Topic: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Slider_Quinn21
Member
Registered: 2006-12-11
Posts: 2198
Marvel Cinematic Universe

I did a quick search, and it didn't appear we have a post strictly about the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  We mentioned it in a couple different posts, but I wanted to talk about a couple different options.  There will be Captain America: The Winter Soldier spoilers here.  And probably Agents of SHIELD spoilers for the three people still watching that show with me.  Just keep that in mind.

I like the MCU.  I think it's cool, and I think Marvel is getting better at it.  I can see the arguments against movies like the first Captain America, which served simply as a trailer for the Avengers.  But since I didn't necessarily care about the character of Captain America, I didn't care.  The Avengers parts were my favorite part because, even though I think I'm a DC guy, I think shared universes are cool.  I know Informant didn't love Avengers, and it's definitely not a deep film.  It's a popcorn action flick, and taken at that level, I thought it was fun.  To me, Marvel Phase One was a success.  I started caring about Tony Stark and company as characters, which was never the case before.

Phase Two has been a bit different.  The concern was whether or not you could make individual movies about Iron Man or Thor without constantly wondering where the other guys were.  And with three new post-Avengers sequels out, I think they did a pretty good job.  Iron Man 3 was mixed, but they tried something different.  Thor 2 mostly takes place away from Earth, so it's no surprise that Hawkeye doesn't randomly show up.  And Captain America 2 actually includes a bunch of characters rather organically....which is how this is supposed to work.  You don't see Black Widow and go "Ooh" the way you did when she showed up in Iron Man 2.  She's Black Widow.  She works for SHIELD.  Captain America works for SHIELD.  They work together.  Of course she'd be here.

Agents of SHIELD is a mess, but it's not for the reasons you'd think.  The first episode was a mess because they wanted everyone to know they were in the Marvel universe.  Reference after reference after reference after reference.  It was annoying.  But that slowed down (a bit).  The action is (obviously) less polished than something like Captain America, but I think it's okay.  They do an okay job of being a continuing story connecting these "every few months" movies.  There was an episode that took place in the aftermath of Thor 2, an episode based on some of the effects from Thor 2, and extremis (from Iron Man 3) has been used as a plot device a couple times.

My main problem with Agents of SHIELD is that it's just not an interesting show.  Coulson is really the only character that is all that interesting, and I'm not sure he's interesting enough to carry a show.  The answers we've been given about behind the scenes stuff aren't that creative or interesting, and I've never watched an episode and thought, "wow, I gotta watch the next one!"

Enter Captain America 2.  A gamechanger in so many ways.  SHIELD is destroyed.  Nick Fury is off hunting Hydra without his eyepatch.  The agents are scattered.  And it doesn't seem like anyone is there to pick up the pieces.  Which, um, is an issue for a show with SHIELD in the title.

Obviously, the show's creators knew what was going to happen in Captain America 2.  And I've read interviews that claimed, months ago, that the show would follow up what happened in Captain America 2 like they did with Thor 2.  Okay, that's fine.  But how can Agents of SHIELD exist with no SHIELD?

1. It doesn't.  The show gets mediocre ratings, and it's an obvious disappointment for ABC/Marvel/Disney.  Maybe the rest of the season is a wrap-up of SHIELD, they cancel it, and we can all move on.

2. Its the creative spark this show needs.  With no SHIELD to give them orders, maybe Coulson and Company become an A-Team of sorts.  Hunting remaining Hydra agents.  Doing their own thing.  Trying to pick up the pieces that Fury and Rogers destroyed.  The problem is that the show is too vanilla.  It feels almost 90s....like it's following rules that don't apply to television shows anymore.  There isn't a whole lot of world building or continuity, as if this show was made in the 90s.  But maybe if you take the training wheels off and make this show ride on it's own, it can do something.  I know I'm really interested to watch the next episode, just to see how the Hell they try and handle this.  SHIELD agents were shooting each other.  Agent Sitwell was a high-ranking Hydra official, and he's been a huge part of the auxiliary Marvel universe.  The odds are that someone on Agents of SHIELD has the same loyalties.

One last thing I wanted to mention: timelines.

Marvel Phase One had a bit of a screwy timeline.  Iron Man was the first, both in real life and in the universe.  But apparently Hulk, which came out second, happened towards the end of the Phase One timeline.  Which was fine because none of that really mattered until the Avengers.

Kevin Feige, the overlord of these movies, has said that we will find out why SHIELD wasn't there to help Tony in Iron Man 3.  I think he said that "they've got their hands full" with the events of Captain America.  And if those movies do happen around the same timeframe, that makes sense.  But in my search for some kind of answer, that doesn't really fit.  According to interviews I've read, Iron Man 3 takes place 6 months after the Avengers, and Captain America 2 takes place 2 years after the Avengers.  Which makes some sense, since extremis shows up on Agents of SHIELD, which obviously hasn't dealt with Captain America 2 aftermath.

If that's the case, SHIELD should've been fine during Iron Man 3.  Which is probably fine....Tony spends most of the movie on his own anyway.  But it's just weird to have the godfather of these movies say something that doesn't seem to be the case.

So what do you'll think?

Offline


#2 2014-04-07 6:44 pm

ireactions
Member
Registered: 2008-03-03
Posts: 2390
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Note: Have not seen CAP2 yet. Maybe this weekend.

Timelines -- honestly, this is the sort of thing that I just can't ever wrap my head around. The characters don't exist in real-time; they exist in the context of the individual installment they're featuring in. Why weren't SHIELD and Captain America on hand for the crisis of IRON MAN 3? Because it wasn't their movie. That's really good enough for me. And we can take it as a given that SHIELD and Cap may have pursuing other angles on other fronts of the IRON MAN 3 conflict.

AGENTS OF SHIELD is indeed terrible -- or, rather, extremely mediocre. It is so well-intentioned and good-natured, but none of its stories ever really come alive. The characters are generic  types who are little more than children's action figures. Coulson is a bland character; he doesn't represent anything more than being an affable representative of a monolithic government organization. He doesn't embody any particular aspect of human nature. It's the same for most of the characters on that show, except for Skye -- and only in the first episode.

In the first episode, Skye was a rebel who was suspicious and hostile towards authority in any and all forms, setting up a neat conflict with Coulson, a man who tries to affect change within the system. Other sides of that conflict would be Ward and May, who are simply tools of he system and Fitz and Simmons, who would start to chafe against SHIELD.

But then the show quickly downgraded Skye into searching for the secret of her parentage, Coulson remained a general agent of the establishment and nobody gained much depth. AGENTS OF SHIELD isn't *about* anything, it has nothing to say. The thing about the best superhero stories is that they represent an emotional truth of the human experience in a larger than life metaphor. But AGENTS OF SHIELD uses little of the superhero iconography; it doesn't explore what an ordinary human can do in a world of superhumans, it doesn't suggest that ingenuity and intelligence may be as much a superpower as throwing lightning bolts -- it has nothing to say about superheroes and it doesn't feature any superheroes for the most part -- which is probably why it's such a waste of time.

I liked the Mandarin short?

Offline


#3 2014-04-07 9:28 pm

Slider_Quinn21
Member
Registered: 2006-12-11
Posts: 2198
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

ireactions wrote:

But AGENTS OF SHIELD uses little of the superhero iconography; it doesn't explore what an ordinary human can do in a world of superhumans, it doesn't suggest that ingenuity and intelligence may be as much a superpower as throwing lightning bolts -- it has nothing to say about superheroes and it doesn't feature any superheroes for the most part -- which is probably why it's such a waste of time.

Agree 100%,  It adds nothing to the franchise, nothing to the universe.  And I think the problem is that the "everyman" character (Skye) was already a big superhero buff.  Nothing surprises her.  Nothing, obviously, surprises the other SHIELD agents.  So we, as the audience, can't feel the excitement of what the everyman is seeing for the first time.   

And while we've seen them battle a couple of super-soldiers, they've basically built Ward up to be a super-soldier himself.  When they faced off against an Asgardian, they had their own Asgardian.  Otherwise, they're just fighting other humans.  At no point has the question been asked, "In a world with Captain America and Iron Man and Thor and Hulk, what good is Agent (Whoever)?"  And I was thinking and hoping that that question would be central to the entire plot of the series.

Maybe the show considers SHIELD, as a whole, as powerful as any supervillain.  That, as long as they're one big unit, no one can pose a challenge. 

If so, SHIELD's collapse should allow the show to ask those more-important questions.

Offline


#4 2014-04-08 6:59 pm

ireactions
Member
Registered: 2008-03-03
Posts: 2390
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

There was a neat Wildstorm series awhile ago, called STORMWATCH: POST HUMAN BRIGADE. It was about a group of army officers and cops who started working together to police superheroes. Even the most powerful beings in the Wildstorm universe had pressure points, nerve-endings, power sources, etc.. Sadly, a massive crossover that wiped out 95 per cent of the human population derailed this series slightly, but I had hoped AGENTS OF SHIELD would be something like that.

I have some hope for the show shaping up -- I don't think any of the characters are beyond having interesting stories and personalities and relationships -- they just haven't had any. I don't know who any of these people are. When Tony Stark appeared in the casino in the first IRON MAN, you could instantly tell that this man was a reckless, arrogant, showboating, insufferable genius, and in the cave sequences, you could see his conscience and compassion and honour unleashed. From Wolverine's first scene of X-MEN, you could tell that Logan was a savage, brutal, isolated, curt barbarian with an impeccable sense of morality and loyalty and concern for anyone in trouble.

Coulson's deal? He, um... wanted to die? And didn't? And that makes him mad? What?

Offline


#5 2014-04-09 7:25 am

Slider_Quinn21
Member
Registered: 2006-12-11
Posts: 2198
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

I watched the first 15 minutes late last night, just because I was curious.  It seems like the events of Winter Soldier are taking place as soon as the episode begins.  So whatever happens in the last 15 minutes will be a pretty big deal, I guess.

If the show can fill in the gaps with what happens in SHIELD (or the vacuum it leaves) between Captain America and Avengers (which will be a full year away), then the show has a purpose.  But if they're going to do 15 episodes before the "real" series begins....they've done a pretty bad job setting up characters.

But I have a glimmer of hope it will get better.

Offline


#6 2014-04-09 3:01 pm

ireactions
Member
Registered: 2008-03-03
Posts: 2390
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

I was going to wait for CAPTAIN AMERICA to come out for home video -- but given that I'd like to respond to this thread, I think I'll see it tomorrow night before watching the new AGENTS OF SHIELD. Oh my God. This board is influencing my behaviour in Real Life. Stop it now.

Offline


#7 2014-04-09 9:20 pm

JLBanker
Member

From: Clovis/Fresno, California
Registered: 2006-12-11
Posts: 475
Website
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Agents of SHIELD though it still has MANY flaws has become a show I look forward to seeing now which is amazing considering I tried to give up on this show a couple of times.  I couldn't get anyone to go to the movies with me this weekend so I saw Captain America by myself so I can keep up with the continuity of the show.  I will say that I didn't like Avengers but I really liked the new Captain America.

Joshua Banker
Offline


#8 2014-04-10 3:50 pm

ireactions
Member
Registered: 2008-03-03
Posts: 2390
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Just about to go into the screening for CAP2!

Offline


#9 2014-04-10 7:12 pm

ireactions
Member
Registered: 2008-03-03
Posts: 2390
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Wow. That was pretty good. I've definitely liked CAP2, IM3 and THOR 2 more than I've liked IRON MAN 2 and THE AVENGERS. (I liked THOR.)

But it seems to me that the failings of CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER caused some real problems for THE WINTER SOLDIER. THE WINTER SOLDIER bases a huge amount of its running length on A) Cap as a legendary figure of World War II and B) the friendship between Bucky and Steve.

But in THE FIRST AVENGERS, it felt like Captain America was an active soldier for maybe a month -- if that -- and all he did was participate in a few warehouse raids before getting blown up and frozen. The idea that someone as irrelevant as Captain America was in his first movie has an exhibit in the Smithsonian is absurd, the movie's attempts to retcon in additional missions into the first movie feel silly and this is all stuff the first movie should have established for a sequel. The second problem is the lack of a strong bond between Cap and Bucky; in the first movie, there was no real impact to Bucky's loss and there was no arc to the relationship beyond Bucky defending Steve. THE WINTER SOLDIER is depending on a familiarity and friendship with Bucky that the first movie should have created but completely failed to produce.

This is what I mean about THE FIRST AVENGER being such a disappointment; it didn't set up the AVENGERS in any worthwhile way and it also let its sequel down, which is a shame, because THE WINTER SOLDIER is a capable and witty action thriller that is, sadly, operating on a lousy foundation.

Offline


#10 2014-04-11 7:30 am

Slider_Quinn21
Member
Registered: 2006-12-11
Posts: 2198
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

I tend to agree with all of that.  I was a little surprised at what role Bucky played in the first movie because I was led to believe that he was a more important figure.  I've always thought the first Captain America was the worst of the Marvel movies, but most people blame that on it being a prequel for the Avengers.  I just think it was a bad movie.  It's one reason why I was a bit startled on how badly I wanted to see Winter Soldier.

Regarding Agents of SHIELD - I've been sick the last couple days, so it actually took me until last night to finish the episode.  It was pretty good, and I think it could be a nice way of setting the series back up.  I understand, because of the way television works, that the show had to give some sort of stability to in-world universe of SHIELD before shattering it.....but the show was so mediocre in the stable period that season 2 of SHIELD (if there is one) might be better served with a mass cast change.

The twist that Ward is working for HYDRA was unexpected.  I thought, going in, that someone inside the team had to be HYDRA considering how deep the infiltration went.  However, I was expecting one of Fitz/Simmons to be the one.

I was reading some stuff on it, and there's a thought (that is probably the case) that Ward didn't really kill Hand.  And that the whole scene at the end was a setup to infiltrate HYDRA and gain intelligence on them.  Which would be a really good plan for SHIELD and a really bad idea for the show.  Ward has been a really boring character, and I think he'd probably be more effective as a villain that they can just kill off at the end of the season.  It'd be good character development for Skye (who trained under him), Coulson (who trusted him), and May (who put him on the team).  If it's all a long con, then we just get boring Ward back in a few episodes.

Situation-of-the-week wasn't working.  Hunting down HYDRA and re-establishing SHIELD from the ground up?  That might be a pretty cool show to watch.

Offline


#11 2014-04-11 9:56 am

ireactions
Member
Registered: 2008-03-03
Posts: 2390
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Hmm. I watched AGENTS OF SHIELD last night too... I honestly don't think AGENTS is a *bad* show. It is reasonably competent and capable, it just lacks any *good* points, if that makes any sense. The cast are all great actors, but they're given mediocre material. The action sequences are decent, but the characters aren't vivid enough for you to care about who lives or dies or wins or loses. SHIELD is an intriguing concept seeming both beneficent but disturbingly omnipresent -- but aside from Skye being a rebel against their authority, SHIELD has never been portrayed as anything other than a moral and upstanding organization out to protect people and do good.

Let me re-emphasize that: SHIELD, on AGENTS OF SHIELD, has never, ever, ever been portrayed as anything but an unambiguously heroic organization staffed with excellent people. Then we have this episode, where we see some words on a screen about Hydra, generic soldiers start shooting other generic soldiers and it's declared that Hydra and SHIELD have been one and the same all along and that those in SHIELD who weren't aware of Hydra are now tasked with taking it down entirely. We get a bunch of fight scenes with people running around the SHIELD Hub fighting, one specific villain is defeated despite hordes of Hydra troopers and agents still running around SHIELD -- and then abruptly, it's declared that Captain America won... something or other... and now SHIELD is being dismantled in order to take Hydra down with it.

So what we have here is an entire season where SHIELD, portrayed as unambiguously good, is declared to be evil in the space of one episode, some fight scenes with foot soldiers and then a scene informing us that Hydra is now defeated by some action that took place elsewhere. This doesn't work at all. In THE WINTER SOLDIER, Hydra's defeat worked because of sufficiently large-scale action matched with an overview of different departments of SHIELD either fighting for or against Captain America followed by a montage showing various SHIELD agents now interviewing for new jobs. And there was sufficient explanation for what parts of SHIELD were Hydra and what parts of SHIELD weren't.

In the TV show, there is absolutely no sense of detail as to what these *actual* agents of SHIELD have been doing in the past season of episodes that was in service of Hydra. There is no re-examination of the episodes before this one to determine if any part of SHIELD was what Coulson thought it was. The show just doesn't *sell* the idea that SHIELD has been malevolent all along -- it is too abrupt and the previous episodes never seeded this at all. And then at the end -- SHIELD is defeated but Coulson's team are still repairing the plane and getting ready for new missions -- so what exactly has changed? Are they okay working for no money? What are they going to do about fuel and supplies and resources?

Grant Ward turning out to be an agent of Hydra -- again, it doesn't work. It's not out of character -- we don't know anything about Grant Ward -- but that causes problems. He has been such a bland, indistinct figure that revealing his villainy means very, very little. It's also deeply unfortunate that the actor was not told that he'd be evil until a few episodes previous to this one, meaning he was never able to build up to this revelation in his performance. He was so lacking in detail that he could be one thing or another in a very arbitrary manner.

And how about the Pilot episode where Ward was presumably injected with a truth serum... ?

And it's a real shame. The show started out with Skye rebellious against SHIELD while Coulson was in favour of it -- the entire run up to now could have highlighted how Skye's rebellion causes all sorts of problems while Coulson working inside the system is more effective, only to abruptly reveal that despite Skye's ineffectual approach, Skye was right all along. But that would require delving more into SHIELD being morally ambiguous before revealing that Hydra staffers were distributed through its entire command structure.

CAP2 is a good movie. AGENTS OF SHIELD is, sadly, too mediocre to make a meal of CAP2's leftovers.

Offline


#12 2014-04-11 10:24 am

Slider_Quinn21
Member
Registered: 2006-12-11
Posts: 2198
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

In regards to the HYDRA agents still being unambiguously heroic, both the movie and the show gave hints as to what was really happening.  And I think, as opposed to Ward or even Garrett, the best example would be Agent Sitwell.  Sitwell, prior to the reveal in Winter Soldier, was a perfectly fine agent.  He risked his life on a couple different occasions in the name of good.  He's appeared in all three mediums (including a couple Marvel One-Shots), and he's never shown to be anything other than a soldier on the side of good.

Then he's revealed to be a pretty major part of the HYDRA infestation.

I think, from my understanding of what they said, HYDRA's whole plan was to be good SHIELD agents.  Not only to rise up the ranks and establish a stronghold in the ranks of SHIELD....but so that the world would trust SHIELD with its safety.  It's like (someone on SHIELD) said in the episode - they get you with compassion and friendship.  They actually had to be good people (and not just pretend) to accomplish their sinister plan.

And for Sitwell and Garrett and Ward, that's fine.  They spend half their careers being excellent SHIELD agents and saving the world in the name of HYDRA, and then they get to step into the light and reveal their true nature.  But HYDRA's plan implies that there was some agent who joined in the 1960s, was recruited by HYDRA, and spent his entire career "pretending" to be a good agent.  Saving lives.  Basically BEING a SHIELD agent for his entire career.  Then he retires before HYDRA reveals itself.  But what's funny is that, while never doing anything sinister, he'd still contributed to the cause.  In fact, both SHIELD and HYDRA would probably be pretty proud to call that agent their own.

Sorta funny when you think about it.

Offline


#13 2014-04-11 5:39 pm

ireactions
Member
Registered: 2008-03-03
Posts: 2390
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

That works to a degree, but it that's not how it's played out in the movie and the TV show. WINTER SOLDIER shows that the Hydra agents are violent, sadistic, brutal, power-hungry individuals who have merely chosen a longer game to creating their facist dictatorship. Coulson himself declares John Garrett to be a "psychopath." It would have been interesting if Hydra had been true to SHIELD's ideals but with bloody methods and means, but that's not what we're being shown. Sitwell has no hesitation about calling for Captain America's capture and declaring him a traitor in THE WINTER SOLDIER and Ward used lethal force on the two SHIELD guards and Victoria Hand despite the availability of icers. These are bad people doing bad things.

I dunno -- I think that an espionage show could have shown that SHIELD often does go to extremes to protect the masses, and that Coulson approves of this (reluctantly) while Skye is appalled by it -- but the Hydra takes things to an extreme in pre-emptive slaughter that Coulson cannot accept. A more nuanced Hydra would certainly be a worthwhile creative pursuit, but Arnim Zola's AI duplicate in THE WINTER SOLDIER makes it pretty plain that they're simply a more patient version of the Nazis.

Offline


#14 2014-04-12 2:55 pm

Professor Gimli
New Member
Registered: 2014-02-27
Posts: 9
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Why beat about the bush on what we already have?  I just wish that FOX and Sony would give up the rights to X-men and Spiderman.  If that happened we would have had an Avengers Movie that included Wolverine and Spiderman. 

Which is why it's hard for me to figure out how we can have two movies now with a different Quicksliver running around with the same name yet different actor. 

It's because of this Disney, Sony, and Fox faction separation that we have Chris Evans as both the Human Torch and Captain America.   Fox still has the rights to the Fantastic Four.

Lets all hope that someday the rights can be under one studio so we can get a Marvel Civil War Movie.

Offline


#15 2014-04-13 9:36 am

Slider_Quinn21
Member
Registered: 2006-12-11
Posts: 2198
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

ireactions wrote:

That works to a degree, but it that's not how it's played out in the movie and the TV show. WINTER SOLDIER shows that the Hydra agents are violent, sadistic, brutal, power-hungry individuals who have merely chosen a longer game to creating their facist dictatorship. Coulson himself declares John Garrett to be a "psychopath." It would have been interesting if Hydra had been true to SHIELD's ideals but with bloody methods and means, but that's not what we're being shown. Sitwell has no hesitation about calling for Captain America's capture and declaring him a traitor in THE WINTER SOLDIER and Ward used lethal force on the two SHIELD guards and Victoria Hand despite the availability of icers. These are bad people doing bad things.

Yeah, they're bad people doing bad things once that message is released.  Until that point, the whole point was for there to be no distinction between a HYDRA agent and a SHIELD agent.  We were given no indication that Garrett/Sitwell/Ward were anything but model agents.  Sitwell's whole character development had been "that other agent" - his appearance on the show was big because "HE'S FROM THE MOVIES, (KINDA)!"  We never saw him be brutal or calculating or nefarious.  Ward shot the Clairvoyant in the previous episode - that's something that could be straddling the line between SHIELD and HYDRA.  But Sitwell?  We saw him half a dozen times with no indication that he was evil.  He was only evil when the time came for him to be evil.  Up until that point, being good was part of HYDRA's plan.

Now that I think about it, I'd love to see some of these types of characters show up on the show.  There had to be HYDRA officers who spent so much time pretending to be SHIELD that they got used to it.  Maybe they liked the idea of HYDRA, but they learned to love the idea of SHIELD.  They'd be triple agents, in the end.  I'd also be interested in meeting the character I described earlier, who spent 30 years pretending to be SHIELD on behalf of HYDRA, only to completely miss the boat long after retirement.  Would a 70-year-old retired HYDRA agent join the fight?

There's so much the show can do with this turn of events.  Let's hope they take advantage.

Offline


#16 2014-04-13 9:49 am

Slider_Quinn21
Member
Registered: 2006-12-11
Posts: 2198
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Professor Gimli wrote:

Why beat about the bush on what we already have?  I just wish that FOX and Sony would give up the rights to X-men and Spiderman.  If that happened we would have had an Avengers Movie that included Wolverine and Spiderman.

A Civil War movie could still happen.  In fact, it's something I could easily see happening for Avengers 3.  MCU Tony Stark would still be in favor of registration.  MCU Captain America would still be against it.  The only thing that is missing are the nameless heroes who would be caught in the crossfire.  Thor wouldn't care.  Black Widow and Hawkeye are already pretty much in the open.  I assume people know that Bruce Banner is the Hulk.  So there's no Spider-Man for a public unmasking, and that's the only thing that's missing.  Considering that Chris Evans wants to quit acting and Sebastian Stan is signed for nine movies, it could also end the way the comic ended - with Steve Rogers dead and Bucky putting on the costume.

But Sony and Fox would be insane to cut and run now.  Both X-Men and Spider-Man are still cash cows, and they're working on making their own connected universes.  X-Men is working to make a connected universe between the First Class world, Wolverine's world, and the original trilogy.  Spider-Man is doing the opposite of the Avengers, assembling a crew of villains to take the Webslinger down. 

So selling the rights would be a bad decision, both financially and creatively.

What I don't understand is why they don't work together.  I realize that there's a limit to how much money a movie can make.  That a billion dollar Spidey movie and a billion dollar Avengers movie won't necessarily combine to make a 2 billion dollar Spidey/Avengers movie that each studio could split evenly.  But if everyone wants it, wouldn't it make sense to "lend" the rights to Marvel?  Couldn't Sony get a couple hundred million dollars.....all of which would be profit?  What's funny is that it almost happened.  I read that Sony and Marvel were close to reaching a deal where they'd put the Oscorp building (from Amazing Spider-Man) into the Battle of New York.  Wouldn't have been anything but that, but it would've been a step in the right direction.

Offline


#17 2014-04-19 8:24 am

Slider_Quinn21
Member
Registered: 2006-12-11
Posts: 2198
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

I've been surprised that Agents of SHIELD has actually gotten more entertaining.  No orders.  No week-to-week random missions.  No mysterious all-powerful shield.  Just our characters against the world.  It's actually filling in gaps that the movies can't hope to fill.  It's actually serving a purpose.

The action has been fun from the start, but we're actually starting to see some character development.  Characters are choosing sides and thinking on their own instead of simply being SHIELD agents with the company line.  Fitz and Simmons disagreeing.  May worried that Coulson is a sleeper and doesn't know it.  Coulson keeping secrets from the team.  Whatever is happening with Triplett.  It's not great development, but it's something.  Now if they can just keep Ward as legitimately evil, I think they'll have something here.

Offline


#18 2014-05-08 11:01 am

Slider_Quinn21
Member
Registered: 2006-12-11
Posts: 2198
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

One thing I just thought of.  With HYDRA emerging as the villain of SHIELD, what if they used Red Skull?  I don't know what the CGI budget for the show is (or how much that would cost), but it doesn't seem like Red Skull is going to reappear in the movies (maybe Cap 3, I guess).  Hugo Weaving complained about the role, so it might have to be recast anyway.  And the show could use some high profile starpower in a villain. 

What do we think?

Offline

****************************

We lost our topic on the MCU so I'm starting it up again.  I can summarize our last discussion - I think I'm the only one who's enjoying the MCU and it's interconnected universe.  There - caught up smile

I saw Guardians of the Galaxy tonight.  When I first heard about it, I can't describe the "meh" I let out.  First of all, like most people, I'd never heard of them.  And when I did my research, I wasn't any more interested.  A talking tree?  A RACCOON?  Like the ever-rumored Ant-Man movie, I figured it would be something we'd never really see.  There were so many Earth-bound heroes that Marvel wanted to include that I didn't see the point in doing an adventure in space. 

I saw the trailers - saw that they were going for comedy - but I still didn't see the point.  Why do it?  Even when I read that they'd be including Thanos, I didn't see the point.  One of the draws of seeing an MCU film is the inter-connectedness of it.  A Guardians of the Galaxy story seemed more appropriate for one of ireaction's tie-in graphic novels - not a full-on movie.  It didn't make a great deal of sense to me.

But I saw it because I needed to see a movie and it was playing.  And it's certainly the strangest of the MCU films.  It's even more out there than Thor was, and outside of Thanos and the Collector (neither of which are exactly big players in the MCU so far), has nothing to do with the other movies.  I thought a scene of Peter Quill on Earth might've made a reference to Tony Stark or SHIELD or something - nope.  There's almost nothing tying that movie into the universe outside of those couple characters.

And the tone is way different.  It's a legit action comedy - much funnier (and goofier) than any other Marvel movie.  It's aimed at kids much moreso than, say, Captain America: The Winter Solider is, but it's funny enough to easily entertain adults too.  Bradley Cooper is hilarious as Rocket, and I think Chris Pratt is a likeable actor.  I don't know if he can carry a lot of movies, but he has a ton of heart.

I don't know how this is going to play into the rest of the MCU.  Maybe it won't.  But the movie was good.  Not the best MCU film but one of the most fun.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

I haven't seen it yet, but they probably kept it stand alone because the Guardians' ties to the Avengers in the comics have never been strong.  However, many of the characters in the movie (Ronan, Thanos, Nebula, the Collector, the Nova Corps) have had strong ties to the Avengers.  It makes me wonder if the interconnection won't be as much through the Guardians as it is the other characters that were used in the movie; this was an introduction to them so that wouldn't have to burn a lot of screen time to go through it in an Avengers film.

In the end, I would not be surprised if the actual Guardians never appear in an Avengers film; but there are some Avengers 2 spoilers floating around that could explain why they enter the Avengers' world.

Sliders - The Dimension of Continuity
Same Internet; Different Information.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

There are a couple items in the movie that could lead them into the Avengers' world.  I won't get into spoilers, but since Thanos plays a part in the movie (and a part in the motivation for at least two of the main protagonists), I could see them showing up.

I think it'd be an interesting thing to happen, if only to get Stark's reaction to seeing Rocket.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

I finally saw Winter Soldier this weekend. It was an okay movie. Certainly better than The Avengers, the Thor movies or Agents of SHIELD. However, since I do watch Agents of SHIELD, it seemed a little pointless to me. The show told the same story, dragged out over the course of several weeks. It was hard to separate the two and not feel as bored by this movie as I was by the series, even though the movie handled it a little better.

A little.

By the time they revealed that Nick Fury was alive for the third or fourth time, it got old.

The story should have been much, much smaller. This SHIELD story would have been a better Avengers movie. Certainly better than all of the alien nonsense that I don't really care about. Plus, I kept wondering why they didn't call Stark when all of this stuff started going down. You know he would have kill switches in anything that he helped SHIELD develop.

On top of that, they had three more flying carriers (seriously, who ever thought those were a good idea?) which were synced to a satellite. So when they want to stop the big bad plan, they feel a need to infiltrate three impenetrable weaponized monster machines... Instead of shooting a satellite out of the sky, thus rendering the carriers useless until they could be destroyed.

I feel like simply telling the Bucky story properly would have been a better option for this movie. A smaller, more personal story for Cap as he struggles with his new world. Involve more characters from the first movie in more important roles.

The Bucky story was the Captain America story, relegated to the background. Yet again, the better movie was dropped in favor of servicing the Marvel Universe, and once again this proves the inherent flaws with this united universe concept.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Informant wrote:

Plus, I kept wondering why they didn't call Stark when all of this stuff started going down. You know he would have kill switches in anything that he helped SHIELD develop.

Well, that's something that I'm interested to know too.  It was my primary question about phase 2, and it wasn't really answered.  Thor's stuff mostly took place off Earth, and things happened too quickly for anyone to really show up and help.  Plus, it took place outside the US, so even if they did call the other Avengers, there's not really anything anyone could've done. 

But for Winter Soldier and Iron Man 3, the other sides are oddly absent.  Tony told Banner about his stories, but SHIELD (which was central to Tony's first two movies) is nowhere to be found when Tony is saving the freakin' president of the United States.  He's off-radar most of the time, but that's no excuse.  And when the world is going to Hell, Tony is gone.

Kevin Feige, who's the architect of this thing, said that the movies would explain why the Avengers aren't just showing up every time.  That whatever happened in Iron Man 3 would explain why he's not in Captain America and Captain America would explain why SHIELD didn't show up in Iron Man 3.  This was written before Iron Man 3 was released and seemed like a good enough answer - "They're both going to be busy doing their own thing to even worry about the others."

But the timeline doesn't really work out.  In terms of timelines, Phase Two is actually not connected enough to help us with the stories.  It's fairly certain to know what order the original movies are in - Easter Eggs of the Hulk attacking the college or endscenes show when each movie is taking place.  Unless I missed it, nothing like that happens in these movies.  No one talks about Thor in London or his permanent reappearance on Earth in CA or IM3.  No one talks about Tony Stark saving the president and getting his arc reactor taken out of his body in Winter Soldier.  No one talks about SHIELD in Thor or IM3.  Agents of SHIELD tells us that Thor 2 is before Winter Soldier because the SHIELD team investigated London on the show before all the HYDRA stuff happened. 

But, again, Thor 2 is the Wild Card.

The only explanation that makes sense is that Iron Man 3 either happened at the same time as Winter Solider or happened afterwards.  If it happened at the same time, Tony would've been impossible to find and couldn't have helped with the stuff in Washington (and they couldn't have helped him).  If IM3 happened afterward, there is no SHIELD to help Tony, and any replacement authorities might've been too slow to react.  JARVIS does mention going through a SHIELD database to help investigate the Mandarin in IM3, but it could've been an old database.

But even then it doesn't really add up.  I don't know if they mentioned exact times, but off memory (having seen both these movies several months ago) it seems like Iron Man 3 only takes place a few months after New York.  And it seems like lots of time has passed for Captain America, who seems pretty normal.

That's my primary issue with this shared world.  But, again, I think it's cool.  It may be bad for storytelling, but I think it's fun and it makes me care about characters I wouldn't have cared about otherwise.  I wouldn't have seen a Thor movie unless it was connected.  Hell, I wouldn't have seen Guardians of the Galaxy (which I thought was really fun) unless it was connected and it was BARELY connected.

And you're an advocate of getting Amell into the DC Universe, but wouldn't that make reduce every storyline on Arrow to "wait, couldn't Superman fix this in ten seconds?  Where's Superman?" wink

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

I think I've changed my mind about putting Arrow in the movies. After seeing the Marvel mess, I don't think it is a good idea. The Arrow writers would have their hands completely tied to whatever characterization appears in the movie two years later. That would make the series pointless. So I am fine with leaving him and Flash out. But I do like the TV universe that they're building up.

The Marvel movies are doing exactly what made me stop reading comics. I hated having to subscribe to sixty different books just to get one solid story. I hated reading Batman with Damien as Robin one month and then Batman mourning Damien the next month without any explanation. It is annoying and confusing, so I eventually just gave up, even if I liked the characters. The Marvel universe is pretty much there.

Timeline-wise, I just assume that the movies play out in the order that we see them, with a fair amount of time passing between eachovie. If Iron Man 3 and Captain America 2 take place at the same time, they really should release them together.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Yeah it's just weird that the movies didn't reference each other.  It's almost like Phase Two wasn't connected.

So you should like them better smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

They're connected, just not well coordinated.


Did you notice that the people making Winter Soldier completely abandoned the super lame Captain America costume from The Avengers? He didn't look like a Power Ranger!

See? I can point out positive aspects too.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

I mean, I get the criticisms.  The movies aren't great and they should be better coordinated.  I just think it's fun, and that's not something I can argue you out of and nothing you can explain away from me.

And it's hard to say that the movies hurt Agents of SHIELD considering the show only barely referenced Thor briefly, one of the best episodes dealt with a guest star from the movies (Sif, not Fury), and the show got significantly better after the Winter Soldier.  Sure, they can't really do everything they want, but they tend to stick to their own stuff anyway.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

How Captain America: The Winter Soldier Should Have Ended

I love these guys!

--Chaser9

I'M RICH BATMAN!

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Come on guys, obviously Stark was busy doing Pepper Potts. Thor was busy at some Asgard orgy. Nobody really cares who Hawkeye was doing. Black Widow was busy trying to pretend she doesn't want on Caps jock by setting him up with every other girl. So obviously they were all to busy to help save the world this time.

Oh and Hulk was busy doing Pepper Potts... yeah it's getting freaky like that in the Stark tower.

WAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
Informant wrote:

Plus, I kept wondering why they didn't call Stark when all of this stuff started going down. You know he would have kill switches in anything that he helped SHIELD develop.

Well, that's something that I'm interested to know too.  It was my primary question about phase 2, and it wasn't really answered.  Thor's stuff mostly took place off Earth, and things happened too quickly for anyone to really show up and help.  Plus, it took place outside the US, so even if they did call the other Avengers, there's not really anything anyone could've done.  But for Winter Soldier and Iron Man 3, the other sides are oddly absent.  Tony told Banner about his stories, but SHIELD (which was central to Tony's first two movies) is nowhere to be found when Tony is saving the freakin' president of the United States.  He's off-radar most of the time, but that's no excuse.  And when the world is going to Hell, Tony is gone.

Maybe it's just me -- but I don't worry about this stuff. I used to. I'd be reading the latest issue of NIGHTWING and wonder why Dick didn't just phone the Flash and ask him to kidnap this month's crimeboss and lock him up on the moon or something. Answer: because it's NIGHTWING, not THE FLASH. Why didn't SHIELD or Captain America come to help out in IRON MAN III? Because it was Tony Stark's movie. I suppose they could have thrown in some half-hearted two lines of exposition about the other heroes dealing with their own mission, but I don't really need the story to make excuses for focusing on its title character. The in-world explanation will always seem an obvious cover-up for the real-world explanation.

I'm actually a little worried that THE FLASH will establish Barry's power levels to the point where it makes little sense for Oliver to do anything other than hand Barry the keys to the Arrowcave and retire as Barry could likely do both their jobs and still make it home in time for AGENTS OF SHIELD.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

The problem is that Marvel has gone out of their way to unite this movie universe, so not having them help each other sticks out like a sore thumb.

It should be interesting to see if Flash and Arrow storylines clash at all.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Informant wrote:

The problem is that Marvel has gone out of their way to unite this movie universe, so not having them help each other sticks out like a sore thumb.

It should be interesting to see if Flash and Arrow storylines clash at all.

Yeah but he has a point, though, about Flash and Arrow.  If we expect SHIELD to call in the Avengers in every situation, shouldn't Oliver be calling Barry all the time?  Especially since he can be anywhere in the country way faster than the Avengers could.  The easiest accessible Avenger is Tony, and he'd still have to travel at the speed of a typical airplane.  If they'd called him in Winter Soldier, it would've taken hours to get to Washington, whether he was in Los Angeles (where he lives) or New York (where he is sometimes).  If he was overseas (like he was in the flashback in Iron Man 3), then it'd take even longer.

Flash could be in Africa and be in Starling within an hour (faster?  way faster?)  And it's not like Flash/Arrow are ignoring the crossover aspect - Oliver appeared in the very first Flash promo, he appears in Flash's first episode, and they have a couple crossovers planned already.  I don't think it's any different than the MCU.

It opens up a can of worms, but I think ireactions'....er.....reaction is correctly.  Sometimes heroes want to handle something on their own, and the other heroes respect that.  Otherwise, Superman would handle everything in the DC universe because he can.  If they call each other for help, they'll help.  Otherwise, they let the guy on the scene handle it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

True enough. But in Winter Soldier, the problem is that this isn't about Captain America protecting his city. Literally millions of people are going to die around the world, including Tony Stark, and while they mentioned that Stark helped to construct the new hover blunders, they never thought to call him and ask him to turn them off.

I will be interested in seeing how Arrow and The Flash handle this. Right now, it sounds like Flash will be dealing with a meta-human problem while Oliver is dealing with more grounded tactical type stuff. And that makes sense... Barry isn't a strategist like Oliver and he couldn't think like they do. Likewise, Oliver going up against Captain Cold would be interesting, but a little mismatched. They have established a distinction between Arrow and The Flash in that way, though they will be teaming up from time to time and they aren't pretending that the Flash sidekicks with their specialties don't exist when they could use them on Arrow, or that Felicity doesn't exist if they need her on The Flash.

If they maintain this past the first season of these shows, I will be very impressed, since spinoffs usually leave crossovers behind once they're established.


The real problem with Winter Soldier is this:

The Winter Soldier was the concept of the movie. It is a very personal story for Cap, and it was something that could incorporate characters from the first movie. This is a story that is Cap-centric... but it doesn't service the Marvel movie universe and it isn't a huge special effects bonanza. So the studio probably handed down a note telling the writers what they needed to put into the movie in order to set up The Avengers 2 or Thor 3, or Ant Man or whatever. This is where the SHIELD/Hydra story comes in, and Bucky's story gets pushed back more and more until it really doesn't even matter if he is in the movie or not. The Winter Soldier could be taken out of the movie that is named after him, and the overall plot of that movie wouldn't even be dinged.

The characters from the first movie were afterthoughts. Anything that would spark emotion from Captain America or that he would relate to was gone, all so that they could go bigger and more spectacular.

But the big fancy story had holes. It was forced and had no place in the movie, so they had to keep making up excuses for keeping it in there. Even with the Hydra revelation, the hover blunders--as I call them because they are literally the stupidest idea I have ever heard of... not counting Obamacare) and when that fact was revealed in The Avengers, the morons decided to build three more of those things--add nothing to the movie except BIGGER and SPECIAL EFFECTS BONANZA!!!

I was just talking to ireactions about letting the story go where it wants to go and not forcing things that don't belong, and Winter Soldier was a prime example of that. If the movie had been allowed to be the movie that it wanted to be, it could have been great. But they forced it and now it is a mess. This was a problem with the first Captain America movie too... the Cap story was sacrificed in order to set up The Avengers.


The Winter Soldier could have been cool if they had taken the opportunity to tell the story of how SHIELD was formed. Carter could have known that a threat still existed, and could have heard rumors of the Winter Soldier, and we could see this play out on screen while Captain America tries to track down the Winter Soldier in the present. They could have used Carter as the revelation that this was Bucky, and no matter how hard she tried to save him over the years, she just wasn't able to do it. It's tragic. It's beautiful. It speaks to how much she cared about those men and Steve specifically. And through these stories, we could come to realize that Hydra still lives and it is growing like a cancer inside of SHIELD.

They could have left that story to play out on Agents of SHIELD, which is the show about SHIELD... but they don't want to do that, because the show is just a commercial for the movies. It will never tell a story of its own. It just completely rehashed the story of Winter Soldier in a half-assed way, and people went nuts about how great the show was. Imagine if they could tell the real story, without the same exact thing being done in a movie first.
As it is, the storyline of AoS doesn't make sense, because we've seen Hydra (or is it HYDRA... whatever) with a dude that is part mechanical and completely compliant. So the story with J. August Richards just looks silly next to that.

It's a mess. It really is. But it is such a tangled mess that people mistake it for interconnected threads. And this is why it's better that Arrow, Gotham and The Flash don't exist in the DC movie universe. Their hands aren't tied. They're not just infomercials for movies that will be out in two years.


Wow. Long rant. Sorry. I finished writing a book yesterday, so I'm swimming in time today.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Yeah, I get all that.  And it really just doesn't bother me.  I also don't go to the Winter Soldier with the same mindset as I go to the Dark Knight or Interstellar or movies like that.  I don't go to watch a well-made character study - I go because I can turn my brain off for a couple hours and have fun.  Not necessarily in a "wow!  explosions!" kind of way but in a "ah, cool!" kind of way.  Of course, they're fun....but it doesn't really lend itself to multiple watches.  I have Netflix so I can watch Avengers whenever I want, but I've seen it twice.  It's popcorn fun, but popcorn goes stale.  Meanwhile, I will watch Dark Knight every time it comes on.  There's a difference, and it means something.....but it doesn't take away from the fun I had the first time.

Maybe because you're a writer, you can't get passed bad writing.  And that's fair.  But I also think you might be letting DC/Marvel bias cloud your vision.  I feel like the stuff you bash MCU stuff for you forgive in stuff like Arrow and Gotham.  Just an observation (and not an indictment - I'm easily the most hypocritical person here smile )

I do disagree in regards to the story kneeling to the Avengers.  HYDRA/SHIELD was a key factor in Captain America's first movie, and that was a continuation of the plotline from there.  Whether the plotline made any sense, I felt like it was organic.  Bucky's plot also didn't make much sense, but it was also natural.  I don't feel like anything from Captain America's movie (outside of whatever governing body is over the Avengers, especially if Fury is working solo) is going to carry over into the Avengers, and I definitely didn't feel like the table was set for Avengers 2 at the end of Winter Soldier.  I feel like that's a valid argument against The First Avenger, but I feel like you're condemning the second movie for the sins of the first.

One thing you're right about is all these movies are basically the same.  All the Phase 2 movies (including Guardians of the Galaxy) all end with the exact same sky-based battle full of explosions and giant robots/spaceships that Avengers ended with.  Every single one.   So the movies are definitely sticking to a formula and running it into the ground.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

I admit that I probably let the DC movies and show get away with more than the Marvel movies. I think that it is earned though, not necessarily bias. I will say that I enjoy Iron Man 2, mostly based on good will earned by the first movie.  However, the good will only lasts so long before I need a refill. Marvel hasn't provided that. So while there may be weak points in Arrow or Man of Steel, those products also earned a lot of points with the effort put into the world building, the character development and frankly, the respect for the audience that I feel has been lacking in most of the Marvel movies. I feel like they expect us to settle for cheap thrills while they get the praises of great movies, and I find that frustrating. They are fun movies to watch. I was really looking forward to Winter Soldier, despite being spoiled by the company itself and my knowing their weaknesses when it comes to storytelling. And it was... Fun. But more and more, I find that the most fun that I can get out of these movies is in watching them from an MST3K perspective.

I am eager to see the Agent Carter series. I am foolishly optimistic about it. Will I get burned yet again? Probably. But with a period piece like that, at least they have to put some effort into setting the atmosphere. AoS doesn't bother with that.

With The Flash, I am also looking forward to it. I really am. But at the same time, I have serious doubt's about how that story can work in live action, especially in the same universe as Arrow. If there are strong characters and solid writing, I will be able to overlook the absurd costumes and corny super powers. If the writing or acting are weak, I won't buy it. Birds of Prey was too weak. Smallville was corny as hell, but charming in its own way. So, we will see. DC doesn't get a free pass. They just have some credits saved up.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Yeah.  That's fair.  I just was sorta laughing a bit to myself when you were defending the over-the-top-ness of the Gotham villains, realizing that if that'd happened in a Marvel production, I'd probably have to be on the other side of that argument smile

DC > Marvel.  For sure.  I think they put more care into their productions.  I even would group something like Green Lantern in with most MCU productions - fun but not something I really need to see more than once or twice.  Entertaining.  I think of myself as pretty intellectual, but there's a fanboy inside me that loves all this superhero stuff.  I enjoyed Daredevil (and really enjoyed the director's cut, admittedly).  I love 2004 Punisher movie.  I'll even watch X3 or Wolverine's first movie if they're on.  Are they bad?  Yes.  But I think that's okay.  Superhero movies aren't supposed to win Oscars, which is why Nolan's stuff was so epic. 

And Gotham / Arrow are better than Agents of SHIELD, but it's the same thing.  I watch Agents of SHIELD when I'm working out.  Or when I'm unwinding.  Sometimes I'm on my laptop.  Sometimes I have to rewind because I've zoned out and lost what's going on.  But I feel like it's done a pretty good job of establishing it's own identity.  I disagree that it's hamstrung by the movies, but it could be the fanboy talking.  I feel like they're in the same universe, but they're doing their own thing.  Coulson isn't even going to be in Avengers 2 so they're even keeping him separate.

I'm also surprised that the Arrow folks picked Flash as their potential spinoff.  Maybe it was forced on them, but it doesn't really fit.  A Birds of Prey remake would've been interesting in this world.  Or something like The Question.  Or, as I've said before, Gotham would work in the Arrowverse.  But I guess Arrow season 2 was a bit more comic book-like than season one.  And that's not really a problem.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

I think I would tolerate the Marvel movies more if people didn't act as though they were the best movies ever made. As silly fun, they're fine. But if we're talking about a list of the best comic book movies ever made, I don't want to see The Avengers mentioned unless there is a sarcasm disclaimer somewhere nearby.
I see comments where people criticize the DC movies as being too dark and broody, or say that DC is throwing out movies, just trying to make money off of Marvel's success. But where Marvel is constantly churning out movies, I see DC taking their time and putting more effort into their movies. I don't see them trying to make money off of Marvel's success, because they seem to be working in the opposite direction (using the group movie to introduce characters and taking their time to get things right, rather than set a schedule 10 years in advance and stick to it whether the movie is ready or not)
Green Lantern was at least as good as the Marvel movies. And that's the interesting thing... people hate Green Lantern and bash it all day long, while praising the Marvel movies. It hurts my brain, trying to figure out how anyone thinks so highly of those movies.

I get what you're saying though. They're fun. And I watch Agents of SHIELD when I just want to veg out too, because stupid shows are better for that. But my brain can't stop thinking about how easily a tweak here or a change of the color balance there could make things so much better. It's just how my mind works. I wouldn't get along with Sliders fans nearly as well as I do if everyone insisted that every episode was great. smile
For me, that is part of the experience though. I learn things from shows that I don't like as much as I learn from shows that I do. I certainly don't get the same thrill that I get from a great series, but I find it fun to dissect and discuss shows whether I like them or not.

Fun side note though: I think that Trip is going to be in The Avengers 2. I read that somewhere. So there is a crossover from the AoS series.

I'd love a Question appearance on Arrow or even Gotham. When the actor part of me thinks of a character that I'd love to play, that's the one that I always go to. Especially since I don't fancy myself a Nightwing type. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

I think a Nightwing series would be amazing.  That's one that I forgot to mention - Dick Grayson is one of my favorite comic characters because I feel like he's grown the most.  I'm not a comics expert by any means, but he went from a kid to a sidekick to the leader of a group of teenage heroes to his own man in his own city to a legitimate ally of his mentor....to the mentor's job itself.  While Bruce Wayne has been Bruce Wayne for decades, Dick Grayson has grown from a child to an adult.  And I think that's pretty badass. 

I wonder how a Nightwing series would work, though.  I think the best way would be to sorta work the way Arrow or LOST worked - every episode has a flashback to Dick's days with Batman as Robin.  It'd show him growing up into his own man, growing apart from Bruce, and setting out on his own.  I think it could be really good.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Agreed. And if they can develop a Supergirl's series without Superman, they should be able to do Nightwing, right?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Yeah, I think so.  But I think that's the issue.  Unless you go Birds of Prey style (where Bruce is missing or dead), that shadow (pun intended) is huge.  The mystery of finding out what happened to Bruce could be a cool story (like that Dick Grayson fan film).  I think the best way to do it would be to have Bruce appear in flashbacks so we get the idea of how Dick came to be a hero in Bludhaven, but it could also work without that.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Ultimately, DC/Warner just need to get over the idea that if they show Bruce on TV, the audience will be confused. We get it. The guy in the movies isn't going to play him on TV. So find someone else. Otherwise, they are missing out on a lot of really good character stories with Dick, Tim, Barbara and a slew of others.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Yeah wouldn't it be cool if they could do a Bat-family show where Bruce is sorta like President Bartlet was supposed to be on the West Wing (a background character who appears every once in a while)?  Show Dick for a couple seasons...then move on to Jason while Dick does Teen Titans stuff.  Then Jason dies and Tim shows up.  And the same stuff with the Batgirls/Oracle too smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe

I'd like to see that. Especially since those characters have interesting relationships with each other. It wouldn't need Batman around all the time. Even if we just pick up with Nightwing in Bludhaven and they don't want to actually show Bruce, there has to be a way of telling the story. Maybe they could give the impression of Batman without showing him, making Dick's flashbacks more stylized than Oliver's.