGJsGrWXMta1oOadXy7TTu0U_wLjO&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=1c45521536cd4f96ca7cf7469b28e49f&oe=5D538587)
don't let him see the 2009 version of star trek.
Quote from: goflyblind on June 01, 2019, 10:33:30 PM
don't let him see the 2009 version of star trek.
...Oh I get it, because seeing himself in it would no doubt rip a hole in the space time continuum? :o
Quote from: LucasM on June 01, 2019, 06:10:58 PM
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/61557435_10158086454815752_5294432041482321920_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQlKhzfYAVwYIVQt-oBuEoOlIKHm-3upw6eU3NsAJL0Vyv3hIZHLzTnIo2rAGJsGrWXMta1oOadXy7TTu0U_wLjO&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=1c45521536cd4f96ca7cf7469b28e49f&oe=5D538587)
Even with Peter Parker being a kid I think he would have to have enough geek cred to tell Thor not to watch the prequels.
Quote from: Darth Geek on June 03, 2019, 02:09:59 PM
Even with Peter Parker being a kid I think he would have to have enough geek cred to tell Thor not to watch the prequels.
He's young enough to like them though.
I bet if Footloose belonged to Disney Tom Holland would have said "Yeah Starlord! Totally, Footloose is the greatest movie in history!".
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on June 03, 2019, 10:40:45 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on June 03, 2019, 02:09:59 PM
Even with Peter Parker being a kid I think he would have to have enough geek cred to tell Thor not to watch the prequels.
He's young enough to like them though.
Do kids in their late teens actually like the prequels now, though? I can understand being a guilty pleasure since they saw them as little kids. But once they're old enough to actually know something about movies, I would think they'd at least see the issues with them.
Quote from: Darth Geek on June 04, 2019, 06:04:01 AM
Do kids in their late teens actually like the prequels now, though? I can understand being a guilty pleasure since they saw them as little kids. But once they're old enough to actually know something about movies, I would think they'd at least see the issues with them.
I was trying to find some data on IMDB to give me a definitive answer to that question and it seems like those under 18 give Phantom Menace the lowest score of all the age demographics, which is if I'm reading the data right about a 5.8/10 and I'm guessing that's the median? Mean? I'm not entirely sure how to interpret everything. For attack of the clones it seems to be just a tiny bit lower, about a 5.7/10. But from there suddenly the score skyrockets for Revenge of the Sith all the way to a 7.5/10. Again, that's the average score for males and females under 18. The other age groups 18-29, 30-44, and 45+ all give similar scores, with little variance.
Does anybody think the 3rd season of Jessica Jones is going to address the snap?
Yeah, the youngsters completely and (mostly) unironically love Star Wars prequels. I think they're derided by older fans because they were being targeted at the younger audience, and it worked!
It's these NEW Star Wars movies that they don't like.
And so it will probably continue...
Quote from: Pak-Man on June 04, 2019, 07:35:58 AM
Yeah, the youngsters completely and (mostly) unironically love Star Wars prequels. I think they're derided by older fans because they were being targeted at the younger audience, and it worked!
It's these NEW Star Wars movies that they don't like.
And so it will probably continue...
Bingo.
It's no different than people who were kids in the 80s liking garbage from the 80s etc. People like what they grow up with.
SDCC announcement. MCU release update: BIG deal (includes five Disney+ show release dates)!
May 1, 2020 -- Black Widow
Fall 2020 -- Falcon and Winter Soldier
November 6, 2020 -- The Eternals
February 12, 2021 -- Shang-Chi and the Legend of the 10 Rings
Spring 2021 -- WandaVision
May 7, 2021 -- Doctor Strange 2: In The Multiverse of Madness
Spring 2021 -- Loki
Summer 2021 -- "What If?" animated series
Fall 2021 -- Hawkeye
November 5, 2021 -- Thor: Love and Thunder
From here: https://www.gamesradar.com/thor-4-love-and-thunder-sdcc-2019-release-date/
The article actually has a spoiler for Thor 4 in it (one likely impossible to NOT hear over the next 2+ years, but still...).
As usual, I'll be adding this new information to my continuously-updated chronology/upcoming listing (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019).
The only thing that worries me is the cost of Disney+... how much is that going to be per month? Because I might actually have to drop my Amazon prime subscription so I can watch Loki, WandaVision, Hawkeye, What If? but most importantly The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
Quote from: Russoguru on July 20, 2019, 08:11:16 PM
The only thing that worries me is the cost of Disney+... how much is that going to be per month? Because I might actually have to drop my Amazon prime subscription so I can watch Loki, WandaVision, Hawkeye, What If? but most importantly The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
My understanding is that, to get quick market penetration, they are starting at something like $6.99 or $7.99 a month. No idea if they will keep it at that level. If it became an either/or, I'll ultimately drop Netflix. I have to FIGHT to find things to watch on there (particularly since Sense8, then the Marvel shows, were canceled).
Okay now that's a price I can deal with, assuming they don't keep increasing it over time.
I remember that one of the first announcements regarding the service was that it was going to be cheaper than Netflix.
One interesting thing about that announcement? The title for the already-reserved release spot of July 31, 2020 STILL has no title to go with it. And the other MCU films we knew were in production already are all covered by the other dates. Was there a Black Panther 2 or a Spider-Man 3 film that is already in production for a next-year release that I don't remember hearing of?
Oh, and something I was pleased to see is that Shang-Chi will address the actual Mandarin! [Likely the only film in which it wouldn't have seemed racist to have an Asian enemy/evil stereotype of the Fu Manchu style.]
I'm surprised to see no Black-Panther 2 or Guardians of the Galaxy 3 in there. We know they are already in early production, but it looks like they are going to go for a really quick and short phase this time.
I suspect it will be the 'breather' phase before 5 introduces the X-Men, which will likely take up a fair bit of real estate.
Quote from: LucasM on July 20, 2019, 08:26:09 PM
One interesting thing about that announcement? The title for the already-reserved release spot of July 31, 2020 STILL has no title to go with it.
I have an answer for you!
https://screenrant.com/marvel-movie-2020-release-date-mcu/
QuoteThe untitled film originally slated for release on July 31, 2020 has now been removed from the schedule with no new release date announced.
And more BIG news:
QuoteAt the end of the panel, Feige had one more ace up his sleeve, revealing that a Fantastic Four movie set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is on the way, as well as mentioning Black Panther 2, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, Captain Marvel 2 and Blade. No word just yet on any casting or release dates.
from here: https://www.gamesradar.com/marvel-fantastic-four-mcu-sdcc-2019-announcement/
Ghost Rider and Helstrom are missing from your upcoming list, Lucas. :)
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/07/gabriel-luna-on-whether-hulus-ghost-rider-will-change-his-version-of-robbie-reyes/ (No date yet)
Although now I see they may not be connected to the MCU? That would be a weird way to go.
So do we still not know who Keanu Reeves is playing?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2019, 09:20:34 PM
Although now I see they may not be connected to the MCU? That would be a weird way to go.
agents of shield (where robbie first showed up as ghost rider) has only been tenuously connected for a while now, so it's not that weird.
Quote from: goflyblind on July 20, 2019, 09:40:12 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on July 20, 2019, 09:20:34 PM
Although now I see they may not be connected to the MCU? That would be a weird way to go.
agents of shield (where robbie first showed up as ghost rider) has only been tenuously connected for a while now, so it's not that weird.
Sure, but they seem to be suggesting GR is maybe not even in continuity, AoS is just playing off to the side rather than out of canon
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 20, 2019, 09:38:51 PM
So do we still not know who Keanu Reeves is playing?
I thought he was "in talks" rather than confirmed.
My hope? Eternity, the living embodiment of the totality of the universe. Or Mr. Immortal, the hapless superhero whose only power/skill is "gets back up from dying". Both would be great directions.
I really hope X-Men leads into Avengers 5. Also, is there any chance at all that Disney will be gracious enough to consider casting Ian Mackellan and Patrick Stewart back into their respective roles? I feel a lot of hope for that possibility since they brought JK Simmons back.
Quote from: Russoguru on July 21, 2019, 11:03:54 AM
I really hope X-Men leads into Avengers 5. Also, is there any chance at all that Disney will be gracious enough to consider casting Ian Mackellan and Patrick Stewart back into their respective roles? I feel a lot of hope for that possibility since they brought JK Simmons back.
It's going to be at least several years before any X-Men movie, we'll be lucky if they are still alive by then. And since Marvel won't want to confuse timelines with the Fox movies, we won't get McAvoy or Fassbender either.
Quote from: Darth Geek on July 22, 2019, 06:11:38 AM
Quote from: Russoguru on July 21, 2019, 11:03:54 AM
I really hope X-Men leads into Avengers 5. Also, is there any chance at all that Disney will be gracious enough to consider casting Ian Mackellan and Patrick Stewart back into their respective roles? I feel a lot of hope for that possibility since they brought JK Simmons back.
It's going to be at least several years before any X-Men movie, we'll be lucky if they are still alive by then. And since Marvel won't want to confuse timelines with the Fox movies, we won't get McAvoy or Fassbender either.
True - the last thing Feige would want would be to confuse people about which continuity they fit in. And with MCU casting being spot-on for virtually everyone in the MCU thus far, I don't see recasting the X-Men prior to consistently good films as being a bad thing (rather than the roughly 1-in-3 being really good as in the Fox films). From the way things were stated (as vague as they were) in the Feige Hall H announcement, the X-Men should show up roughly around the same time as the FF. So possibly 3-4 years (which doesn't differ significantly from what Feige has said since the 20th C Fox purchase went through).
In addition, when filming finished for Logan, Patrick Stewart said that, Like Jackman for Wolverine, he felt that his stint as Prof X was done, and he stated clearly that he wouldn't reprise the role. During the interview where he said this (a UK late night talk show series called, "The Graham Norton Show"), Jackman was initially surprised, but quickly understood (and appeared to be honored by that decision occurring on 'his' film), as that film really WAS a fitting ending for both actor/characters.
I actually wouldn't be surprised to see a Deadpool flick before we get X-Men. He's in a unique position to be able to wink and joke about actor changes, questionable continuity, etc. They wouldn't necessarily even have to integrate him into the MCU. (He was never really integrated into the X-Men universe...)
Quote from: Pak-Man on July 22, 2019, 08:13:34 PM
I actually wouldn't be surprised to see a Deadpool flick before we get X-Men. He's in a unique position to be able to wink and joke about actor changes, questionable continuity, etc. They wouldn't necessarily even have to integrate him into the MCU. (He was never really integrated into the X-Men universe...)
The fact that Disney told Fox to keep making Deadpool movies like they have been shows a surprisingly mature attitude towards it. You'd think they'd grab hold of the reigns immediately because it is such a cash cow.
I'd like to know what Deadpool was doing in the five year blip. Touring with his Beatles cover band maybe?
In case anyone is particularly interested in the Marvel/Netflix shows (and has money to spare), a number of items from the series are being auctioned off today.
HERE is the link. (https://marvel.propstoreauction.com/m/view-auctions/catalog/id/198/?page=1&linkId=71635862&items=96)
DeKnight bought the first iteration of Daredevil's costume for $55,000, which apparently will go in his production studio. [Reference, though the price was found on the auction website. (https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/08/12/daredevil-canceled-netflix-costume-auction-marvel-steven-deknight/)]
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/69444510_2518628508218408_295560721389846528_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQlj7e8f4VRz-ugat9nge6kvM5nMBhyFccQTsJjhN9EXoeDNE2f-19_HCMIC1XNqXK_n3S-sGaVfHan1Cwmp0F0I&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=001b8fc68267dcd88b6cf6714ec0956a&oe=5DE4D7E3)
Shit:
QuoteDisney-Sony Standoff Ends Marvel Studios & Kevin Feige's Involvement In 'Spider-Man' (https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-feige-spider-man-franchise-exit-disney-sony-dispute-avengers-endgame-captain-america-winter-soldier-tom-rothman-bob-iger-1202672545/)
Marvel rightly wanted more money from Sony, for basically MAKING the studio successful with Spider-Man (finally), and giving Sony their highest-grossing film EVER. Sony was greedy. End talks.
Quote from: LucasM on August 20, 2019, 07:37:46 PM
Shit:
QuoteDisney-Sony Standoff Ends Marvel Studios & Kevin Feige's Involvement In 'Spider-Man' (https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-feige-spider-man-franchise-exit-disney-sony-dispute-avengers-endgame-captain-america-winter-soldier-tom-rothman-bob-iger-1202672545/)
Marvel rightly wanted more money from Sony, for basically MAKING the studio successful with Spider-Man (finally), and giving Sony their highest-grossing film EVER. Sony was greedy. End talks.
I guarantee you this is not the end. Marvel/Disney will do whatever it takes to make sure that Spiderman 3-... I mean the next Spiderman installment is part of the MCU.
Quote from: Russoguru on August 21, 2019, 04:11:50 PM
Quote from: LucasM on August 20, 2019, 07:37:46 PM
Shit:
QuoteDisney-Sony Standoff Ends Marvel Studios & Kevin Feige's Involvement In 'Spider-Man' (https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-feige-spider-man-franchise-exit-disney-sony-dispute-avengers-endgame-captain-america-winter-soldier-tom-rothman-bob-iger-1202672545/)
Marvel rightly wanted more money from Sony, for basically MAKING the studio successful with Spider-Man (finally), and giving Sony their highest-grossing film EVER. Sony was greedy. End talks.
I guarantee you this is not the end. Marvel/Disney will do whatever it takes to make sure that Spiderman 3-... I mean the next Spiderman installment is part of the MCU.
Yeah, there's obviously more to the story. New article [HERE (https://nerdist.com/article/marvel-sony-end-spider-man-partnership/)] suggests Disney wanted 50% of ALL Spider-Man related films (even ones they don't produce!). I think that Disney asking for 50% of ALL of them is insane. Had I been Sony, I would have turned that down flat as well. But 50% of films that Feige helped produce? That seems INCREDIBLY reasonable (except, apparently, to the exceptionally greedy).
(https://i.imgur.com/kFebE4a.jpg)
So was the MCU, which is why we haven't seen you shot since 2012.
I also don't think that Sony will reboot Spider-Man entirely. There's no reason they can't make more movies with Tom Holland and just not mention other MCU characters.
Quote from: Darth Geek on August 22, 2019, 08:35:54 PM
I also don't think that Sony will reboot Spider-Man entirely. There's no reason they can't make more bad movies with Tom Holland and just not mention other MCU characters.
Looks like I was right(for once), I read an article on my phone this morning where it looks like Spiderman is back in the MCU. I can't find the damned article though. Well, that lasted for all of 30 seconds, huh?
I'd love to read something saying it was resolved. Today, I was greeted with this article of additional details on the split:
QuoteNew Details Behind the Sony-Marvel Divorce Emerge (https://mcuexchange.com/new-details-sony-marvel-divorce/)
* According to the trade, Disney was asking for a 30% share from all Feige-produced Spidey films and not 50% as Deadline originally reported yesterday.
* THR's sources are saying that in the wake of the acclaim of Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse and box-office domination of Venom, films Sony produced without the help of Marvel Studios, executives are more confident in their ability to make their own Spidey films. The belief among executives is that they've "learned everything they need to know from Feige."
* Tom Holland has an option for one more movie while director Jon Watts has fulfilled his 2-picture deal.
There was to me never an idea that Sony would reboot. They know THIS actor, and THIS director 'work' (unlike every prior iteration they've tried), plus they know by keeping Holland, they get a 'hangers-on' audience boost from the past MCU connection. But I think it the height of arrogance for them to think that - after five shit movies (Raimi Sp-M2 was OK, I suppose) - that watching Feige and the MCU engine work for two films was enough for them to be 'experts' on how to present the character.
But I found 'Into the Spider-Verse' to be basically a 3-of-5-star movie, i.e. average: I would not waste my time and effort to watch it a second time. And Venom outright sucked (inadequate character development, so didn't care about the characters, and therefore, didn't care what happened to them). So, in my mind, Sony STILL doesn't know shit about how to produce good Spider-Man films on their own.
Well, they can keep making failed ones until they give up and the rights revert. It won't likely be for a decade or more, but sooner or later (sometime after Holland and Watts are no longer under contract, and Holland is way too old to keep playing him), it WILL happen that Sony'll just be sick of failed Spider-Man film after failed Spider-Man film and stop making them.
Meanwhile, Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan) gets her own TV Show! Was kind of hoping she'd warrant a movie, since her powers are kinda special-effects-heavy, but I'm sure Disney will figure out how to make it work.
https://news.avclub.com/teen-superhero-fave-ms-marvel-is-getting-her-own-live-1837520593
I've read woefully little of her book (Need to remedy that soon), but I love her every time she's crossed into one of the books I do read.
Indeed, Pak!:
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9%3Cbr%20/%3E/68686022_731289530631995_8386775500663554048_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_eui2=AeFToZRC-wjLnVDznIWG-lHThyCaw1-yblDq62s4PeanDHWqPRUwSVytmrVBc_S9CIY_j2r1P0XHRWWBi_PkM1bxaNhJHbQHW2ojFTNbQLwCqg&_nc_oc=AQkOhpEyg-wcXXF6M-2MbT-9MLLAezFWe3A9UIs_RE7WHGe-C4-L1Rb29icQJ9KFSikjDcJRcpAHT0AdkGpBjuJq&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=e956d3b264976a2cc9b816e6a524f18f&oe=5E07AEDC)
And, apparently, She-Hulk gets her own Disney+ series, as well!
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/69262104_731299907297624_4969019317405351936_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_eui2=AeGZjbirlydHRIHE4DE2ERMbn3t_OA1X0UQ41_CfxEvaMnMckLk1pzb2Mikh2cu6xafxT2cWiy_PiEz_hO4YeZEZghKnzRdDt_54O_indSWgFQ&_nc_oc=AQmoVhojW13FNc8eS6nGLvrx02HXJ4HzQ8423HIcONFx78CeyiB7MVMFmrLT_9qGjXxBqbRmsBUSLBmhgVfMR-Jj&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=78e0fd5c77c25cb2df9cda953dc7b9f1&oe=5E06E2B7)
As does Moon Knight!
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/69248461_731299290631019_4597930178776137728_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_eui2=AeF7fu34Si9_nlWzkR0BdedwJHsEYs7aAkuHqv2ixLNSVzBKhQPR8YNTDUIFYU-g5xyLH2jf5nKYD0fQ6STZ83xPYVQbYi6AmVITq4UmQeD0Lg&_nc_oc=AQlEjSeeqTqI9NRan6-cQyj5l8w0mFLcEgjF31ILXIleG51A0s28OyXuFKyGLpQjbzysADTRQ9JJ4-3klVquwvBp&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=cc42122c60611ac2404474c690d20ebf&oe=5DC7F9BA)
Holy shit we are lucky bastards!
Just posted about this elsewhere.
I'm torn. All of the above would make good shows. But they would also make good movies.
Also, I still want Legion of Monsters. Movie, show, I don't care.
Wow, I'm surprised those are live action. Should be interesting. I hate to say it but I am definitely getting Disney+. It's worth it for the Falcon and Winter Soldier show alone.
Finally, an article on the Spider-Man Sony/Disney difficulties, from a non-sensationalist source (Forbes, well, less sensationalistic than fan and entertainment sites that need more clicks):
QuoteHow The Marvel-Sony 'Spider-Man' Dispute Will Be Solved One Way Or Another [Updated] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2019/08/21/how-the-marvel-sony-spider-man-dispute-will-be-solved-one-way-or-another/)
There's a lot in there, not least of which is that is seems that Sony may not last as a film company much longer (being likely to be bought out), at which point Spider-Man would automatically revert to Disney. So it is in Sony's best interests to make a deal that guarantees profitability longer.
There is one thing that makes no sense in the article, however. The author suggests Sony should add a "purchase back the Spider-Man IP" condition prior to any sale of Sony. If the rights would automatically revert to Disney after a sale, why on EARTH would Disney be stupid enough to agree to paying a large sum of money to obtain something that would be free to them in a short while anyway? [The only thing I can think of, that was not in the article, is if that were Sony's 'deal-breaker' condition for splitting costs and profits for all Spider-Man related films.]
Ooh! She-Hulk! I hope we get a lot of lawyering.
I honestly don't give two fucks about Amazon Prime anymore. Come November I'm subbing to Disney+.
Quote from: Pak-Man on August 23, 2019, 07:17:55 PM
Ooh! She-Hulk! I hope we get a lot of lawyering.
all they're gonna do is re-run ally mcbeal, but digitally paint over calista flockhart.
Quote from: goflyblind on August 23, 2019, 09:34:56 PM
Quote from: Pak-Man on August 23, 2019, 07:17:55 PM
Ooh! She-Hulk! I hope we get a lot of lawyering.
all they're gonna do is re-run ally mcbeal, but digitally paint over calista flockhart.
They'll have to digitally stretch Ally Mcbeal because she's way too skinny to be She-hulk.
If one knows they'll subscribe to Disney+, and can afford the upfront charge ($140, the cost of two years' worth, but covering three years), this is a great deal.
QuoteYou Can Preorder Disney Plus For Less Than $4 A Month (https://www.scarymommy.com/disney-plus-4-dollars-month-preorder/)
Quote from: LucasM on August 29, 2019, 01:28:28 PM
If one knows they'll subscribe to Disney+, and can afford the upfront charge ($70), this is a great deal.
QuoteYou Can Preorder Disney Plus For Less Than $4 A Month (https://www.scarymommy.com/disney-plus-4-dollars-month-preorder/)
What? So on November 12th I have to pay $70 up front to get Disney plus?!
Quote from: Russoguru on August 29, 2019, 02:22:32 PM
Quote from: LucasM on August 29, 2019, 01:28:28 PM
If one knows they'll subscribe to Disney+, and can afford the upfront charge ($70), this is a great deal.
QuoteYou Can Preorder Disney Plus For Less Than $4 A Month (https://www.scarymommy.com/disney-plus-4-dollars-month-preorder/)
What? So on November 12th I have to pay $70 up front to get Disney plus?!
Only if you want the discount, and pay up front for 3 years, and first you have to join the Disney fan club D23 (apparently you can join the free version of the club and still get an invite for the discount). Also you have to pre-order by September 2 to get the discount.
Basically do all that and get 3 years of D+ for the cost of one year, or about $2 a month off the regular price.
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on August 29, 2019, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: Russoguru on August 29, 2019, 02:22:32 PM
Quote from: LucasM on August 29, 2019, 01:28:28 PM
If one knows they'll subscribe to Disney+, and can afford the upfront charge ($70), this is a great deal.
QuoteYou Can Preorder Disney Plus For Less Than $4 A Month (https://www.scarymommy.com/disney-plus-4-dollars-month-preorder/)
What? So on November 12th I have to pay $70 up front to get Disney plus?!
Only if you want the discount, and pay up front for 3 years, and first you have to join the Disney fan club D23 (apparently you can join the free version of the club and still get an invite for the discount). Also you have to pre-order by September 2 to get the discount.
Basically do all that and get 3 years of D+ for the cost of one year, or about $2 a month off the regular price.
AND live in the US, I assume?
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on August 29, 2019, 05:47:21 PM
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on August 29, 2019, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: Russoguru on August 29, 2019, 02:22:32 PM
Quote from: LucasM on August 29, 2019, 01:28:28 PM
If one knows they'll subscribe to Disney+, and can afford the upfront charge ($70), this is a great deal.
QuoteYou Can Preorder Disney Plus For Less Than $4 A Month (https://www.scarymommy.com/disney-plus-4-dollars-month-preorder/)
What? So on November 12th I have to pay $70 up front to get Disney plus?!
Only if you want the discount, and pay up front for 3 years, and first you have to join the Disney fan club D23 (apparently you can join the free version of the club and still get an invite for the discount). Also you have to pre-order by September 2 to get the discount.
Basically do all that and get 3 years of D+ for the cost of one year, or about $2 a month off the regular price.
AND live in the US, I assume?
Looks like that is the case, from the fine print below the banner announcing the offer:
QuoteValid for US residents with US payment method only
Always the way.
As long as I can watch the Mandalorian, I will happily pay the whatever amount a month... as long as that whatever amount doesn't make me poor... I mean poorer. As it is I'll probably have to cancel my subscription to Amazon Prime so I can afford Disney+.
We're into the "holy shit this is amazing!" realm of MCU TV/Disney+ production [blue text are links]:
Marvel Studios Reportedly Developing A Dozen More Properties for Disney+. (https://mcuexchange.com/rumor-dozen-disney-plus-shows-mcu/) Yes, these are beyond the ones already announced!
According to other stories [main page here, since many have individual articles and I just don't feel like including that many links, or summarizing that much: https://mcuexchange.com/] these series apparently may include an animated Power Pack series, and a Young Avengers series.
In addition, we have a Hellstrom series coming on Hulu, to go with their Ghost Rider (Robbie Reyes as played by Gabriel Luna) series there. With a couple other horror-type series that are in the works, they will collectively be called Adventures Into Fear (https://mcuexchange.com/ghost-rider-helstrom-hulu-adventure-into-fear/).
[Now I'm off to modify the 'upcoming' section of my MCU Index post (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019).]
We're also getting a lot of old Marvel shows, including the 90s X-Men and Spider-Man shows.
Well... this sucks....
Quote'New Warriors' Fails To Find Network And Has Been Dropped (https://mcuexchange.com/new-warriors-dropped/)
After years of waiting, news has finally broke from Geeks WorldWide that some may have been dreading. Since New Warriors has been unable to find a network, it has officially been dropped. Despite high-level executives apparently loving the un-aired pilot for the show, it couldn't find a network to call home. They even shopped it at Disney+ and Hulu, but were turned away. We don't have any idea then why it couldn't secure a network, since it seemed to be so well received.
Couldn't have been for budgetary reasons, since the show was described as a half-hour docu-comedy in the vein of The Office. Regardless, it's a sad situation all around for the cast and showrunner, Kevin Biegel, who seemed quite passionate about the prospective show. Whatever the future may hold for these characters, I'm sure it's not the last we'll hear from them.
Quote from: LucasM on September 16, 2019, 12:35:19 AM
Well... this sucks....
Quote'New Warriors' Fails To Find Network And Has Been Dropped (https://mcuexchange.com/new-warriors-dropped/)
After years of waiting, news has finally broke from Geeks WorldWide that some may have been dreading. Since New Warriors has been unable to find a network, it has officially been dropped. Despite high-level executives apparently loving the un-aired pilot for the show, it couldn't find a network to call home. They even shopped it at Disney+ and Hulu, but were turned away. We don't have any idea then why it couldn't secure a network, since it seemed to be so well received.
Couldn't have been for budgetary reasons, since the show was described as a half-hour docu-comedy in the vein of The Office. Regardless, it's a sad situation all around for the cast and showrunner, Kevin Biegel, who seemed quite passionate about the prospective show. Whatever the future may hold for these characters, I'm sure it's not the last we'll hear from them.
I'll probably have to check that out on a bootleg from a convention.
Man, I would have thought that would be the EXACT kind of show that Disney+ would want to jump on.
Quote from: Pak-Man on September 16, 2019, 03:08:46 PM
Man, I would have thought that would be the EXACT kind of show that Disney+ would want to jump on.
Yeah, it seems like a weird thing for D+ to pass on. Maybe it was going to be too expensive or something?
I want to see my favorite Marvel graphic novel Triumph and Torment translated to the big screen; Doctor Strange and Doctor Doom battle Mephisto in hell to save Doom's mother's soul.
Either that or Emperor Doom where Dr Doom succeeds in taking over the world.
Or Secret Wars! Doom becomes god.
Ok, anything with Dr Doom...done right of course. They have NOT done Doom right. Don't get me started. He's the ultimate apex comic book villain with no inherent super powers other than what he achieves with raw intellect and willpower. How cool is THAT.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/tv/marvel/ghost_rider/ghost-rider-no-longer-moving-forward-due-to-reported-creative-differences-between-marvel-and-hulu-a170730
Booooooo
On the plus side (if I may cross-post)
Guess what? (https://news.avclub.com/staying-together-for-the-kids-sony-and-marvel-strike-a-1838529276)
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/911/786/8bc.gif)
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on September 27, 2019, 09:49:39 AM
On the plus side (if I may cross-post)
Guess what? (https://news.avclub.com/staying-together-for-the-kids-sony-and-marvel-strike-a-1838529276)
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/911/786/8bc.gif)
I'm not surprised. It seemed inevitable they would work something out.
I was thinking the same exact thing, there's billions of dollars at stake, the fact that they would reach a deal was kind of inevitable.
Quote from: Darth Geek on September 27, 2019, 09:57:07 AM
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on September 27, 2019, 09:49:39 AMOn the plus side (if I may cross-post)
Guess what? (https://news.avclub.com/staying-together-for-the-kids-sony-and-marvel-strike-a-1838529276)
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/911/786/8bc.gif)
I'm not surprised. It seemed inevitable they would work something out.
I don't get anything at all from that GIF by itself that Spider-Man is in the MCU again. Heck, the GIF might've been for Spider-Man: Far from Home, or could be just a clip from one of the films, period (i.e. with no 'ulterior motive' behind it existing).
Its from one of the Raimi films. But also, there's a link in that post.
EDIT: Speaking of links in posts, Tom Holland played a fairly big role apparently in getting negotiations back together (https://news.avclub.com/tom-holland-helped-keep-spider-man-in-the-mcu-with-an-1-1838722219). I mean, its also likely that the end of negotiations was a negotiations strategy but frankly, I'd rather believe the plucky sweet young actor did it.
Alright! :highfive: As I'd hoped (and commented on being my anticipation somewhere in this thread when discussing the purchase of Fox) with the 20th Century Fox studio resources, Marvel will, starting in 2022, start releasing FOUR films a year (//http://)! (The first "fourth" in 2021 will be the Marvel/Sony Spider-Man 3, but the next year, and likely any year without a Spider-Man film, it will be Disney/Marvel.)
From my updated chronology post (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019):
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the 10 Rings . . . . Feb 12, 2021
Loki Disney+ . . . . [Spring 2021]
WandaVision (no: not WonkaVision) Disney+ . . . . Spring 2021
Doctor Strange 2: In The Multiverse of Madness . . . . May 7, 2021
Spider-Man 3 . . . . July 16, 2021
"What If?" Disney+ animated series . . . . Summer 2021
Hawkeye Disney+ . . . . Fall 2021
Thor: Love and Thunder . . . . Nov. 5, 2021
as-yet untitled Marvel movie . . . . Feb. 18, 2022
Black Panther 2 . . . . May 6, 2022
as-yet untitled Marvel movie . . . . July 29, 2022
as-yet untitled Marvel movie . . . . Oct. 7, 2022
Quote from: LucasM on November 15, 2019, 06:36:14 PM
Spider-Man 3 . . . . July 16, 2021
as per the preivous two movies' titles, this one'll be called
spider-man: homerun, and it'll be about petey trying to start his baseball career.
Quote from: goflyblind on November 15, 2019, 11:47:05 PM
Quote from: LucasM on November 15, 2019, 06:36:14 PM
Spider-Man 3 . . . . July 16, 2021
as per the preivous two movies' titles, this one'll be called spider-man: homerun, and it'll be about petey trying to start his baseball career.
:)
Are you sure? I thought Sony wanted to save money on the next one, so they are calling it
Spider-Man: Homebody, and the whole two hours just follows him around typical actions in his aunt's house.
If I were Sony I'd want to call it "Spiderman 3: We promise, not a shit ton of under-developed villains."
I'm hoping Scorpion is the villain in Spiderman 3, since he was teased in the end credits of Homecoming. It seems odd that they would have done that without putting him in Far From Home.
Quote from: Darth Geek on November 16, 2019, 03:50:30 PM
I'm hoping Scorpion is the villain in Spiderman 3, since he was teased in the end credits of Homecoming. It seems odd that they would have done that without putting him in Far From Home.
Scorpion... Chameleon. Ahh... WHAT IF...
The Chameleon was actually a rogue Skrull? or Rogue from the X-Men who was in fact a Skrull but was kidnapped by the Brood? . I don't know a whole lot about the Scorpion, but I love this series so far because they've always done a great job with the villains so far and making their motivations relatable, crystal clear and scary AF.
https://news.avclub.com/hulu-and-marvels-tigra-dazzler-series-on-hold-after-e-1840220940
The series I forgot was happening is on hold due to entire writing staff being fired.
I was watching the Black Panther Blu-Ray. The special features are kind of irritating to watch, because Ryan Coogler has this annoying habit of ending nearly every sentence with the phrase "know what I'm sayin'?"
I've actually been replacing some of my MCU DVDs with Blu Rays. It's mainly because I want special features and DVDs are usually just the movie.
But I like the DVD case, so I put the Blu Ray in the DVD case. Now I have several MCU DVDs in Blu Ray cases. Among them is 3 copies of Guardians of the Galaxy 2.
https://au.ign.com/articles/doctor-strange-2-director-drops-out?sf115684273=1
Doctor Strange 2 Director Drops Out
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on January 09, 2020, 10:38:49 PM
https://au.ign.com/articles/doctor-strange-2-director-drops-out?sf115684273=1
Doctor Strange 2 Director Drops Out
This is making me concerned. I hope the studio isn't holding back on the horror elements.
The last time "creative differences" caused a director to drop out it was Edgar Wright, resulting in the extremely mediocre Ant-Man (although I am in the minority on that one).
i was really interested when i heard they were making a new mutants movie. when i saw in the marketing that they'd gone full horror, i was completely turned off. i like the weirdness of the first doctor strange, they could go further in that direction. if they veer into horror, i'd probably skip it. there's gotta be a way to do demons and ghouls without resorting to gore and jumpscares.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on January 09, 2020, 10:38:49 PM
https://au.ign.com/articles/doctor-strange-2-director-drops-out?sf115684273=1
Doctor Strange 2 Director Drops Out
Hmm, may I make a suggestion:
(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/guillermo-del-toro.png?w=1000&h=562&crop=1)
Quote from: Darth Geek on January 10, 2020, 12:47:07 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on January 09, 2020, 10:38:49 PM
https://au.ign.com/articles/doctor-strange-2-director-drops-out?sf115684273=1
Doctor Strange 2 Director Drops Out
Hmm, may I make a suggestion:
(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/guillermo-del-toro.png?w=1000&h=562&crop=1)
Lol - No. It'll be some low level indie horror director.
I'd like to see Ti West, but he already had a bad studio experience.
https://news.avclub.com/howard-the-duck-and-tigra-and-dazzler-are-both-dead-at-1841212757
Arrrgh. Howard needs to get his due. He's so much more than that goofy character from a bad George Lucas movie and the world needs to see that.
isn't a post-credit scene and an appearance in the endgame battle enough?
Quote from: Pak-Man on January 26, 2020, 10:35:30 PM
Arrrgh. Howard needs to get his due. He's so much more than that goofy character from a bad George Lucas movie and the world needs to see that.
He could join the GoTG... I mean it's not exactly outside the realm of possibility. I'm sure at some point or at least in some What if issue, Howard the Duck was paling around with Groot and Rocket.
[blue text is link to article - there are three links in here:]
While all production of MCU properties have been put on hold (https://mcuexchange.com/marvel-studios-shut-down-production-indefinitely/) due to COVID-19, Disney has shuffled release dates for those properties (https://www.polygon.com/2020/4/3/21207315/new-marvel-movie-release-dates-eternals-thor-4-captain-marvel-2) for the next couple years. These have been added to my updated-when-needed post of all MCU releases (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019).
I have read nothing as yet about the Oct 2022 release. It is possible that with the hiatus of the studio for potentially 6-10 months this year, that release, which would be the first of the 4-films-a-year schedule, will be dropped. I'm hoping not, since the other three 2022 releases are all bunched up in the first seven months of 2022, but it is possible.
UPCOMING:
Black Widow . . . . Nov 6, 2020
Falcon & The Winter Soldier Disney+ . . . . Fall 2020
WandaVision (no: not WonkaVision) Disney+ . . . . Fall 2020
Hellstrom Hulu series . . . . ? ?, 2020
The Eternals . . . . Feb 12, 2021
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the 10 Rings . . . . May 7, 2021
Loki Disney+ . . . . [Spring 2021]
Doctor Strange 2: In The Multiverse of Madness . . . . Nov. 5, 2021
Spider-Man 3 . . . . July 16, 2021
"What If?" Disney+ animated series . . . . Summer 2021
Hawkeye Disney+ . . . . Fall 2021
Thor: Love and Thunder . . . . Feb. 28, 2022
Black Panther 2 . . . . May 8, 2022
Captain Marvel 2 . . . . July 8, 2022
as-yet untitled Marvel movie . . . . Oct. 7, 2022
Quote from: LucasM on April 03, 2020, 06:44:35 PM
[blue text is link to article - there are three links in here:]
While all production of MCU properties have been put on hold (https://mcuexchange.com/marvel-studios-shut-down-production-indefinitely/) due to COVID-19, Disney has shuffled release dates for those properties (https://www.polygon.com/2020/4/3/21207315/new-marvel-movie-release-dates-eternals-thor-4-captain-marvel-2) for the next couple years. These have been added to my updated-when-needed post of all MCU releases (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019).
I have read nothing as yet about the Oct 2022 release. It is possible that with the hiatus of the studio for potentially 6-10 months this year, that release, which would be the first of the 4-films-a-year schedule, will be dropped. I'm hoping not, since the other three 2022 releases are all bunched up in the first seven months of 2022, but it is possible.
UPCOMING:
Black Widow . . . . Nov 6, 2020
Falcon & The Winter Soldier Disney+ . . . . Fall 2020
WandaVision (no: not WonkaVision) Disney+ . . . . Fall 2020
Hellstrom Hulu series . . . . ? ?, 2020
The Eternals . . . . Feb 12, 2021
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the 10 Rings . . . . May 7, 2021
Loki Disney+ . . . . [Spring 2021]
Doctor Strange 2: In The Multiverse of Madness . . . . Nov. 5, 2021
Spider-Man 3 . . . . July 16, 2021
"What If?" Disney+ animated series . . . . Summer 2021
Hawkeye Disney+ . . . . Fall 2021
Thor: Love and Thunder . . . . Feb. 28, 2022
Black Panther 2 . . . . May 8, 2022
Captain Marvel 2 . . . . July 8, 2022
as-yet untitled Marvel movie . . . . Oct. 7, 2022
No Guardians? No Superhero teams? No Captain America?
MCU has jumped the shark. I'll go to the theater for Shang-Chi, Dr Strange 2, and Captain Marvel 2 and fast-forward through all the rest when they hit netflix.
Guardians currently has no set date, but it'll be focused on when James Gunn is done with his Suicide Squad movie.
In case anyone isn't aware... I love the MCU (just as I loved Marvel comics).
However, there is a bit in Avengers: Endgame that is seriously problematic for me.
To quote a page (on an unrelated issue than mine): "In simple terms, the Infinity Stones stabilize time itself. The Ancient One offers some elucidation, telling Bruce Banner that removing an Infinity Stone from the timeline interrupts the flow of time. (https://www.ranker.com/list/time-travel-rules-in-avengers-endgame/jacob-shelton)"
And that's the problem. In the MCU timeline we have been following, ALL the Infinity Stones are gone - dusted by Thanos off-screen at the start of Endgame. Therefore, time itself should be completely unstable from that moment on, as there are no longer ANY stones to stabilize it. This should be damaging to everything in this universe.
There is nothing whatsoever that I have been able to find in any of the MCU films that contradicts this.
Therefore, the MCU should unravel completely if it has not already done so (that would explain the long delay for Black Widow to come out ;) ).
Rather shocking news to me.
Chadwick Boseman just died at age 43 (https://mcuexchange.com/black-panther-chadwick-boseman-forever/). He'd apparently been fighting colon cancer for four years.
Quote from: LucasM on August 28, 2020, 10:58:56 PM
Rather shocking news to me.
Chadwick Boseman just died at age 43 (https://mcuexchange.com/black-panther-chadwick-boseman-forever/). He'd apparently been fighting colon cancer for four years.
Broke my heart too. I don't know how they're going to explain T'Challa's departure in the MCU. 43 though??? Jesus, that's way too young, he was only a year older than me! :'(
How strange that he died on Jackie Robinson day, all MLB players wearing the number 42.
Well, it looks like I'll have a bit of work ahead of me. I'll need to update the full chronology I'd made a while back (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019) to remove all the Jeph Loeb TV series from it.
Kevin Feige Says Previous MCU TV Shows Aren't Part Of Canon (https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/marvel-tv-shows-separate-mcu/)
QuoteWhile at CCXP Brazil, he spoke with Brazilian pop culture site Omelete about the Marvel projects and when asked about how the visual language of the Disney+ series will compare to the MCU, he first responded by stating that "Disney+ is going to give us this opportunity to tell even deeper stories about characters you already know and love," and followed it up with the declaration that "it all, for the first time, will interlink." By stating that this is the beginning of the movies and TV series connecting, he's effectively wiped all previous Marvel shows from canon, which WGTC told you he was going to do last month.
That key statement: "it all, for the first time, will interlink," voids the old "It's all connected" promotional blurbs Marvel/Disney pumped out early on.
Hmm
It's not a huge loss for the Netflix shows which were never really integrated anyway, but they are such an excellent cast except for Danny Rand, that it's a bit of a shame. On the other hand, it lets them have a do-over on Iron Fist, which I don't hate at all.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on September 28, 2020, 05:29:59 PM
Hmm
It's not a huge loss for the Netflix shows which were never really integrated anyway, but they are such an excellent cast except for Danny Rand, that it's a bit of a shame. On the other hand, it lets them have a do-over on Iron Fist, which I don't hate at all.
I agree. I read that apparently at least Charlie Cox was being considered to reprise his role, but now as the canonical MCU DareDevil when the time comes - that would be nice.
The thing that I am happiest about with this is that that horrendous Inhumans TV series is no longer remotely considered part of the MCU so it can be completely ignored! Kevin Feige now has the opportunity to do Inhumans correctly. You know: things like Medusa actually having HAIR >:( , and Triton not being faux-killed, so out of the way right off the bat, because the hack running the show had no idea what to do with him... and I REALLY hope that they fix it so that Triton looks like Jack Kirby's original design instead of that cheap and shitty HalloweenTown knock-off mask that the TV one had.
[Oh... I've finished modifying The List (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019).]
Quote from: LucasM on September 28, 2020, 05:59:20 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on September 28, 2020, 05:29:59 PM
Hmm
It's not a huge loss for the Netflix shows which were never really integrated anyway, but they are such an excellent cast except for Danny Rand, that it's a bit of a shame. On the other hand, it lets them have a do-over on Iron Fist, which I don't hate at all.
I agree. I read that apparently at least Charlie Cox was being considered to reprise his role, but now as the canonical MCU DareDevil when the time comes - that would be nice.
The thing that I am happiest about with this is that that horrendous Inhumans TV series is no longer remotely considered part of the MCU so it can be completely ignored! Kevin Feige now has the opportunity to do Inhumans correctly. You know: things like Medusa actually having HAIR >:( , and Triton not being faux-killed, so out of the way right off the bat, because the hack running the show had no idea what to do with him... and I REALLY hope that they fix it so that Triton looks like Jack Kirby's original design instead of that cheap and shitty HalloweenTown knock-off mask that the TV one had.
[Oh... I've finished modifying The List (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019).]
As much as I like Charlie Cox, if I were Marvel I'd recast. It just muddies the water for the casual audience.
Quote from: LucasM on September 28, 2020, 01:30:41 PM
Well, it looks like I'll have a bit of work ahead of me. I'll need to update the full chronology I'd made a while back (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019) to remove all the Jeph Loeb TV series from it.
Kevin Feige Says Previous MCU TV Shows Aren't Part Of Canon (https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/marvel-tv-shows-separate-mcu/)
QuoteWhile at CCXP Brazil, he spoke with Brazilian pop culture site Omelete about the Marvel projects and when asked about how the visual language of the Disney+ series will compare to the MCU, he first responded by stating that "Disney+ is going to give us this opportunity to tell even deeper stories about characters you already know and love," and followed it up with the declaration that "it all, for the first time, will interlink." By stating that this is the beginning of the movies and TV series connecting, he's effectively wiped all previous Marvel shows from canon, which WGTC told you he was going to do last month.
That key statement: "it all, for the first time, will interlink," voids the old "It's all connected" promotional blurbs Marvel/Disney pumped out early on.
Is that Netflix only or does it include SHIELD?
Quote from: ScottotD on September 28, 2020, 06:20:58 PM
Quote from: LucasM on September 28, 2020, 01:30:41 PM
Well, it looks like I'll have a bit of work ahead of me. I'll need to update the full chronology I'd made a while back (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019) to remove all the Jeph Loeb TV series from it.
Kevin Feige Says Previous MCU TV Shows Aren't Part Of Canon (https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/marvel-tv-shows-separate-mcu/)
QuoteWhile at CCXP Brazil, he spoke with Brazilian pop culture site Omelete about the Marvel projects and when asked about how the visual language of the Disney+ series will compare to the MCU, he first responded by stating that "Disney+ is going to give us this opportunity to tell even deeper stories about characters you already know and love," and followed it up with the declaration that "it all, for the first time, will interlink." By stating that this is the beginning of the movies and TV series connecting, he's effectively wiped all previous Marvel shows from canon, which WGTC told you he was going to do last month.
That key statement: "it all, for the first time, will interlink," voids the old "It's all connected" promotional blurbs Marvel/Disney pumped out early on.
Is that Netflix only or does it include SHIELD?
You can't "wipe away"
all of SHIELD considering the tie-in episodes for Thor 2 and Winter Soldier. I haven't watched the past few seasons though, but there is definitely a point where they just started getting ignored.
Quote from: stansimpson on September 29, 2020, 06:29:01 AM
Quote from: ScottotD on September 28, 2020, 06:20:58 PM
Quote from: LucasM on September 28, 2020, 01:30:41 PM
Well, it looks like I'll have a bit of work ahead of me. I'll need to update the full chronology I'd made a while back (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019) to remove all the Jeph Loeb TV series from it.
Kevin Feige Says Previous MCU TV Shows Aren't Part Of Canon (https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/marvel-tv-shows-separate-mcu/)
QuoteWhile at CCXP Brazil, he spoke with Brazilian pop culture site Omelete about the Marvel projects and when asked about how the visual language of the Disney+ series will compare to the MCU, he first responded by stating that "Disney+ is going to give us this opportunity to tell even deeper stories about characters you already know and love," and followed it up with the declaration that "it all, for the first time, will interlink." By stating that this is the beginning of the movies and TV series connecting, he's effectively wiped all previous Marvel shows from canon, which WGTC told you he was going to do last month.
That key statement: "it all, for the first time, will interlink," voids the old "It's all connected" promotional blurbs Marvel/Disney pumped out early on.
Is that Netflix only or does it include SHIELD?
You can't "wipe away" all of SHIELD considering the tie-in episodes for Thor 2 and Winter Soldier. I haven't watched the past few seasons though, but there is definitely a point where they just started getting ignored.
They are about to introduce the multiverse, so
anything can be wiped away (while also not being wiped away)
Quote from: ScottotD on September 28, 2020, 06:20:58 PM
Quote from: LucasM on September 28, 2020, 01:30:41 PM
Spoilered the sections that have been repeatedly quoted, as people have likely already read them.
Spoiler
Well, it looks like I'll have a bit of work ahead of me. I'll need to update the full chronology I'd made a while back (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=32583.msg962019#msg962019) to remove all the Jeph Loeb TV series from it.
Kevin Feige Says Previous MCU TV Shows Aren't Part Of Canon (https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/marvel-tv-shows-separate-mcu/)
QuoteWhile at CCXP Brazil, he spoke with Brazilian pop culture site Omelete about the Marvel projects and when asked about how the visual language of the Disney+ series will compare to the MCU, he first responded by stating that "Disney+ is going to give us this opportunity to tell even deeper stories about characters you already know and love," and followed it up with the declaration that "it all, for the first time, will interlink." By stating that this is the beginning of the movies and TV series connecting, he's effectively wiped all previous Marvel shows from canon, which WGTC told you he was going to do last month.
That key statement: "it all, for the first time, will interlink," voids the old "It's all connected" promotional blurbs Marvel/Disney pumped out early on.
Is that Netflix only or does it include SHIELD?
It includes SHIELD. Basically Feige - the MCU god - has said (in the article I linked to and elsewhere) basically that nothing Jeph Loeb produced is MCU canon.
Quote from: stansimpson on September 29, 2020, 06:29:01 AM
You can't "wipe away" all of SHIELD considering the tie-in episodes for Thor 2 and Winter Soldier. I haven't watched the past few seasons though, but there is definitely a point where they just started getting ignored.
Actually, Kevin Feige can, and has from the start. The tie-ins of films with SHIELD were always only one way: from film to TV. Had
anything from the TV series
ever had repercussions in the films, then it would not be so easy. But they didn't. As far as the MCU filmworld was considered, for instance, Coulson was never alive past The Avengers.
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on September 29, 2020, 06:04:30 PM
They are about to introduce the multiverse, so anything can be wiped away (while also not being wiped away)
True, but with Kevin Feige doing as he's done so far, I doubt he would acknowledge anything that Jeph Loeb produced, regardless of having a multiverse option to explain them. I just don't think he'd spend the film-time (or even Disney+ series time) with them. There's too much he has laid out, and too much MCU story to tell, where any discussion of the "Loeb-verse" would feel like a distracting waste of screen time.
I think the only way they MIGHT show up, is if Disney gives Kevin Feige, a "you must say something about the Jeph Loeb materials, or else," ultimatum. But, given the films he's headed have been such incredible money-makers, I have severe doubts they'd try to force him to do
anything that he didn't want to.
Oh, and after thinking about it more, I agree with your earlier post: re-using a Netflix actor like Charlie Cox in official MCU work would severely muddy the waters about what is and is not canon for those not obsessed enough to visit websites or threads about the MCU. ;) So I'm OK with leaving it up to the MCU's head of casting (can't recall her name off the top of my head) to recast equally well when Kevin Feige decides to launch the Defenders (and Cloak & Dagger, and The Runaways, etc.) in one of his projects.
It's too bad, I really liked Agents of SHIELD and quite a few of it's characters. But the one I wanted to make the transfer to movies the most was Ming Na Wen's Agent May. It would have been so much fun if in the Black Widow movie Romanov calls in The Cavalry!
Interesting note: The only time any MCU tv show reference ever showed up in a movie (rather than the other way around) was in Avengers: Endgame. There's a brief moment where we see Tony Stark's father's butler, Jarvis, played by the same actor, James D'Arcy, who first showed up in Agent Carter (which was also the only tv show that the Russo brothers ever headed up).
Quote from: stansimpson on September 30, 2020, 06:48:15 AM
Interesting note: The only time any MCU tv show reference ever showed up in a movie (rather than the other way around) was in Avengers: Endgame. There's a brief moment where we see Tony Stark's father's butler, Jarvis, played by the same actor, James D'Arcy, who first showed up in Agent Carter (which was also the only tv show that the Russo brothers ever headed up).
I think the sudden appearance of the Heicarrier in Age of Ultron was supposed to be a tie in to Agents of SHEILD. Because Coulson was the one keeping it safe for Nick Fury.
speaking of marvel tv stuff, i'm excited to see tatiana maslany as she-hulk. i wonder how many characters she'll be playing in it.
Quote from: Darth Geek on September 30, 2020, 07:55:57 AM
Quote from: stansimpson on September 30, 2020, 06:48:15 AM
Interesting note: The only time any MCU tv show reference ever showed up in a movie (rather than the other way around) was in Avengers: Endgame. There's a brief moment where we see Tony Stark's father's butler, Jarvis, played by the same actor, James D'Arcy, who first showed up in Agent Carter (which was also the only tv show that the Russo brothers ever headed up).
I think the sudden appearance of the Heicarrier in Age of Ultron was supposed to be a tie in to Agents of SHEILD. Because Coulson was the one keeping it safe for Nick Fury.
James D'Arcy appeared to be a nod to Loeb works. But actors have been tapped to play characters in the TV series and then different roles in the films (e.g. Alfre Woodard playing both Mariah Dillard on Luke Cage, and "Miriam" in Civil War). Yes, D'Arcy played Jarvis on the small and large screen. But I would guess that, given his previous statements, Kevin Feige would simply say it was appropriate casting, not that the Agent Carter series were canon. Just as including actors from the Russo's prior work doesn't mean that the TV show Community took place in the MCU.
And, yes, in Agents of SHIELD the Helicarrier was clearly stated to be a Coulson project, but NONE of that was mentioned in Age of Ultron. So, again, Feige could just say the Helicarrier was in Nick Fury's garage or something.
There have been no words or explanations in any film that
directly comments on events from any TV series. Those very few, such as each of you mentioned, were implications of connectedness, rather than outright statements. As has been said elsewhere, "if it is not stated outright in the films, it isn't canon."
Sad little me has watched each MCU film at least 10 times, and most Loeb Marvel TV series seasons at least twice. And I've actually looked for 'backwards references' (from film referencing TV events) as I watched, noticing the 'close but not quite' references in the process, but no explicit connections.
Meanwhile, it looks like we have our Ms. Marvel:
https://www.ign.com/articles/ms-marvel-cast-iman-vellani
Never heard of her, but she's got the look at least.
Oh
https://news.avclub.com/tatiana-maslany-says-shes-not-disney-s-she-hulk-actual-1845402493?_ga=2.85530906.263937535.1603163651-739753852.1560902175
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 19, 2020, 08:28:57 PM
Oh
https://news.avclub.com/tatiana-maslany-says-shes-not-disney-s-she-hulk-actual-1845402493?_ga=2.85530906.263937535.1603163651-739753852.1560902175
i prefer io9's take: https://io9.gizmodo.com/she-hulks-tatiana-maslany-who-is-playing-she-hulk-den-1845391841
Quote from: goflyblind on October 19, 2020, 08:54:11 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 19, 2020, 08:28:57 PM
Oh
https://news.avclub.com/tatiana-maslany-says-shes-not-disney-s-she-hulk-actual-1845402493?_ga=2.85530906.263937535.1603163651-739753852.1560902175
i prefer io9's take: https://io9.gizmodo.com/she-hulks-tatiana-maslany-who-is-playing-she-hulk-den-1845391841
(https://i.imgur.com/giZEAK8.jpg)
is it like a contractual thing that they're not allowed to say they're in something early?
Marvel Cinematic Universe upcoming releases, per D23 [I think it was, I found them on the Facebook MCU page]. Some have exact dates, some have partial dates, some have none. But they are all in process to the point they had logos. "[series]" means it will be released on Disney+.
WandaVision - [series] - 210115
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier - [series] - 210319
Loki - [series] - May '21
What If? - [series] - Summer '21
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings - 210709
Thor: Love and Thunder - 220506
Captain Marvel 2 - 221111
The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special - [one-off] - 2212??
Fantastic Four - ?? ?? ?? - (Probably in the open spot left in the schedule as "as-yet untitled Marvel movie, Oct 7, 2022".) Announced: Jon "Spider-Man: 'Home' series" Watts for director.
Moon Knight - [series] - 22 ?? ??
She-Hulk - [series] - 22 ?? ??
Hawkeye - [series] - 22 ?? ??
Ant-Man and the Wasp [3]: Quantumania - ?? ?? ??
I Am Groot - [shorts] - ?? ?? ??
Armor Wars - [series] - ?? ?? ?? War Machine
Ironheart - [series] - ?? ?? ??
Secret Invasion - [series] - ?? ?? ?? Nick Fury's back
I'll be adding these to my updated list (first page, third post) when I can manage it.
Quote from: goflyblind on December 10, 2020, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: goflyblind on October 19, 2020, 08:54:11 PM
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on October 19, 2020, 08:28:57 PM
Oh
https://news.avclub.com/tatiana-maslany-says-shes-not-disney-s-she-hulk-actual-1845402493?_ga=2.85530906.263937535.1603163651-739753852.1560902175
i prefer io9's take: https://io9.gizmodo.com/she-hulks-tatiana-maslany-who-is-playing-she-hulk-den-1845391841
(https://i.imgur.com/giZEAK8.jpg)
is it like a contractual thing that they're not allowed to say they're in something early?
Yes.
Quote from: LucasM on December 10, 2020, 08:01:02 PM
Marvel Cinematic Universe upcoming releases, per D23 [I think it was, I found them on the Facebook MCU page]. Some have exact dates, some have partial dates, some have none. But they are all in process to the point they had logos. "[series]" means it will be released on Disney+.
WandaVision - [series] - 210115
Is that a date?
Quote from: Darth Geek on December 11, 2020, 01:18:24 PM
Quote from: LucasM on December 10, 2020, 08:01:02 PM
Marvel Cinematic Universe upcoming releases, per D23 [I think it was, I found them on the Facebook MCU page]. Some have exact dates, some have partial dates, some have none. But they are all in process to the point they had logos. "[series]" means it will be released on Disney+.
WandaVision - [series] - 210115
Is that a date?
No, it's your top score on Pole Position.
Quote from: Darth Geek on December 11, 2020, 01:18:24 PM
Quote from: LucasM on December 10, 2020, 08:01:02 PM
Marvel Cinematic Universe upcoming releases, per D23 [I think it was, I found them on the Facebook MCU page]. Some have exact dates, some have partial dates, some have none. But they are all in process to the point they had logos. "[series]" means it will be released on Disney+.
WandaVision - [series] - 210115
Is that a date?
That's a rather forward question. Maybe just start with coffee.
I think it might be European for January 15, 2021?
Quote from: Darth Geek on December 11, 2020, 01:18:24 PM
Quote from: LucasM on December 10, 2020, 08:01:02 PM
Marvel Cinematic Universe upcoming releases, per D23 [I think it was, I found them on the Facebook MCU page]. Some have exact dates, some have partial dates, some have none. But they are all in process to the point they had logos. "[series]" means it will be released on Disney+.
WandaVision - [series] - 210115
Is that a date?
Sorry. :) I'm so used to using my own date code (that I use on computer files to keep them in the order created) that I just automatically use them as shorthand whenever taking down dates.
Quote from: Pak-Man on December 11, 2020, 04:04:30 PM
I think it might be European for January 15, 2021?
Pak is right, the date code is: YYMMDD The reason the unknown ones are split with a space [e.g. ?? ?? ?? or 22 ?? ??] is because this site's software turns three question marks in a row into the smiley: ???
Quote from: LucasM on December 10, 2020, 08:01:02 PM
Marvel Cinematic Universe upcoming releases, per D23 [I think it was, I found them on the Facebook MCU page]. Some have exact dates, some have partial dates, some have none. But they are all in process to the point they had logos. "[series]" means it will be released on Disney+.
WandaVision - [series] - 15 Jan 2021
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier - [series] - 19 Mar 2021
Loki - [series] - May '21
What If? - [series] - Summer '21
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings - 9 Jul 2021
Thor: Love and Thunder - 6 May 2022
Captain Marvel 2 - 11 Nov 2022
The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special - [one-off] - Dec 2022
Fantastic Four - ?? ?? ?? - (Probably in the open spot left in the schedule as "as-yet untitled Marvel movie, Oct 7, 2022".) Announced: Jon "Spider-Man: 'Home' series" Watts for director.
Moon Knight - [series] - 22 ?? ??
She-Hulk - [series] - 22 ?? ??
Hawkeye - [series] - 22 ?? ??
Ant-Man and the Wasp [3]: Quantumania - ?? ?? ??
I Am Groot - [shorts] - ?? ?? ??
Armor Wars - [series] - ?? ?? ?? War Machine
Ironheart - [series] - ?? ?? ??
Secret Invasion - [series] - ?? ?? ?? Nick Fury's back
I'll be adding these to my updated list (first page, third post) when I can manage it.
Fixed so it's understandable.
In case you were curious about how much the scheduling was affected...
https://screencrush.com/how-much-marvel-plans-affected-by-pandemic/ (https://screencrush.com/how-much-marvel-plans-affected-by-pandemic/)
So Deadpool 3 is gonna be an MCU movie... https://collider.com/deadpool-3-mcu-confirmed-r-rating-filming-details-kevin-feige-interview/ (https://collider.com/deadpool-3-mcu-confirmed-r-rating-filming-details-kevin-feige-interview/)
Quote from: The Lurker on January 11, 2021, 08:50:19 AM
So Deadpool 3 is gonna be an MCU movie... https://collider.com/deadpool-3-mcu-confirmed-r-rating-filming-details-kevin-feige-interview/ (https://collider.com/deadpool-3-mcu-confirmed-r-rating-filming-details-kevin-feige-interview/)
This officially connects the MCU and the Fox X-Men films. I love both, so this makes my Marvel fanboy heart very happy.
It's also Deadpool, so the original X-Men can be waved away with a good fourth-wall wink.
Quote from: Pak-Man on January 11, 2021, 10:48:42 AM
It's also Deadpool, so the original X-Men can be waved away with a good fourth-wall wink.
a shitily-cg-animated-portal sequence where dp travels to the mcu has strong potential.
Quote from: goflyblind on January 11, 2021, 11:48:35 AM
Quote from: Pak-Man on January 11, 2021, 10:48:42 AM
It's also Deadpool, so the original X-Men can be waved away with a good fourth-wall wink.
a shitily-cg-animated-portal sequence where dp travels to the mcu has strong potential.
I had a vision in my head of Deadpool walking over to Xavier's school to get help and finding an almost completely empty lot. In the center is a chair with a script sitting on it, loaded with post-it notes marking new revisions that he skims quickly explaining the lack of mutants.
Great shortish interview from the D23 website, with discussion with WandaVision director Matt Shakman on a meeting with Dick Van Dyke before shooting WandaVision. [I'm still pissed they continue to refer to it as a "'50s" show - DVD Show started in 1961!]
https://d23.com/the-magic-story-behind-dick-van-dykes-influence-on-wandavision/ (https://d23.com/the-magic-story-behind-dick-van-dykes-influence-on-wandavision/)
Quote from: LucasM on April 09, 2021, 05:06:09 PM
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/170683723_1056159824876791_4889665076942505649_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=TSXBsZx-DNwAX9c8Fwl&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=28dffec0db8402d7f9a7780decfa0867&oe=609818D1)
I think Gary King in The World's End has something to say about that.
Shang-Chi is going to be a particularly hard-sell for me. The martial arts wing of the Marvel universe has always bored me to tears (Who needs martial artists when you have SUPERHEROES?) but Marvel Studios has done nothing but delight me thus far. I'll be there in the theater (or virtual equivalent) opening weekend, because I'm sure not gonna miss out.
Quote from: Pak-Man on April 19, 2021, 06:17:10 PM
Shang-Chi is going to be a particularly hard-sell for me. The martial arts wing of the Marvel universe has always bored me to tears (Who needs martial artists when you have SUPERHEROES?) but Marvel Studios has done nothing but delight me thus far. I'll be there in the theater (or virtual equivalent) opening weekend, because I'm sure not gonna miss out.
I'm with you, Pak. It does look like they are putting some fantasy elements into this, particularly if The Mandarin has his ten magic rings. But yeah, martial arts aren't really that interesting in the comics.
But I also had doubts about Hawkeye and Black Widow being in the Avengers for similar reasons, and I was very hesitant about Guardians of the Galaxy until the trailer. And Marvel has proved me wrong every time. So I am all in.
Quote from: Darth Geek on April 20, 2021, 09:47:54 AM
Quote from: Pak-Man on April 19, 2021, 06:17:10 PM
Shang-Chi is going to be a particularly hard-sell for me. The martial arts wing of the Marvel universe has always bored me to tears (Who needs martial artists when you have SUPERHEROES?) but Marvel Studios has done nothing but delight me thus far. I'll be there in the theater (or virtual equivalent) opening weekend, because I'm sure not gonna miss out.
I'm with you, Pak. It does look like they are putting some fantasy elements into this, particularly if The Mandarin has his ten magic rings. But yeah, martial arts aren't really that interesting in the comics.
But I also had doubts about Hawkeye and Black Widow being in the Avengers for similar reasons, and I was very hesitant about Guardians of the Galaxy until the trailer. And Marvel has proved me wrong every time. So I am all in.
I agree. Though with the comics, I was drawn in by the Starlin and Gulacy artwork, I have NO memory of any of the stories told in the series.
The thing I've been most hesitant about for this film is the Mandarin's magic rings - we JUST got done with a villain who had multiple magic STONES. To now go to a character that has mini-versions of some of them? Seems an iffy proposition for the general public, i.e. "Marvel's run out of ideas: they're doing yet another set of magical items that play with their environment at the guidance of the wearer!"
Those of us who collected the comics know that the rings preceded the stones by about a decade. But just like a Sub-Mariner film will now be compared to Aquaman because Aquaman made it to film first (despite Sub-Mariner being created about two years before Aquaman), the larger public doesn't care.
Quote from: LucasM on April 20, 2021, 11:16:57 AM
The thing I've been most hesitant about for this film is the Mandarin's magic rings - we JUST got done with a villain who had multiple magic STONES. To now go to a character that has mini-versions of some of them? Seems an iffy proposition for the general public, i.e. "Marvel's run out of ideas: they're doing yet another set of magical items that play with their environment at the guidance of the wearer!"
I can see that being an issue. I think the important thing will have to be The Mandarin's personality and motivations. The rings, like the stones, are just sources of power that let the bearer do pretty much whatever he wants. So how he uses them will be important. The MCU has been vary good so far with doing creative and varied fight scenes.
The MODOK trailer looks pretty good. I wasn't quite sure what to expect but I'm looking forward to it! It'll be a nice filler while I wait for Loki
Russell Crowe is apparently playing Zeus in Thor: Love And Thunder
This is huge because
HERCULES
Quote from: k1 on April 22, 2021, 06:22:57 PM
The MODOK trailer looks pretty good. I wasn't quite sure what to expect but I'm looking forward to it! It'll be a nice filler while I wait for Loki
I still want Patton Oswalt to play live action MODOK in one of the movies. Come on Sam Raimi, you have all these other villain cameos, we can't get one shot of a multiverse with MODOK?!
Falcon and the Winter Soldier was much deeper and more emotional than I expected, loved it.
Also I'm *SO* glad I didn't read any comment sections about it, I can only imagine the shitty white guy reactions
Quote from: ScottotD on April 23, 2021, 10:49:44 PM
Falcon and the Winter Soldier was much deeper and more emotional than I expected, loved it.
Also I'm *SO* glad I didn't read any comment sections about it, I can only imagine the shitty white guy reactions
Yes, it was exceptional. Disney/Marvel didn't shy away from difficult ideas - whether on personal roles, or how one reacts to maltreatment, or the massive disparities in how people are able to live their lives in this country. Absolutely beautifully done.
Sadly, I DID read some comments (on Disney+'s Facebook page posts on it). As anticipated, those who spouted thinly-veiled racism were clearly ignorant people (poor sentence construction, if they even HAD full sentences, poor spelling, inability to read or comment on what others actually said, etc.). What did it provide me with? Anger? No... those brainwashed (or bullied by their own parents) into believing those things often can't be reached by logic. So there was no point in responding to them. And it has helped me feel more compassion for their problems in living. [Interestingly, just now realizing that coincides with what Sam said in the finale.] Of course, if they were doing that shit directly to someone in front of me, I'd do something to intervene... but this helped me in accepting that I can't address every damaged person on the internet whose opinions are twisted.
Oh, some awesome news? Apparently announced the same day as the finale dropped, there will be a Captain America 4 film! Presumably with Sam as Cap. :highfive:
That raises an interesting question. Now that we're here, what makes a Captain America movie a Movie instead of a Season 2? The line is getting so blurry now.
Quote from: The Lurker on May 03, 2021, 08:33:35 AM
This ain't just another retrospective. New info in this video!
* At 2:20, first glimpses of Eternals footage.
* Official release dates for everything from Eternals to Fantastic Four.
* Official titles for Black Panther and Captain Marvel sequels.
Quote from: stansimpson on May 03, 2021, 08:42:25 AM
* Official release dates for everything from Eternals to Fantastic Four.
ff was just a logo tease, wasn't it? not even the actual logo?
Quote from: goflyblind on May 04, 2021, 06:39:41 AM
Quote from: stansimpson on May 03, 2021, 08:42:25 AM
* Official release dates for everything from Eternals to Fantastic Four.
ff was just a logo tease, wasn't it? not even the actual logo?
Oh yeah. You're right. Guess I was too hyped to think clearly. Lol
I'm sure half the film will be 'why we didn't help with Thanos'. Shang-chi looks much more interesting right now.
Well, I've started my 12th time through each MCU film (actually more views for Iron Man, Doctor Strange, and Infinity War, but close enough). This time through, I decided I wanted to listen to ALL the director commentaries.
First thing? A bit stunned to find there is no director commentary for the original Iron Man! Seriously, what the heck? Watched the film again 'normally' and still love it every bit as much as when I first saw it in a theater shortly after it came out.
Watched The Incredible Hulk this afternoon. In the commentary there are some interesting tidbits, and a couple laughs, but nothing really stood out enough to write down to share.
Then, though they don't mention it (because it was recorded in 2008, long predating the connection), I noticed something that had been nagging at me for a while now. It had been nagging at me because the person looked familiar, but I couldn't place from where.
When Banner bribes his way into the computer lab, first he bribes Lou Ferrigno with a pizza to get into the building, then he bribes "computer nerd" [I believe that was his designation in the credits] to get access to the computers themselves.
That "computer nerd" is - ten years later - the awkward teacher that takes Peter Parker and classmates to Europe in Spider-Man: Far From Home! When seeing Incredible Hulk previously, his face kept nagging at me (because I'd only seen him briefly in Spider-Man: Homecoming, so recognized him but couldn't quite make the connection). But I watched Spider-Man: Far From Home just two nights ago, so when I saw his decade-younger face today in the Hulk film, it clicked.
Now whether he is supposed to be the same character in both is unclear (the computer nerd actually looks more socially adept than the teacher ;) ), but they are both Martin Starr. :)
I knew that, because the actor is Martin Starr from Freaks and Geeks and Party Down.
Interestingly, but non-canonically - the Novelization names that computer nerd... Amadeus Cho.
That was an interesting marathon!
Just finished all of the films thus far released in the MCU. The entire first four phases in six days. Most days I averaged four films a day (one in the afternoon, three in the evening/night). Listening to the audio commentary for each. I now have a small school-like notebook with the notes I took for each (if any), to check back in on for reminders of what I found interesting in the commentaries without spending about 48 hours watching/listening to them all again.
Learned a lot, got insights into a number of more subtle things the directors or writers intended with particular scenes or themes, as well as some filmic homages they did. I suspect the next time I watch the films sans commentaries, the experience will be a little richer, even if I'm not consciously remembering what was said, because it will subconsciously be informing my viewing.
Of all the films, there are three that didn't have commentaries:
Iron Man [1]
Spider-Man: Homecoming
Spider-Man: Far From Home
I presume with the Spider-Mans that Sony didn't see a commentary as a priority, since they also appeared to have more depth to the documentaries on the film making than much of the MCU, and possibly felt that was enough.
Of the film commentaries, though it may differ from person to person, these are my impressions:
1. Those for
Captain America: The Winter Soldier,
CA: Civil War,
Avengers: Infinity War,
and Avengers: Endgame
were BY FAR the most interesting, involving and informative. The fact that the commentaries for each of these included both the Russos and Touchy-McFeely ...er, Marcus & McFeely likely has something to do with that, as there were more people to interact and present info while they recorded them. Althought it could also be that the interest was amplified because - with four people present - they each upped their game for what they shared because they could remind each other of things building on what the others said. [Just like riffing done with the writers all in the same room is FAR funnier usually, than if the writers are separate while writing film riffs, as they can play off each-other's comments.]
2. The commentary for Black Panther was likely second to those, although just barely. For me it had the most interesting and involving details. That may be because while I am knowledgeable about many issues facing African-Americans, I am less conversant in the details of the culture, so missed out on a lot. e.g. When Nakia, T'Challa, and Okoye are at the casino, the colors of their outfits (green, black, and red) were deliberately chosen because those are the colors of the pan-African flag... a connection I just missed while watching.
3. Doctor Strange - I took a lot of notes on this also. Not sure if it is because he is one of my three favorite comic characters (Spider-man and Adam Warlock being the other two) and this is possibly my favorite MCU film, or not. But there was a lot of interest to me in it.
4. The commentary for Captain Marvel was nice, but did occasionally fall into the problem with most of the commentaries at times: just basically describing what was on-screen, or making connections that I felt were obvious in what was going on.
5. Whedon's Avengers [1], and Avengers: Age of Ultron, as well as James Gunn's two Guardians commentaries were the most fun to listen to.
And finally... Taika Waititi's Thor: Ragnarok commentary was the most tortuous to get through. I have no idea how much of it is because I REALLY don't like his sense of humor or not. But it was uncomfortable to listen to much of the time, and I thought briefly of actually turning it off a couple times during the film it was that unpleasant for me to listen to. (People who love his work likely would have a different experience, but for instance, I couldn't force myself to watch 'What We Do In the Shadows' past the start of the opening credits about 10 minutes into that film.)
One unrelated thing... while watching I looked for (once I thought of it) to see if Disney/Marvel had the foresight or courtesy to include chapter stops for the mid-credit and end-credit scenes. They did, but for only FOUR films! Those are:
Thor - end scene (only credit scene in the film)
Guardians of the Galaxy [1] - both mid and end scenes
and
Captain America: Civil War - bizarrely one for the mid-credit scene but NOT for the end-credit one
Spider-Man: Far From Home - also bizarrely one for the mid-credit scene but NOT for the end-credit one
There are two I missed looking for them in, where they may or may not have them (though likely not):
Iron Man
Iron Man 2
I think I've heard before that Taika's commentary was uninteresting, doesn't he have people come and go? Or maybe that's another one.
Quote from: BathTub on June 05, 2021, 09:25:02 PM
I think I've heard before that Taika's commentary was uninteresting, doesn't he have people come and go? Or maybe that's another one.
Nope. You're right. His two-year-old daughter came in a few times (the more forceful one, she wanted him to turn off Ragnarok and put on Moana - and honestly, so did I ;) ). But honestly? Those interruptions by her were possibly the most tolerable parts of the commentary! [It did trigger him to share that the just-past-toddler Hulk was, indeed, based on his 4-year-old, and that the conversation with Thor on the bed ("I'm so angry all the time") came from a conversation he had with his kid. But it also showed me even more directly than the film had how little he respected and understood the character of the Hulk.]
EDIT: I forgot until later that he also receives two phone calls during the commentary. One he lets go to voice mail after he checks who it is, the second he answers briefly. Had it been Hemsworth or Feige, it would be one thing, but to not hold off on answering or responding to something clearly not urgent for maybe 45-60 minutes because you are actually in the middle of doing work? Intensely unprofessional.
Just watched the first episode of Loki. Damn but that was fun! And yet, also as serious and deep as either WandaVision, or Falcon and the Winter Soldier, or the MCU films, just - thankfully - WAY different to keep the variety and to keep things from becoming predictable.
I continue to be massively impressed at the level of creativity that is present in all the Feige-overseen MCU content. To me, it appears to be many levels of creativity beyond what tends to end up in most of the comics (at least through when I last was reading any of them).
Yes, I know that the core of the MCU originates in the comics. But in the comics, the depth of the material is usually far more diluted than what ends up in the filmed stories and characters.
Loki ties into so much of the MCU and to see...
[spoiler for Loki episode 1]
Loki discover what would have happened to him had he remained in the officially sanctioned timeline/reality, and to have such deep and genuine responses to it all. Just magnificent!
There is one thing I have a MAJOR problem with with the TVA. For ANY living being, how in their wildest imaginings would they know what they are 'supposed' to do or have done for the 'official' timeline? If they do not know that alternatives even EXIST, how can they be "guilty" of an offense against a reality they have absolutely no context for?!!
Extraordinary MCU material - yet again. :D
Just curious:
In the nine realms, are cocaine addicts generally found in Sniffle-heim?
I loved the almost Hitchhiker's Guide-ish quirk and space bureaucracy of episode 1 of Loki
Was hugely underwhelmed by ep 2
Back to the banter and Hitchhiker's feel in ep 3 and just blown away by the scope of it, I think the dialogue isn't as sharp as it thinks it is though
Also, I adoooooooooooooooooooore the fact F&TWS introduced an African American Captain America and Loki confirmed he's bi. Entertainment that also upsets toxic fans/bigots is my favourite sub-genre :)
i'm hoping some of the other rumours are true.
Given that the trailer practically teases every existing cinematic villain except for The Rhino I'd say odds are pretty good they are.
Finally finished WandaVision, those first few eps were a slog for me. It wasn't as weird as I was hoping and just didn't click, the overall message about loss and the last couple were really good but overall my least favourite of the 3.
Haven't started What If? yet, I'm a little disappointed all the animation is the same and has a cut scene/rotoscope-y look. It's be fun if every story had a different style
Re-watched Thor: Ragnarok and Black Panther with a friend who'd only seen a few MCU movies, I'm a little worried I've set her expectations too high now for the rest of the movies.
Quote from: ScottotD on August 24, 2021, 07:19:05 PM
Finally finished WandaVision, those first few eps were a slog for me. It wasn't as weird as I was hoping and just didn't click, the overall message about loss and the last couple were really good but overall my least favourite of the 3.
Haven't started What If? yet, I'm a little disappointed all the animation is the same and has a cut scene/rotoscope-y look. It's be fun if every story had a different style
Re-watched Thor: Ragnarok and Black Panther with a friend who'd only seen a few MCU movies, I'm a little worried I've set her expectations too high now for the rest of the movies.
Yeah, I'd be especially worried about showing her the first couple Thor movies after that start. I kind of appreciate the first one more now than I did at first, but it's miles behind Ragnarok.
This looks like fun, and the holiday setting will be a nice way to end a year of nearly non-stop Marvel.
Extra points for the "Come with a bow" pun.
I've heard some refer to it as the MCU's Die Hard.
I'm interest is 60% based on Yelena showing up
...although I hope they include a scene where Clint's wife and kids ask him what he was up to for 5 years ;D
Well, Disney+ just released announcements for a whole slew of upcoming MCU product. Some of these were known or suspected before, some are entirely new.
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/256402112_10159482758332357_2059486932443775001_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_rgb565=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=AbaRbS2QBQoAX9MV3cN&tn=vXw7NhjahFTHlrHP&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=c47b1d78aaa752c1a3f83eef5f28f94f&oe=61945F29)
The X-Men one seems to be trying to bring the previous voice actors back.
Quote from: The Lurker on November 12, 2021, 05:40:13 PM
The X-Men one seems to be trying to bring the previous voice actors back.
Yes, and I think I read they have at least four of the originals (overwhelmed with info today, so memory for 'what goes where' is less sure than usual). It is supposed to have the same writers and directors, as well, so for those who really got into it, it sounds great.
Hopefully there's less questionable executive mandates to push against this time around.
Went to a convention panel a couple years ago that had the original voice actors for Wolverine and Beast. They've still got it, so the characters should still sound just right.
They put that stupid Dr Strange 2 trailer at the end of Spiderman 3, instead of a post-credits scene. So if you go to see it, you can leave right after the mid-credits scene.
I loved Spiderman No Way Home. Definitely up there among my favorites.
I kinda liked that the mid-credits scene pretty much negated the post-credits scene from Venom, which reduced it to Eddie gawking at disbelief at the Avengers Universe, then leaving. (While leaving just a nugget of possibility for future movies.)
I think we can now call it a trend. Spider-Verse end-credits scenes are generally more of a joke than they are a tease of things to come.
The filmmakers indicated before that Loki and What If? shenanigans influenced Multiverse reshoots.
Cool use of miniatures for a street artist to turn a damaged pylon into a 'major' battle.
(https://excellenttown.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/22-1-1024x1024.jpg)
So it's official! Netflix's Marvel Shows (and also Agents of SHIELD) are making the jump to Disney Plus!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/netflix-s-marvel-series-including-luke-cage-and-jessica-jones-officially-jumping-to-disney-along-with-agents-of-shield/ar-AAUtnJ
This means we have TV-MA content on Disney Plus, which means they'll implement some age controls, which ALSO opens the door for Deadpool and a few other Marvel Oddities.
It also happened very quickly after a certain indication that the Netflix stuff is still considered cannon.
Huh. It looks like they went with a sort of energy field manipulation instead of actual stretchy-powers. I get it. It's hard to make stretchy people look good. I guess I hoped they'd figured it out. Looks like they nailed the character, though. Should be fun.
Quote from: Pak-Man on March 15, 2022, 05:18:56 PM
Huh. It looks like they went with a sort of energy field manipulation instead of actual stretchy-powers. I get it. It's hard to make stretchy people look good. I guess I hoped they'd figured it out. Looks like they nailed the character, though. Should be fun.
I think it's more so they keep superheroes with overlapping powers to a minimum (ie if they plan on bringing in Reed Richards for a Fantastic 4 movie)
A very brief thing from the Hawkeye series that I noticed:
Nice subtle thing in the final episode: Yalena's hair style mimics the above-water-visible part of a Portugese Man-of-War (the most dangerous jellyfish). This subtle visual cue says that she is NOT there to reason.
Watching Endgame again. There's something I noticed and thought about with a scene in it before, but where last night a thought popped into my head that resulted in me just starting laughing.
So: after the interstellar phone conversation, Natasha is finishing making her PB&J before Cap arrives, and she cuts it diagonally.
Well, I put that together with something obscure (and absurd) from Captain Marvel, and wondered:
Did Natasha start cutting her sandwiches diagonally while she was working in the SHIELD offices, because, by doing so, Nick would no longer steal them from her (since he "can't eat toast if it is cut diagonally")? ;D
And a little something from Eternals.
When the Deviants are attacking in Druig's mind-controlled town, someone says it is a war.
Druig says, "This isn't war - this is genocide!"
Well, that seems very similar to the David Bowie line at the start of the album 'Diamond Dogs':
"This ain't rock and roll - this is genocide!"
To ME that seemed a bit too close to be coincidence (particularly since the intonations appeared similar to me when I noticed it), but it may still be one.
Quote from: LucasM on April 01, 2022, 11:32:07 AM
Watching Endgame again. There's something I noticed and thought about with a scene in it before, but where last night a thought popped into my head that resulted in me just starting laughing.
So: after the interstellar phone conversation, Natasha is finishing making her PB&J before Cap arrives, and she cuts it diagonally.
Well, I put that together with something obscure (and absurd) from Captain Marvel, and wondered:
Did Natasha start cutting her sandwiches diagonally while she was working in the SHIELD offices, because, by doing so, Nick would no longer steal them from her (since he "can't eat toast if it is cut diagonally")? ;D
This is extremely good and I hope it was deliberate.
I was watching Eternals last week. It seems really strange that the Eternals didn't bother to intercede against Thanos. I know this is explained away as "we were forbidden from interfering unless the Deviants were involved". But on the other hand, they only killed the Deviants because their presence was threatening human population growth. The Celestials needed Earth population to hit a certain level in order to initiate The Emergence. Thanos cutting that in half seems like a pretty damn big threat to the plan.
Quote from: Pastor of Muppets on April 04, 2022, 04:02:53 AM
I was watching Eternals last week. It seems really strange that the Eternals didn't bother to intercede against Thanos. I know this is explained away as "we were forbidden from interfering unless the Deviants were involved". But on the other hand, they only killed the Deviants because their presence was threatening human population growth. The Celestials needed Earth population to hit a certain level in order to initiate The Emergence. Thanos cutting that in half seems like a pretty damn big threat to the plan.
Yeah, that is definitely not a good enough excuse.
My friend Chris made a better suggestion:
By the time Thanos arrived and the event happened it was just a few hours, not enough time for them to realize it and get there. And even if they did it was in Wakanda under their protection field, so they probably couldn't have gotten in anyway.
I never liked the idea that the Eternals gave humans technological advancements anyway. Because it takes away from human ingenuity. But Wakanda brings up a whole other issue with that. If they want the world to be technologically advanced to further the species you would think they'd have a problem with one country hoarding advancement far beyond the others.
The Eternals are not well known properties that the public expects to be in the movies, so why put them in if it raises so many unanswerable questions? The only reason is if Marvel has future plotline plans where they are necessary, and I am hard pressed to think of what that would be.
Quote from: Darth Geek on April 04, 2022, 06:29:44 AM
Quote from: Pastor of Muppets on April 04, 2022, 04:02:53 AM
I was watching Eternals last week. It seems really strange that the Eternals didn't bother to intercede against Thanos. I know this is explained away as "we were forbidden from interfering unless the Deviants were involved". But on the other hand, they only killed the Deviants because their presence was threatening human population growth. The Celestials needed Earth population to hit a certain level in order to initiate The Emergence. Thanos cutting that in half seems like a pretty damn big threat to the plan.
Yeah, that is definitely not a good enough excuse.
My friend Chris made a better suggestion:
By the time Thanos arrived and the event happened it was just a few hours, not enough time for them to realize it and get there. And even if they did it was in Wakanda under their protection field, so they probably couldn't have gotten in anyway.
I never liked the idea that the Eternals gave humans technological advancements anyway. Because it takes away from human ingenuity. But Wakanda brings up a whole other issue with that. If they want the world to be technologically advanced to further the species you would think they'd have a problem with one country hoarding advancement far beyond the others.
The Eternals are not well known properties that the public expects to be in the movies, so why put them in if it raises so many unanswerable questions? The only reason is if Marvel has future plotline plans where they are necessary, and I am hard pressed to think of what that would be.
I agree on the "not giving humans tech" thing. You're absolutely right, it takes away from humanities' creative spark if they were handed key advancements (the wheel, the plow, presumably later the steam engine created way before its time).
I tend to think of the Eternals as being 'good little soldiers' for the most part, Druig being the first to stray from that significantly. As good little soldiers they didn't significantly disobey the rules until they developed consciences late in the film.
I agree that Thanos snapping away everyone was kind of a bid deal, in that it would bring to a halt the growth of an unknown number of Celestials throughout the universe. But the thing with that is: the Celestials wouldn't have known that was going on until after the snap (I don't believe they are omniscient), at which point it was too late to tell the Eternals to intercede. [It is interesting to think about the fact that 1/2 of the gestating Celestials would also have disappeared in the snap. Wouldn't that have destabilized those planets? I mean, suddenly there's a huge vacuum in what was molten metal and rock. If they are so large that they destroy the planet when they hatch, that's a significant void that would have appeared in their place.]
I'm thinking Feige has something in mind for the Celestials (he seems to have things in mind for most of the MCU). I mean, they popped a dead Celestial head in the first Guardians film and with flashbacks to them alive in the Collector-provided background, so the groundwork was laid for their appearance early.
Personally, I wonder if the now-free-of-Celestial-control Eternals will play a role in the Kang wars coming. Although, if the intent is for them to be Avengers replacements in the MCU, I don't think they'd get far (with the public, the screenwriters control their effectiveness in the films), since they have never been particularly interesting in the comics, and the film didn't improve on that all that much.
Oh, and I'm a little pissed that Pip wasn't his original purple. >:(
Quote from: LucasM on April 04, 2022, 10:24:04 AM
Oh, and I'm a little pissed that Pip wasn't his original purple. >:(
I don't get why Pip was CGI. And while I love Patton Oswalt he is so great in the M.O.D.O.K. show that I was really hoping he would be in the MCU proper live action as that character at some point.
Quote from: Darth Geek on April 04, 2022, 06:29:44 AM
Quote from: Pastor of Muppets on April 04, 2022, 04:02:53 AM
I was watching Eternals last week. It seems really strange that the Eternals didn't bother to intercede against Thanos. I know this is explained away as "we were forbidden from interfering unless the Deviants were involved". But on the other hand, they only killed the Deviants because their presence was threatening human population growth. The Celestials needed Earth population to hit a certain level in order to initiate The Emergence. Thanos cutting that in half seems like a pretty damn big threat to the plan.
Yeah, that is definitely not a good enough excuse.
My friend Chris made a better suggestion:
By the time Thanos arrived and the event happened it was just a few hours, not enough time for them to realize it and get there. And even if they did it was in Wakanda under their protection field, so they probably couldn't have gotten in anyway.
See that would have worked much better. Captain Marvel didn't realize what was going on until it was too late. So they could've said the same thing about the Eternals and it would've been fine.
That looks like exactly what I wanted this show to be. Can't wait!
Well, count me among those massively unimpressed by 'Thor: Love and Thunder'.
I got the impression as I watched it today that it was intended to be funny in a lot of places, but there wasn't a single thing in the film that got me to even smile. So it thoroughly failed as a comedy, even worse than Ragnarok did.
There was a huge amount of stuff going on, but incredibly little of it actually seemed to have any real point. So - I suppose - in that regard it was Shakespearean: "much ado about nothing".
It appeared to be designed largely as a display of visual 'cool shit' ["shit" being a word that was used a LOT in the film - I counted a minimum of five times - there are PLENTY of other swear words: pick another one once in a while].
Spoiler for specific plot point:
In addition, the "good guys" snuck their way into Zeus's cathedral (getting robes presumably through violence to people who were supposed to be there), and then slaughtered large numbers of gods - including supposedly Zeus (believed dead by the audience until the end-credit scene) - to steal Zeus's lightning bolt... 'because they needed it'. "I want/need that more than you" [basically the sociopathic comment of Rocket at the end of GotG v2] is not an adequate justification for multiple homicides and theft. Given the gold blood of those they killed, presumably all of those they slaughtered were 'low-level' gods. That, when supposedly protecting gods from Gorr was a major reason for their statement that they needed the lightning bolt. Ultimately, they killed more gods than Gorr was shown doing in the film just while they were in Zeus's temple. Yeah: NOT heroes, but terrorists.
Overall, I'd say that this is easily down below 'Thor: The Dark World' as one of the most tedious-to-get-through MCU films. I actually liked Dark World better.
REQUEST:
Could a moderator move this entire thread to the 'Movie Talk' area of the boards? It appears to be getting repeatedly missed for MCU film and Dis+ series discussions with it straddling the Film/TV arenas in the 'General/Off-Topic Discussion' area. Thanks!
Quote from: LucasM on September 08, 2022, 01:48:37 PM
Well, count me among those massively unimpressed by 'Thor: Love and Thunder'.
I got the impression as I watched it today that it was intended to be funny in a lot of places, but there wasn't a single thing in the film that got me to even smile. So it thoroughly failed as a comedy, even worse than Ragnarok did.
There was a huge amount of stuff going on, but incredibly little of it actually seemed to have any real point. So - I suppose - in that regard it was Shakespearean: "much ado about nothing".
It appeared to be designed largely as a display of visual 'cool shit' ["shit" being a word that was used a LOT in the film - I counted a minimum of five times - there are PLENTY of other swear words: pick another one once in a while].
Spoiler for specific plot point:
In addition, the "good guys" snuck their way into Zeus's cathedral (getting robes presumably through violence to people who were supposed to be there), and then slaughtered large numbers of gods - including supposedly Zeus (believed dead by the audience until the end-credit scene) - to steal Zeus's lightning bolt... 'because they needed it'. "I want/need that more than you" [basically the sociopathic comment of Rocket at the end of GotG v2] is not an adequate justification for multiple homicides and theft. Given the gold blood of those they killed, presumably all of those they slaughtered were 'low-level' gods. That, when supposedly protecting gods from Gorr was a major reason for their statement that they needed the lightning bolt. Ultimately, they killed more gods than Gorr was shown doing in the film just while they were in Zeus's temple. Yeah: NOT heroes, but terrorists.
Overall, I'd say that this is easily down below 'Thor: The Dark World' as one of the most tedious-to-get-through MCU films. I actually liked Dark World better.
Apparently, it had multiple editors so I wouldn't be surprised if there were behind the scenes issues.
Quote from: The Lurker on September 08, 2022, 03:34:02 PM
Quote from: LucasM on September 08, 2022, 01:48:37 PM
Well, count me among those massively unimpressed by 'Thor: Love and Thunder'.
I got the impression as I watched it today that it was intended to be funny in a lot of places, but there wasn't a single thing in the film that got me to even smile. So it thoroughly failed as a comedy, even worse than Ragnarok did.
There was a huge amount of stuff going on, but incredibly little of it actually seemed to have any real point. So - I suppose - in that regard it was Shakespearean: "much ado about nothing".
It appeared to be designed largely as a display of visual 'cool shit' ["shit" being a word that was used a LOT in the film - I counted a minimum of five times - there are PLENTY of other swear words: pick another one once in a while].
Spoiler for specific plot point:
In addition, the "good guys" snuck their way into Zeus's cathedral (getting robes presumably through violence to people who were supposed to be there), and then slaughtered large numbers of gods - including supposedly Zeus (believed dead by the audience until the end-credit scene) - to steal Zeus's lightning bolt... 'because they needed it'. "I want/need that more than you" [basically the sociopathic comment of Rocket at the end of GotG v2] is not an adequate justification for multiple homicides and theft. Given the gold blood of those they killed, presumably all of those they slaughtered were 'low-level' gods. That, when supposedly protecting gods from Gorr was a major reason for their statement that they needed the lightning bolt. Ultimately, they killed more gods than Gorr was shown doing in the film just while they were in Zeus's temple. Yeah: NOT heroes, but terrorists.
Overall, I'd say that this is easily down below 'Thor: The Dark World' as one of the most tedious-to-get-through MCU films. I actually liked Dark World better.
Apparently, it had multiple editors so I wouldn't be surprised if there were behind the scenes issues.
I noticed it seemed like sections of it had different "feel" than others, so it makes sense that it had too many cooks.
I liked all the stuff with Jane, Thor was way too annoying up until the last half hour, Valkyrie and Korg were good, the rest was nice eye candy. So I thought it was mostly fun to watch even with the stupid parts. Loved the choices for the music.
Seems to be a thing with so many big budget movies where there is a middle section that takes up a bunch of time but really doesn't add anything to the plot, really stands out in this one, if they never went to the city with all the gods the movie would have had the same ending.
Quote from: LucasM on September 08, 2022, 01:49:11 PM
REQUEST:
Could a moderator move this entire thread to the 'Movie Talk' area of the boards? It appears to be getting repeatedly missed for MCU film and Dis+ series discussions with it straddling the Film/TV arenas in the 'General/Off-Topic Discussion' area. Thanks!
No problem - done
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on September 09, 2022, 09:03:36 PM
Quote from: LucasM on September 08, 2022, 01:49:11 PM
REQUEST:
Could a moderator move this entire thread to the 'Movie Talk' area of the boards? It appears to be getting repeatedly missed for MCU film and Dis+ series discussions with it straddling the Film/TV arenas in the 'General/Off-Topic Discussion' area. Thanks!
No problem - done
Thanks VERY much, EJG III!
I liked Thor 4 pretty well. I like the outer space / high fantasy style MCU movies. I can't wait for Guardians of the Galaxy 3.
It's really cool that MCU has such a wide range of characters that they can make so many different general kinds of movies.
Who's up for some werewolf action?
Quote from: Pastor of Muppets on September 09, 2022, 11:25:15 PM
I liked Thor 4 pretty well. I like the outer space / high fantasy style MCU movies. I can't wait for Guardians of the Galaxy 3.
It's really cool that MCU has such a wide range of characters that they can make so many different general kinds of movies.
I like the outer space / high fantasy style MCU movies as well. In comics, quite possibly my favorite storyline was Starlin's initial Warlock run (Magus and first major battle with everyone against Thanos).
The problems I have with this Thor film is that it turns Thor 100% into an inconsiderate, narcissistic asshole who is childish in his interpersonal relationship with Jane (his behavior is equivalent to possibly a 5-year old's). That transformation into a self-centered asshole started in the additional PoS, Thor: Ragnarok. But, while Ragnarok had occasional bits of watchability, this film is MUCH worse. In this film, he also becomes a multiple-murderer when he isn't allowed to steal someone else's property.
Seriously, think about that: he asked to take Zeus's property, and killed over a dozen gods in his attempt to steal it - killing FAR more gods than the "God Killer".
That turns him into a serial killer narcissistic sociopath. Not funny. Not 'cool'. And DEFINITELY not REMOTELY a "hero".
THAT is why I have a problem with the film.
Gor was going to kill ALL the gods though. In the end he didn't, but Thor couldn't have known that at the time. I mean, sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures. Sometimes you don't have the luxury of taking the high ground.
I'll have to watch again, but I don't think he actually killed many gods anyway. Zeus was fine, according to the post credits scene.
Quote from: Pastor of Muppets on September 18, 2022, 04:46:22 AM
Gor was going to kill ALL the gods though. In the end he didn't, but Thor couldn't have known that at the time. I mean, sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures. Sometimes you don't have the luxury of taking the high ground.
I'll have to watch again, but I don't think he actually killed many gods anyway. Zeus was fine, according to the post credits scene.
I just rewatched it last night and counted. Thor kills an even dozen gods. His posse kills likely twice that many (most killed by Valkyrie). Since most gods can't regenerate (or Gorr would be meaningless), lesser gods than Zeus would have stayed dead.
So, yeah, mass murderers during a felony theft... presented as 'heroes'.
Well I did go to the bathroom around the time they entered that place so maybe I missed something.
I didn't think the guards that turned to gold dust when killed were gods, were they?
But really for me at that point everyone on screen were being such horrible people I really didn't care who killed who.
Quote from: Pastor of Muppets on September 25, 2022, 09:45:35 AM
Well I did go to the bathroom around the time they entered that place so maybe I missed something.
you missed thor's butt.
deadpool 3 announcement/teaser/whatever (september 2024):
Quote from: MartyS (Gromit) on September 25, 2022, 08:59:32 PM
I didn't think the guards that turned to gold dust when killed were gods, were they?
But really for me at that point everyone on screen were being such horrible people I really didn't care who killed who.
I 100% agree with you on the, "everyone on screen... being such horrible people!"
The reason I said the 12 Thor killed were gods is because the (admittedly with inadequate exposition) implication was that only gods had gold blood, since the only time we saw gold blood prior to that scene was when the first god that Gorr killed had his throat punctured and it sprayed out, just as it did in the fight in the city. And in that scene with Zeus I don't recall seeing any obvious servants (the females with him I presumed to be concubines or groupies) - though there may have been, and I was just so revolted by the foreground action that I missed them.
Basically, I think they were lesser gods, just as the Greek/Roman pantheons had castes, with lesser gods doing less important stuff. In this case, presumably serving as the guards that were wholesale slaughtered by the "heroes".
Another much more minor beef with the film, but I feel a legitimate one: Sif would god-damn well KNOW that she'd have to die in battle to get into Valhalla! No fucking WAY she would be ignorant of that. Her wanting to be left on the battlefield to die, and her missing arm, were I think both supposed to be a laugh likely inserted by the emotionally immature director - but it was done at the expense of the only female supporting character who was shown to be smart and strong enough to hang with Thor and the Warriors Three from long before the first film.
https://variety.com/2022/film/news/marvel-blade-director-exits-bassam-tariq-1235386317/
REALLY enjoyed Werewolf By Night tonight. ;D
spoiler for all sorts'a things from the show
At first I was put off by the B&W (with the single red highlight), but then it grew on me - as it was clear it was partly a tribute to the classic Universal films. I mean: they even put the cut-outs in the upper right corner about every 13 minutes signaling an obviously-non-existent reel change!
I always remember Man-Thing as being extremely unintelligent, but in this, he is rational, 'speaks' (though not comprehensible to humans), and even jokes around. So a tag line could have been: "this isn't your comics' Man-Thing".
Speaking of jokes, I didn't find what few amusements that were placed around and about in this special to be as distracting as they sometimes have been in some of the more recent theatrical releases.
I liked that some aspects had a very 'Ploogian' style to them, since Ploog was his original artist.
Thankfully they kept is Pg-13 or R or whatever it was, so the condition of those fighting could be shown, as it would have been quite weak if it was G rated.
Overall, I found it quite enjoyable. Though I would have liked more actual werewolf, the amount of transformed wolf was appropriate to the story.
Can't wait! I heard they're going to introduce Kang the Conqueror, who will also be the villain in the next Avengers movie.
Anybody else think that - when the Silver Surfer shows up, and then finally breaks free of Earth to try to go back to his home planet - that the music they play should be Elvis Presley singing...
"Returrrn to Zenn-La ... address unknown..."?
Just me? ;D 8)
[ . . . or is the word "sender" . . . ?]
I did something to answer a question that I've wondered about for a while now. It has irritated me that the Disney+ MCU shows have been touted (in the Assembled shows, as well as elsewhere) as being "six hours" or "three films worth" of story. Six "hours" possibly if they were on broadcast TV and had commercials to fill the remaining time (or if they were being seen by a psychiatrist ;) ), but each episode of the six-episode series is between 40-50 minutes long, including credits.
So I figured out how long the Disney+ MCU shows actually are. [Partly doing this to get a better feel for the latest I could start to re-watch one in order to watch it straight-through in an evening.]
I did this time check for both Loki and Moon Knight, to have a sample size of more than one.
I added up the full run-times of each show. I figured out how long both the end credits, and the 'Previously' segments lasted. I subtracted the six incidents of credits and the five incidents of Previouslies from the full show's run-time.
Each Disney+ MCU show has - of PURE story - only four hours and 12 minutes. And clearly only TWO films worth of story, not three as they espouse. [To be clear: I think the stories are ideal at this length - tight, no filler - I'm just irritated they are being promoted as a full 50% longer than they actually are.]
Exact story length for the two I checked:
Loki 4 hr 13m
Moon Knight 4 hr 12m
That is SO close that I suspect the 4h12m is true across series.
Moon Knight and Loki are both 6 episodes, but WandaVision and She-Hulk are both 9 episodes.
IMDB lists the full runtime of WandaVision as 5hr 50mins, which is pretty close to that 6 hours that people were referring to (although that's without removing the credits etc)
Quote from: Edward J Grug III on May 25, 2023, 04:53:28 PM
Moon Knight and Loki are both 6 episodes, but WandaVision and She-Hulk are both 9 episodes.
IMDB lists the full runtime of WandaVision as 5hr 50mins, which is pretty close to that 6 hours that people were referring to (although that's without removing the credits etc)
With these, I was sharing what I personally added up, from the actual run-times of each episode, which I checked.
Yes, WandaVision and She-Hulk are nine episodes, but they are shorter episodes, and so the credits are a much larger percentage of the total runtime. i.e. They'd have longer total run-time, but with nine times the credit length and eight times the 'Previously' length subtracted, so likely around the same 4 hours 12 minutes.
To double check IMdB on that, I just added up WandaVision individual episode times.* It actually comes to 5 hours and 17 minutes including credits and Previously segments (the total alone gives a whole episode-length shorter than what IMdB reports). With each credit segment 4 minutes and 16 seconds (total: 38m 15s), subtracting that and the Previously time (~8 minutes), for story alone it is about 4 1/2 hours.
In Hiddleston's intro to
Assembled, the Making of Loki, he is rattling off numbers. He says, "whittle it down to 280 minutes and 17 seconds of programming." [Just looked and that was confirmed on WikiPedia.] 280 minutes (4.6 hours) actually was a hair less than what I tallied for the show (4.75 hours). [Possibly for the number they presented in the Assembled episode they excluded the 'Previously' times?] Subtract the credit/Previously times for six episodes (35.8 minutes), and it would actually be around four hours even. Since I actually did the math, and know what I included and excluded, I trust my tallies more than that, with the extra 12 minutes.
Clearly, IMdB is wrong on the time it has for the WandaVision series. Basically, it is the difference between taking their word for it, and looking at the actual, individual numbers and working with those. With both grad level Statistics and Advanced Statistics under my belt teaching me to look at the raw data, I did the latter.
So I stand by my conclusion, that MCU D+ series are roughly 4 1/4 hours long (expanding slightly from 4h 12m, since WV was a bit longer than Loki or Moon Knight, so She-Hulk may have been also, raising the average for all series, though there are more 6-episode than 9-episode series, so not bumping it much).
[And this once again reminded me that Google is my friend. I could have saved myself a fair amount of number crunching by simply Googling "Loki runtime" and "WandaVision runtime" and get the result. When I did for WandaVision, multiple results said 4 hours 30 minutes, which is what I found after calculations excluding 'Previously' lengths and credits lengths.]
Something I just thought of: it is possible that the runtimes that IMdB report include the MANY minutes of credits for foreign language version cast (that appears to be what happened with WikiPedia's reported times for WandaVision episodes). That could explain why individual episode runtimes are actually reported at about 4-5 minutes longer than the actual episodes are (with Previously and 'standard' credits still included). That would add very roughly 2/3-3/4 of an hour to the total runtime for a nine-episode series, or about half an hour to a six-episode one.
For that, keep in mind that Disney+'s reported run-times on their pages for shows gives the runtime including those lengthy foreign-language credits as part of the runtime. If IMdB collected runtimes from those, they'd be including a full 10 minutes
per episode of non-story (between Previously/credits/international voice credits). So: yeah, it is 'time padding', whether intentional or not.
* WandaVision episode run-times:
26:33
33:41
29.56
32:32
38:10
34:43
34:41
43:21
46:51
EDIT: Binge-watched She-Hulk again yesterday. Started less than 10 minutes after 1pm, and ended around 5:20. So it appears She-Hulk is of the roughly-four-and-a-quarter-hours length for pure story, rather than the 4 1/2 of WandaVision.
Just finished watching Secret Invasion for the second time.
There's something that bugged me the first time, that bugs me even more the second, and that is the ending - which I presumed was MEANT to be an emotional/relationship denouement for Fury.
I simply DO NOT BUY that - in the apparent DECADES that they've been together - that Fury would not have asked to know his wife's actual name and see her as she is.
I just don't fucking buy that he'd not have said, SHORTLY after learning she was a Skrull, "may I please know your name and see your actual face? [change] Beautiful!"
For me, that ruins the romantic arc for the entire series. It wasn't about him 'learning to accept a Skrull' (where a last-minute reveal would be the culmination of his acceptance), it was 'learning to have - and rely on - a PARTNER'. Her race is irrelevant to that. So such a 'reveal' is, at best, sensationalistic TV crap.
Well, this definitely blows chunks! Fuckin' Iger!
QuoteIn early February 2023, Disney CEO Bob Iger announced that the company would be re-evaluating the volume of content it output as a way to cut costs over the next few years.[11] Shortly after, when reflecting on the amount of Disney+ content released for Phase Four in a short time frame, Feige anticipated that Marvel Studios would look to space out the releases of the Phase Five and Six Disney+ series or put fewer out each year "so they can each get a chance to shine".[9]
The start of the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike in May 2023 was not expected to impact the MCU projects in production, or preparing to begin production, at that time, namely Fantastic Four, with Marvel Studios reportedly planning to shoot what they could during principal photography and make any necessary writing adjustments during each project's already scheduled reshoots.[12] In June, Disney delayed Fantastic Four to May 2, 2025, Avengers: The Kang Dynasty to May 1, 2026, and Avengers: Secret Wars to May 7, 2027,[13] in part due to the writers' strike and Disney's intentions to improve the quality of MCU content from writing through post-production after disappointing reception and lower post-COVID-19 pandemic box office earnings for several recently released films.[14] The following month, Iger stated the company would be reducing spending and creation of Marvel content, admitting that Marvel Studios' expansion into Disney+ series and more films had "diluted focus and attention" after a number of underachieving films at the box office in Phases Four and Five.[15][16]
From Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe:_Phase_Six)
Just after I'd been so psyched because they were set to have four films a year plus 3-4 Disney+ series.
EDIT: there is a strong part of me that thinks this is Iger's way of saying "fuck you" to Feige, since Feige got Iger taken out of the MCU loop. He seems like the kind of petty prick who'd do something like that.
Not gonna go to bat for Iger, but the concern is valid. I'm still eating up every little morsel they'll serve and begging for more, but a lot of people I talk to are feeling "Superhero fatigue" from having to keep up with 4+ TV shows and however-many movies a year. I think the comic book fans are used to that sort of thing, but the general public is gonna find the mythology increasingly more dense when they want to jump into the latest movie. They burnt fans out on Star Wars by releasing too much too fast. It might be best if they pump the breaks a little bit.
The series have stopped us from watching.
The fact that most of the series start strong and then fizzle out and the fact that I feel like I need to do homework to watch a film has taken a lot of the fun out of it for me.
It doesn't help that the films have gotten much more hit or miss (the last one we watched was Thor 4), but I'd happily give them a couple of hours still, if it weren't for the ever growing hours of mostly pretty average TV.
Having watched WandaVision (that was so good until a very weak ending) and then watched Dr Strange, I know for sure I don't want to be watching one without the other.
So we stopped, at least for now.
TBH, none of the Marvel Series have really disappointed me. What REALLY disappointed me however, was many of the shitty reactions to shows like She-Huik and Miss Marvel. The fact that people were such dicks about inclusivity and shit really made me sad.
This is definitely a HUGE segue, so please forgive me... but after playing the game Undertale, I honestly(but admittedly naively) thought that people were starting to see women, women of color and trans women as human beings, worthy of rights, respect and dignity. Goddamn, sometimes I am such a hopeless optimist, and that's why I keep fucking disappointing myself... because my faith in humanity is just way too high sometimes.
Wandavision? Great. Falcon and Winter Soldier? Great. What if? Meh... Hawkeye? Good. Loki? EXCELLENT. Moon Knight? Good. Secret Invasion? Good. Miss Marvel? Very good. She hulk? Good.
Like I said, it wasn't the series that disappointed me, it's the reaction to them that made me so depressed. I remember years ago Darth Geek telling me that what really matters is how I feel about the show/movie. The problem is that it's very difficult to separate myself from the media that I enjoy. As a result, I... perhaps irrationally project some aspect of myself onto the media, and as a result, it feels like a strike against me personally and my ego. Like I said... not rational, but I guess it's understandable on some level.
I know many, MANY people HATE the Sequel trilogy, but honestly, I still love it with a huge part of my heart.
I am going to see The Marvels Thursday afternoon, and I'm trying to control my hype so I don't end up disappointing myself.
I do understand the financial aspect of this. Because of actually the NON-standard superheroes (e.g. Elementals, Shang-Chi) I can understand the reduced box office. They also have made some seriously bad choices (Thor 4 being the first MCU film where I thought, "OK: this is just shit pretty much start to finish"). I feel if they were still going with more mainstream hero types, and not treating the material with contempt (the downfall of most pre-MCU Marvel films), the 'box office fatigue' wouldn't be remotely as much of an issue.
And I'm not totally sure it is box office fatigue... during COVID isolation, people changed how they interacted with a lot of things. I've talked with a few people that said they struggled with simply visiting with others after COVID because they got out of practice with in-person conversation and interactions. Going to a theater simply may no longer be as internally desirable to people unless there is a standout event (e.g. like the Barbie movie which rightfully kicked butt at theaters).
Of course, there is also that some of the films since COVID (like 'Black Widow', the aforementioned 'Thor 4') are simply weaker stories, so the trust that a trip to a theater is worthwhile may have eroded. Lesser stories are expected to do more poorly at the box office. And, while I think 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever' was excellent for storytelling and character, it was missing a key aspect of the Marvel films: fun (though understandably so, as fitting "fun" into a film almost entirely about grieving and threat is not an easy task).
I also get the Disney+ series causing issues. When they were introduced, they were supposed to be a "supplement" to the films. But as you said, EJG3, watching 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' would be FAR less meaningful (and actually make far less sense) without seeing WandaVision first ("who the fuck are those kids? Why is she willing to kill to get to them? How and why did she turn 'bad'?").
I think Disney/Marvel fucked up in waiting so incredibly long before releasing Disney+ series on home video. WandaVision should've been for sale as Blu-rays or DVDs before Dr Strange 2 hit theaters. Same with Loki at least before 'Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania' (the first multiverse film) came out. And, most likely, Ms. Marvel maybe before 'The Marvels'. But many of the films and shows are still independent of one-another so far (not sure how many will remain that way of the D+ series).
It also kinda' strikes me like when I was collecting comics: when you run into a new character you find interesting, and there's the little blurb at the bottom of the panel on where they last appeared, you hunt down that issue to find out more. But like EJG3 said, that's not how average people generally go about their fiction ingesting.
I've enjoyed over half of the D+ series enough to rewatch them a few times. Favorites being WandaVision, Loki season 1, Ms. Marvel, and Moon Knight. Least favorites What If?, and Secret Invasion.
Just since January 2021 (WandaVision), we've received the equivalent of 22 films worth of content from D+, on top of the eight films. So we're definitely not hurting. This is, however, the main genre I enjoy watching and rewatching, so having this much cut is frustrating. [Not sure how much the sale in the mid-'80s of 85% of my comic collection (I had all Marvel superhero and monster comics from 1961-1986 except about 15 issues total missing from across Journey Into Mystery (early Thor), Tales to Astonish (Ant-Man), and Tales of Suspense (early Iron Man) contributes to the desire to see more.]
And Cyrusso, I agree wholeheartedly about how depressing the racist/misogynist bullshit expressed around the female/PoC shows has been. With that, I try my best not to take it to heart. The traitor to America and its ideals, 45, has these people far more vocal than they were before. But psychology shows in extinguishing 'bad behavior', it gets more prominent before it goes away (unless, like Nazi Germany, it is allowed to take over and expand further). Thankfully, the elections just this week has shown that America is collectively saying, "yeah... that's not gonna' work for me any more..." with those extremes.
I think my frustration was with them building up the hype over three or four years that they'd be releasing four films and four shows, then, just when that was about to start, them saying, "oh, yeah, we're not gonna' do that." It appears it will for the foreseeable future be three films, and two shows per year. That is going from an average of roughly 2-hours of newly released material each month (four films at ~2 hours of story each, and four D+ series at just over 4 hours story each) to just over 1/2 that.
I do still think Iger being a vindictive prick has something to do with it, because with the new variety in the films produced [this multi-part story ranging from Shang-Chi, to Eternals, to BP: Wakanda Forever to Blade] there will be more variance in box office take than between Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor. I seem to recall a dip in box office with the first Ant-Man film, as well (though Guardians was an unexpected hit). The less well-known characters would likely take more time to catch on.
Iger's, "so they can each get a chance to shine" is disingenuous. It seems far more like that he's thinking, "so we can milk everything we can out of what we produce, whether people like them or not." Because let's face it: if I think a film or show sucks, I am not going to force myself to watch it just because something related that I'd rather see isn't available.
Something that may be heresy, but I also think there's a bit of an issue with Feige at this point, too. I mean, between 'Black Widow', 'Eternals', and 'Thor: Love and Thunder', there's been the same 'miss' count already in the 8 films of the current phases than there were in the 22/23 films making up The Infinity Saga (to me, 'Thor: Dark World' and 'Ragnarok' as well as 'The Incredible Hulk' are the only films I wouldn't choose to rewatch from there). But he signed off on all these films, so it is his decision-making that are bringing lower-quality material to market.
And, when films get a return of only about twice their cost, ultimately that is considered 'breaking even'. With a few of the current run of films only getting about twice their cost in box office receipts, I ultimately concur that Iger (dick or not) is likely doing the responsible thing. I just don't like it. :D
I realize I could have edited the prior post, but I SINCERELY doubt anyone would re-read it to find a new idea that I added, so I'll add the new idea here:
I happened to have an idea that might address - or certainly TEST - many of the theories we've brought up in this discussion.
Mark both MCU theatrical films, and Disney+ series with either a "Free-standing" or "Multiverse" indicator.
This way, one can find out if the drop in viewership is because there is too much cross-referencing that is the problem.
e.g. 'Loki' would be clearly a "Multiverse"; 'Moon Knight' clearly a "Free-standing" in the D+ arenas. In the MCU films, 'Ant-Man & the Wasp: Quantumania' is clearly a "Multiverse" entry, while 'Thor: Love and Thunder' is clearly a "Free-standing" film.
Then, in order to determine if any given franchise is worthwhile, only the % box office within each category would be compared (as one might expect the "Multiverse" to be more consistent, but potentially lower than the "Free-Standing" ones).
Because it may not be superhero fatigue per se, but "integrated storylines" that are the problem. Because thus far, the crossovers appear to have taken place with the superheros, not the less-superhero-y films. [e.g. Shang-Chi is a fantasy film, not a superhero film, and is connected to little else until Wong showed up at the end of it.]
If the crossovers are the problem, then that would be incredibly valuable information to Marvel/Feige/Iger, that the stories need to be scaled back, or at least not go cross-platform. Honestly, in thinking through all this, with all your comments, esp EJG3's on WV and Dr Str2, I realized that ultimately it might be preferable if the D+ shows and films were largely separate, almost like the separation of the Loeb/Feige TV/films. Two films linked, or two D+ series, would be fine, but not from one medium to the other.
Because yeah, with something I was not as invested in, I'd say, "ahhh... fuck it all..." if something required me to pay monthly money to get part of a story I paid to see on the silver screen, or the reverse. [e.g. If D+'s Mandalorian required in-theater films to understand what was going on, I'd give it up, regardless of liking it. I just don't like 95-98% of Star Wars stuff and watching films would be a threshold I just wouldn't be willing to go over for it.]
Lucas I think you'll enjoy The Marvels, because in addition to actual dramatic consequences to our trio of super-awesome heroines, There's some very cool dramatic moments that involve other characters from the MCU. There's also some extremely cool moments involving the Flerken, in a way that is creative as fuck and funny as fuck.
I also like the way that the villain is not some one-dimensional idiot whose motives are beyond revenge, and tie deeper with some interesting themes the movie dares go to, that unfortunately I can't go into without spoiling things.
I love the way the story was told. It presented us with a situation that reminded me of Civil war... where Superheroes sometimes are their own worst enemies, where sometimes good intentions are the road to hell.
In addition, the performances by Brie Larson, Teyonnah Paris and Iman Vellani are fantastic - We get to see Carol Danvers really show off fear, apprehension, regret, her only real weaknesses. The end of the movie was also fun and heart-warming.
And the end credits scene? Freaking awesome!
I also adored Marvels. I was worried they'd let the TV show-based Marvels take the back seat to Captain Marvel, but they all get a chance to shine. It's fun to watch Iman Vellani's Ms. Marvel because it feels like the actress is having as much fun as the character. She stole the show for me, but everyone was great and it was fun to watch.
Quote from: Pak-Man on November 11, 2023, 04:59:22 PM
I also adored Marvels. I was worried they'd let the TV show-based Marvels take the back seat to Captain Marvel, but they all get a chance to shine. It's fun to watch Iman Vellani's Ms. Marvel because it feels like the actress is having as much fun as the character. She stole the show for me, but everyone was great and it was fun to watch.
I am so glad to hear that they had the Marvels on equal footing in the film. I get frustrated for films like this to be too messed up from my head injuries to be able to go to a theater, having to wait for them all until home video releases.
Yeah, in watching the Disney+ "Assembled" show on Ms. Marvel, I saw how geeked out Iman Vellani was with the whole of her being in the MCU. It definitely showed in her D+ show, glad it being visible was maintained in the film.
I remember in 2018/2019 one of the things people were complaining about was like "Oh but Captain Marvel is basically OP as hell!", as if that ever stopped the 1978 Superman film.
In The Marvels... we most certainly get to see Carol Danvers' weaknesses, on full, and painful display. As I said earlier... the consequences of her actions(destroying the supreme intelligence) was the cause of the events of the film. Or at least, that is the implication anyway. It was very deep, and sobering even, to see Carol confront herself(in a way).
I found it to be a meaningful and introspective film. I also got to say I am glad that even though people talk of "superhero fatigue" ALL the time(which to some extent, I understand), at least the MCU films are not resorting to obnoxious superhero tropes and keeping themselves at least somewhat fresh and creative. For example... one of the tropes I absolutely despise in superhero films is "Superhero loses his powers... and they've got 90 minutes(give or take) to get them back". This is in essence, why I can't stand Superman 2, Spiderman 2, that one episode of Lois and Clark where Superman loses his powers, and that one(maybe two) episodes of Smallville where Clark loses his powers.
It's kind of like "He's on the run from the law, and he's gotta clear his name, or else go to the big house forever!". It's really stupid, pointless, lazy, and takes little to no effort to write. I guess it could be fun if written correctly... but generally speaking, I really abhor movies that take away a hero's powers for no solid, dramatic reason. At least in Thor there was a good, dramatic reason(To have him EARN the power back in a way that's... I guess arguably organic).
I wouldn't mind seeing them shake things up a little bit, by being less villain focused and give us some interesting character studies, such as in the Eternals, which i thought was actually at the very least, decent.
I saw the box office for The Marvels was disappointing... but I'm not really surprised, given how protracted the writers strike was. I don't love Disney, given how they're a rich-ass company who refused to cave into very reasonable demands from the writers and actors... so that's very disappointing to me. Disney can easily afford to treat their employees good and decently, with little to no effort. To me, the blow to the reputation is FAR more important than their bottom lines, and maybe Disney needs to keep that in mind.
I have a philosophy now: My kindness ends where greed begins.
I thought The Marvels was okay. Not bad, but I enjoyed it less than most Marvel movies. It seemed really short, and it felt like it was over before it began. Also, Dar-ben didn't feel like a credible threat. It felt a lot like they were weakening Captain Marvel just to make Dar-ben appear stronger. She was a pretty strong villain though, considering she seemed to destroy two entire planets.
The Finale of Loki was absolutely wonderful. It's pretty mind-blowiing and really fantastic to see this theme going on in the MCU film and TV universe lately: the object is not necessarily to defeat evil people... but to make them better.
Spiderman: No way home did that absolutely beautifully. We saw that theme continued in Multiverse of Madness, where the villain is most definitely Wanda, but mostly how love can be twisted towards evil, where in the end... she "sacrified" herself... even though there's no doubt she will return(just not in another season of Wandavision).
We kind of saw MODOK get... redeemed. speaking of, I LOVED how they brought the primary villain from Ant-Man back and made him into MODOK, which I hope you will agree, was fucking hilarious.
In Guardians of the Galaxy 3, there's no redeeming the High Evolutionary. The movie is mostly just about how... sigh... the GoTG are truly a family. Believe me, it cringes me to no fucking end to use such an obnoxiously tired cliche, but unlike the FATF movies... you believed these people would give anything for their litle buddies, whether it be the gun-toting and loveable Rocket, or the equally loveable Cosmo.
I actually love Cosmo so much, I have a shirt bearing her likeness.
In the Marvels.... Carol wanted to redeem Dar-Benn. I think there was at least some intent there, because Carol, Monica(Photon), and Kamala clearly didn't intend to kill Dar-Benn. They clearly wanted to help her be better... but sometimes redemption is not possible.
But my point is with Loki... we started with a Villian who is definitely evil... and we saw he had the capacity for good in Infinity War... which is what made his cruel death at the hands of Thanos so tragic. To see him murdered so brutally, just as he changed his allegiance, was heart-breaking.
But Loki seasons 1 and 2 is where we don't just see Loki's potential... we see how his place in the cosmos has more meaning than anything... He's greater than the greatest gods, he's become the person who weaves the fabric of time and the very universe together, the only one, whose complete familiarirty with chaos and mischief is the perfect being to weave the timelines, the universe together. To put it simply... Loki has kind of become the Force from Star Wars. That's how I see it anyway. Sure, it might be a bit of a poetic exaggeration, but his change from complete villain to a being whose magnanimous nature is incalculable. He's changed himself, in a way that would make Thor and Odin extremely proud. Giving your life is heroic, but giving your ENTIRE existence, for the rest of your existence to keeping the universe from destroying itself is bold and immensely beautiful. Loki... in a way, is THE hero.
Final Thought about Loki season 2: Loki is easily worthy of Mjolnir.
Cyrusso, I agree wholeheartedly with your praise of the change in MCU films to "make people's lives better - even the 'bad guys' - instead of just ending them". I also agree with your assessment of Loki (both the show and the god/God). For him to go from such a selfish beginning to such a selfless end was very moving. And with the writing, and Hiddleston's incredible acting, believable.
It took until Loki season 2 was over, and I could binge-watch the entire thing in a day, that I could appreciate JUST how excellent this season was. (Including that first week's-episode-at-a-time viewing, I've seen it three times now.) When I was watching an episode a week, I just couldn't hold on to the details that held the story together so carefully from one week to the next, and particularly not from October 5 to November 9. As a 'TV mini-series' it was good. As a 4 1/4 hour film, it was excellent!
I also noticed that this season was like a stage play, most of it was on a VERY limited number of locations, so there was a sort-of increased intimacy for the massive events. In Loki season 2 I also enjoyed the times they modified the opening "Marvel Studios" intro. Particularly making the tune an early 1900s tinkly early-jazz piano ditty for the late-1800s episode was hilarious, then for the final episode, the near-backwards visuals set a different tone that made it clear things were 'off'.
I am also 100% in agreement with your assessment of MODOK. I couldn't have imagined the character working in the more realistic world of the MCU, but the WAY they brought MODOK to life made perfect sense. In the surreal landscape of the Quantum Realm, he didn't look remotely out of place. And, with Ant-Man being on the more comedic side of the MCU, yes, the way it was presented was hilarious (Scott: "your legs: it's like a Baby Bjorn!" and "oh! It's an acronym! But wouldn't that be MODOFK?") I also enjoyed the visual consistency from Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania and Loki season 2 also, with the spaghettification matching from one to the other (in A-M a t W:W when a Scott alternate turns into Giant Man while trying to retrieve Kang's power core, and the many versions of Timely that were all strung out in Loki).
[Not that it is relevant to this comment, but I've rewatched and reassessed my opinion of 'Eternals'. I no longer consider it a 'failure' in the current Phase, like I do 'Thor: Love and Thunder'.]
Thank you Lucas! I appreciate that. :)
I really liked Eternals, in large part because it was so different from all the other Marvel Stuff. I think the only weakness of the movie was that it got a little too heavy with the action at times. It could have cut at least 5-10 minutes of that stuff out, and focused more on drama and character development.
It reminded me a bit of Highlander... but much better. I'm kind of sad that it didn't do so well, and I'm not sure how at this point they can coherently pick up all the plot threads in another movie( since I really doubt will happen at this point, since The Marvels did so poorly at the box office), i seriously doubt Marvel is EVER going to do a sequel to The Eternals. I'm guessing some of the plot threads will pick up in the Blade movie, or the next Avengers movie.
There's a LOT of story that I think should be told, because I feel like some more connective tissue isn't necessarily mandatory viewing... but I would have loved to have seen how Thanos got the Power stone from the Nova Corps. I KNOW that story is out there somewhere, But i wanted to see it told on a cinematic level.
I feel like that's one of the few places the MCU has been deficient. Just make some shorts.... on a budget. Maybe just make them with comic book panels and voice-overs. I don't think it would hurt to do this, just to fill in the blanks.
They could be like little shorts that precede a film, kind of like the old films from back in the day... something to bring the audience up to speed on things. It would be really freaking cool.
Kevin Feige, please pay attention.
Quote from: Cyrusso on November 24, 2023, 11:00:47 PMThere's a LOT of story that I think should be told, because I feel like some more connective tissue isn't necessarily mandatory viewing... but I would have loved to have seen how Thanos got the Power stone from the Nova Corps. I KNOW that story is out there somewhere, But i wanted to see it told on a cinematic level.
They had that in the original script for Infinity War but the directors said they opted to cut it from the final product because they felt it was obvious what happened. Thanos showed up to Xandar with his army, the Nova Corps put up a good fight in a big battle, but eventually they lost. I think they felt like it would slow the story down, and be predictable, and be a complicated shoot.
I want to see some stories about what happened during the 5 years everyone was missing. A small scene in The Marvels, and those parts in Endgame, were all we got. It's five years. You're telling me nothing happened?
Quote from: Pastor of Muppets on November 25, 2023, 04:39:23 AM
I want to see some stories about what happened during the 5 years everyone was missing. A small scene in The Marvels, and those parts in Endgame, were all we got. It's five years. You're telling me nothing happened?
That is definitely a fair point. I personally just wouldn't know where to start with that. Also, since so many actors have left the MCU... permanently, that complicates things significantly.
And now for the actual trailer:
Galactus is not just a big cloud. That's cool. Why Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards? What happened to John Krazinski? And does this movie take place in the past? It looked a little dated.
Quote from: Pastor of Muppets on February 09, 2025, 04:06:13 PM
Galactus is not just a big cloud. That's cool. Why Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards? What happened to John Krazinski? And does this movie take place in the past? It looked a little dated.
I'm happy on the Galactus front, as well. I don't know on the Pascal/Krazinski questions. But with your last question, I believe it is in a sort-of 'retro-future' alternate universe. Basically like how the people in the '50s and '60s thought our future would look, but in the FF's universe they actually made that future come about.