Topic: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

There have been three teaser trailers released for the new Jessica Jones series, set in the MCU and premiering on Netflix on November 20. This follows Daredevil, and is building toward a Defenders teamup series.

But the weird thing is, we are less than two months away from release and they have yet to release a trailer that actually shows anything. The first teaser made the show look like a cartoon. The second just showed what I assume is a photo double passed out in bed. The third shows what is quite possibly another photo double from behind at a bar.

What good reason would there possibly be for not wanting to even show their star's face? I'm not even convinced that the footage from the teasers is from any episodes, because they tell us nothing. Why?

Could there be something going on behind the scenes that would prevent Netflix from using the footage? Or is this just an extremely strange campaign, especially since Jessica Jones isn't a very well known character outside of comic book circles?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's Netflix and Marvel.  They could be assuming that, after the success of Daredevil, people will watch no matter what.  So they're going with a mystery angle with the trailers.  Seems like the campaign is sorta "you don't know her name, but you will"

It does sorta remind me of X-Men: Days of Future Past, which definitely seemed like it was releasing footage pretty late.  But you gotta think they have enough footage for a teaser.  So I'm guessing it's the intended message, and they're assuming people will watch whether they give us more than a teaser or not.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

(and I'm guessing they're right)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It is a mistake to ever assume that the audience will be there, especially with a character that we have no reason to care about. Agents of SHIELD gets to interact with the Avengers storyline and characters and they assumed that it would be a slam dunk, but it actually isn't doing all that well. Daredevil did much better (judging by critic reactions and fan feedback) and that has to piss off the mother ship, ABC.

Netflix had a flop in Marco Polo, so it isn't like people will watch anything that they put out. They should be taking this more seriously, especially since they have so much invested in these shows.

The impression that I get from these trailers hadn't been about mystery and intrigue. The impression I get is that they don't want to show us their star or any actual footage from the show. It doesn't look good from where I am sitting.

Of course, I watch everything so I will check it out either way. But that doesn't mean that everyone is like me. The first trailer literally made the show look like a cartoon. How does that help them?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well who watches those trailers?  Where do they "air"?  Aren't the only people who'd even see them the people who are actively looking for information on Jessica Jones?  How does the average Netflix subscriber decide if they're going to watch a show or not?  Is it 99% word of mouth?  Or do they read the tagline and then decide?  Watch an episode and decide?  Is the trailer even available on Netflix?

The only "trailers" I've ever seen for a TV show I actively seeked out.  And they're usually genre shows (Minority Report, Lucifer, and Supergirl were the trailers I saw for the upcoming series this fall).  For the 100 other TV shows, I've never seen a trailer.  So you ask how the trailers help, and I ask who the trailers are even designed for?  Because my guess it's for people who are going to watch it no matter what, not to try and attract a new audience.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The trailers are usually posted on entertainment news sites, and "geek" sites in general. So while I'm sure that there are some who probably would watch the show either way and some who will never see the trailers either way, the trailers are about generating awareness of the product. With Daredevil, the thing was the prove to people that this wasn't going to be like the movie, which the trailers did. People were talking about those trailers and that built excitement for the series when it premiered. With Jessica Jones, I don't know what people would be talking about, even if they did talk about it. On the site where I usually get my TV show news, people barely even comment on the trailers.

They use the trailers online to generate buzz. But people need something to buzz about if that's going to happen.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

No, for sure.  But I wonder if there are more people who check those sites vs. people who are just going to log on to Netflix one day, see a giant ad for Jessica Jones, and decide then and there whether to watch it or not.  It'll have the Marvel logo, it'll have the "Netflix Original Program" emblem.  And people will give it a shot.

And don't forget, it'll be out there a while.  This isn't a movie that needs to have a big opening weekend to be successful or a show that airs weekly.  Even if there were no trailers or bad-looking trailers, if the show was good, word of mouth would spread and people would be free to watch from the beginning at their leisure.

I'm not saying you're wrong.  Maybe the footage of what they've shot is terrible.  Maybe they know the show will suck, and they're trying to hide it as long as possible.  But without any evidence either way, I just suspect that the trailer campaign will have little-to-no impact on how the show performs.

I'll watch.  But almost certainly in a "Iron Man was so good that I have to watch Thor" kind of way.  Jessica Jones seems like an interesting idea for a character from what I've read, but it's not something I'm going to knock down the door to watch.  Heck, I was really excited about Daredevil but still took more than a month to watch it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The JESSICA JONES trailers struck me as trailers aimed specifically at the fans. People who already know who this character is. And you know, that's okay -- if the show is meant for that precise demographic, then the trailers are just about right. As for being successful? If the show is aimed at a small audience, then it's presumably budgeted so that the cost of making it is below the amount of revenue it will draw from that small audience.

I've had some issues with Marvel movies. I loved IRON MAN, INCREDIBLE HULK and THOR, but IRON MAN II and CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER were weak films that led to the also-weak AVENGERS and the very weak first season of AGENTS OF SHIELD. However, one thing that these projects all handled very well was budget and market research. Marvel Studios had a pretty clear idea of who would be interested in seeing these projects and how much money they were likely to make. They then made sure to spend just the right amount so that even a modest success would turn a profit.

I thought IRON MAN III, CAP II, THOR II, DAREDEVIL and the second season of AGENTS were very strong, and I felt a huge part of that was also the creators handling budget constraints more effectively than AVENGERS (where most of the movie was set on the Helicarrier). Marvel Studios has, traditionally, been very good at making sure their costs don't exceed their earnings. I'm sure JESSICA JONES, a low-budget Netflix series, will be handled just as well.

That said, I'm not sure how true that will be for future projects. One of the main forces behind avoiding wasteful spending was Ike Perlmutter, the reclusive CEO of Marvel Entertainment. He had a lot of wise and brilliant business approaches to filmmaking. Filming schedules, locations, scripts, cast availability and budgets were meticulously and obsessively timed and organized. Most Hollywood blockbusters waste millions of dollars due to poor planning that has actors sitting around paid but not working because sets and props aren't ready, location filming that turns out to be unnecessary, special effects sequences that are bought and not used, etc..

Perlmutter's fastidious business sense avoided most of that. Actors were paid sensible figures for their initial films, in the $500,000 to $2 million range, although the success of the earlier films meant increases for the sequels. Inexpensive but talented directors were chosen like Shane Black for IRON MAN III and the Russo brothers from COMMUNITY for CAP II and Alan Taylor from GAME OF THRONES for THOR II. Actors were not given endless luxuries; they were not given vast expense accounts or free airline travel for their entourages. Journalists were only allowed one soda each at press junkets.

Unfortunately, Perlmutter was also a crazy ****ing lunatic who was sexist, racist, homophobic and hateful towards his employees. It's one thing to handle money this way; something else to handle people and talent in precisely the same manner. Perlmutter's downfall came when Downey Jr. expressed his interest in starring in CAPTAIN AMERICA III in a larger role. Perlmutter considered this Downey Jr. trying to grab more money. Arguably true, but surely if it wasn't financially sound, Downey Jr. could have been politely told, "Thanks, but no thanks." Instead, Perlmutter vindictively sought to have Downey Jr. written out of the CAP3 script entirely and this led to Perlmutter being removed from Marvel movies.

I honestly don't know if it's a good thing. The past years have seen increasingly foolish and idiotic studio behaviour where studios vastly overestimate the audience for their films and spend far more money than they can expect to earn back. (The stated budgets of these films are pretty meaningless because there's apparently additional preparatory and marketing costs that don't show up in the IMDB budget pages.) Look at JOHN CARTER or TOMORROWLAND or TERMINATOR GENISYS or anything directed in the last decade by the Wachowskis.

GENISYS is the perfect example of this poor thinking. Would anyone expect a TERMINATOR movie to earn more than $200 million worldwide? It's a 1984 franchise that hasn't been relevant since 1991. The films are aimed at people who saw and loved the 1984 and 1991 films. It's not a huge audience, and the time travel and continuity make it a tough sell to a general audience. So, to spend a huge sum on such a film would be foolish; any TERMINATOR film should be at most a $50 million dollar film. Paramount spent -- well, I don't know how much they spent, but GENISYS earned $440 million worldwide and yet is considered a failure with its sequels cancelled, which means they really shouldn't have made the movie for however much they invested.

MAN OF STEEL earned close to $700 million and is also considered by Warner Bros. to be a non-success -- in that they didn't make as much of a profit as they'd hoped. That's why MAN OF STEEL II became a BATMAN & SUPERMAN film; that's why there are no standalone Superman films planned. And to me, that's just ridiculously poor mathematics; if summer action films are earning hundreds of millions and their planned sequels are being cancelled, then too much is being spent to make them.

As I said, Marvel has been good at avoiding this silliness, but they have stumbled into it with AGE OF ULTRON, which earned $1.4 billion and is considered a disappointment at Disney. Not because they lost money, but because they didn't earn as much as they'd hoped -- which means they probably shouldn't have spent as much as they did.

But I think JESSICA JONES, being a smaller-scale project, is safe from such things.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The problem, Jessica Jones isn't a small scale project. These Marvel shows on Netflix cost $200,000,000 to produce. That is spread across 60 episodes of multiple series, to be sure... but Jessica Jones is going to springboard Luke Cage. If Jessica Jones isn't a success, a spinoff from that series will be in very dangerous waters as well. On top of that, there are rumors that they're having trouble figuring out how to approach their Iron Fist series. So that series is unsteady as well. Right here, we have three out of their four regular series that are playing a giant game of Jenga. If those three projects aren't successful, nobody will care about The Defenders miniseries, which is what all of this is supposed to be building up to (we weren't even sure if Daredevil would have a second season originally).

This is a huge investment because it's all interconnected. Right now, Daredevil is generating buzz because of a solid first season and the Punisher introduction. Marvel/Netflix need to make sure that all three other series go off without a hitch though. It needs to be perfect. Jessica Jones could take down Luke Cage before Luke Cage even starts production.

"Jessica Jones" isn't Superman. They can't attract people with a name or a logo. They need to attract people with actual footage that makes people want to watch the series. The clock teaser and the bar teaser look incredibly unoriginal and not very exciting. The cartoon teaser... I don't know what they were thinking with that.

In terms of how they're budgeting, I'm not sure how smart they're being. The shows are set in New York, but New York is an expensive place to film. Even the extras would cost more there than many other cities. They're doing it anyway. Is that a smart way to spend money, or is that a luxury that they could make up for in post production if they wanted to save money? I'm sure that it looks better to actually film there, but is it necessary? I guess it's a matter of opinion.

I just think that they made the same mistake with these shows that they made with the Marvel movies. They made their success dependent on each other and the big event that they're building up to. They're building yet another house of cards.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I have serious doubts about that $200 million figure. It's over three years and it was an estimate to start. How that's actually worked out, I'm not sure, but DAREDEVIL looked like a low-budget and incredibly skillful indie drama. They didn't even spend the money to insert the Avengers tower into the skyline. They don't need to spend it all at once; if it doesn't work out, they can rework the end goal.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Hemlock Grove costs about $4,000,000 per episode. Daredevil had a lot of fight scenes, which take forever to shoot... in the streets of New York. They even had rain in some scenes, which is usually an expense that people don't bother with unless it's very important (Rob Thomas made a point about cutting rain out of the beginning of the Veronica Mars movie. He originally wanted to match the series finale, but decided that it wasn't worth the cost). New York is a union state, which means that long days with lots of different unions eventually add up. (I think the union rate for extras as of 2013 was something like $148 for 8 hours of work. Compared to a right to work state where non-union extras could get anywhere from $60 to $88 for 8 to 10 hours).

Basically, just filming in New York means that they're hemorrhaging money. The show might look small and quiet, but it takes a lot of work, time and money to make it look that way.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I can't definitively say you're wrong about the  budget, but I have trouble believing the notoriously penny-pinching Perlmutter would have permitted the Netflix series if it was nothing but an overoptimistic money pit. Marvel's frugality is a huge part of its (financial) success and both DAREDEVIL and JESSICA JONES are projects from Perlmutter's reign. And I think Perlmutter remains in control of the TV division. Perlmutter is the sort of person who would fire people for buying too many staples or throwing out pencils when there was still a good inch left on them. That is not an exaggeration.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions, just for curiosity's sake, where do you get your TV/movie news.  You always have cool info smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Temporal Flux. Oh, you meant non-SLIDERS info. Uh. Which parts are you referring to?

Just do a search for BLEEDNG COOL and PERLMUTTER and you'll find a ton of info Marvel. There was also this editorial: … -shall-we/ -- which was about how Marvel Studios avoids wasting money and why their salary negotiations with the actors are the way they are.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21


I would keep in mind that Netflix has a different financial model than television or even movies; Netflix is primarily subscriber based.  Will people drop their sub because they didn't care for Jessica Jones?  Unlikely because Netflix offers more than just Jessica Jones.  Will more people sub just for Jessica Jones?  Unlikely because Netflix already pulled in the Marvel audience with Daredevil.

That said, I think Jones would have worked better as the last release and a bridge to The Defenders.  I believe Jones is the weakest of the four and it needs a little something extra to lift it up.

Iron Fist shouldn't be a head scratcher on story, though; it could be spun as Kung Fu meets Game of Thrones.  Budget is an issue, but I think it can be managed.  To my understanding, the tv side (including Netflix) is still under Perlmutter.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Another area where TF and I are aligned -- I don't think SPIDER-MAN should be a movie series. I, too, think it should be a TV show. The visuals would *have* to be reduced in scale to work on a TV budget with corners cut the way THE FLASH and ARROW do. It might have to be 8 - 13 episode seasons like AGENT CARTER in order for all the web-slinging action to be workable. Or it might have to be an animated series with actor Tom Holland doing all the motion capture and voice work and appearing in live-action only for his appearances in the AVENGERS movies. The death of Gwen Stacy would have worked a lot better at the end of Season 2 rather than Movie Number 2. The Sinister Six would have been better introduced across a season of episodes rather than in one disastrous movie.

Slider_Quinn2 says animation won't work for a mainstream audience used to live-action. That's always struck me as a marketing problem to be solved as opposed to an unsolvable dilemma.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, they're going to do an animated Spider-Man movie.  If that works, it could mean that an animated superhero movie could work.  But as far as I know, the only movie that tried that was Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, and they didn't repeat that model with the second Batman: TAS movie, so it couldn't have gone overwhelmingly well.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

MASK OF THE PHANTASM was good, but it suffered from having been a direct-to-video animated feature that got a small theatrical release. The animation was not designed for the big screen and what looked fine on TV (unmoving background characters, sparse extras) looked glaringly poor in theatres.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think the problem is that most people associate cartoons with kids' movies.  And while, yeah, superhero movies are kid friendly, I think the format alone would scare away some adults.  Even if they simply animated the exact script from, say, Age of Ultron with the actor's voices, I think it'd make a percentage of the box office a live-action Age of Ultron made. 

Some of the DC Animated movies are good.  Some are pretty dark and are made for a more adult audience.  But if you made an "edgy" theatrical cartoon superhero movie, I think it'd end up in a weird no-man's land where no one wants to see it.  It'd be too cartoony for adults and too mature for kids.  And even if they didn't go mature with it, any humor will come off as, well, cartoonish.

And for the record, I agree with you.  I love the DCAU - I think it's the definitive version of most of the DC characters.  But I think people would prefer to see Ben Affleck walk around in a cape and cowl than hear Kevin Conroy.  Even though Kevin Conroy, as far as I'm concerned IS Batman.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 … e#/slide/1

Info, we got our Jessica Jones trailer finally.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Unfortunately, their marketing strategy to date has created a negative impression of the show for me. I'll check it out and possibly even like it, but as it stands, I am just annoyed and frustrated by the whole thing at this point.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Did you watch the trailer?  Trailer seems pretty clear cut what the show is supposed to be - Netflix might just release trailers later than other networks, which is why they resorted to the other marketing campaign.  I don't remember how soon before the show the Daredevil trailer showed up.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah, I watched it. The problem is that I watched it with a lot of pre-existing frustration toward the series.

I think Daredevil had its first real trailer a couple of months out. But I don't mind teasers that are done well. I just think that they should tease rather than annoy. The teasers for Jessica Jones were old cliches and a cartoon that offered me nothing and left me to wonder why they didn't want to show me anything from the series (that was done filming an entire season).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I get that, but I'm not sure I understand holding a show accountable for something the marketing department at Netflix did.  Show runners don't make those trailers, right?  I remember Lindelof/Cuse getting mad about LOST promos back in the day for showing things they didn't want shown.  If those guys weren't part of their promos, I can't imagine anyone involved at Jessica Jones was involved with the Netflix stuff.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

That's why I hate trailers. The people making the movie or show should figure out how to represent it in a trailer, because a lot of movies or shows have been destroyed by bad marketing. That is the first impression that we have of any project.

I don't blame the show really. I will check it out. But I will check it out after months of being completely annoyed by the way it was promoted. Netflix did the show no favors from where I'm sitting.

The same can be said with CBS and Supergirl. The promos look horrible. If the series proves to be good, CBS is responsible for making it seem like a throwback to 1993 and then deciding to air it at 8:30 on its premiere night, which is insane.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Jessica Jones... I'm up to episode 10 or 11. It's far better than most of the Marvel products (makes Agents of SHIELD look like Saturday morning material). But not as good as Daredevil. At the moment, I'm thinking that the season is at least 3 episodes too long. They keep having confrontations, followed by someone doing something stupid, followed by another confrontation in the next episode. It makes everyone look stupid, and they keep doing nonsensical things, just to keep the story going for more episodes.

It's frustrating. It started out well and I hoped that it would get stronger as it went, but the closer I get to the end, the more it seem to be falling apart. I'm not thrilled as much as I'm rolling my eyes and yelling "Seriously?!" at the TV.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah, Alan Sepinwall said the same thing.  That Marvel/Netflix should've had the freedom to decide to cut down the number of episodes if they chose to.

I've watched the first three.  I started watching Mr. Robot and have been trying to watch Deadwood.  Now that most of my shows are going on winter break, I should be able to finish this too.  I've liked it so far.  I like that it doesn't rely on Daredevil at all - it can survive on its own.

I do wonder if these guys will ever be incorporated into the ABC series or the movies.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The frustrating thing is that they don't go near Daredevil at all. The shows are taking place in the same area, yet neither show so much as hinted about the fairly huge events taking place in the other. That is even weirder than the fact that it's supposed to take place in the Avengers universe,  yet feels like a completely different animal.  They reference those events, but they feel so out of place that it's just weird.

Possible Small, Tiny Spoiler

On top of that, they reference the events of The Avengers in a way that makes it sound more like Man of Steel than The Avengers. Buildings falling. Thousands dying... I got none of that from the movie itself. It's like all of the other Marvel properties keep fixing Whedon's mistakes by retconning what happened.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

!?!? I have no idea how you can say JESSICA JONES and DAREDEVIL didn't cross over. The crossover was pretty blatant to me.

As for the rest -- I liked JESSICA JONES a lot, but it's just personal taste.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Remember, I'm not done with Jessica Jones yet. I have some episodes remaining, so maybe I haven't seen it yet.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Oh, yeah! I watched in chunks, so I think I lost track of how it was all divided up. I retract my incredulous outburst. Continue.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Okay, I still have a couple of episodes of Jessica Jones left, but the series crumbles more and more with each episode. I just watched episode 11, "AKA I've Got The Blues"...


First of all, the issue of mishandling Kilgrave continues. They mistakenly introduced him into the show too soon, so now they're stuck spinning wheels and making excuses to not end the story. They kill Hope, which removes the main driving force of Jessica's mission (it removed the only selfless aspect).

Jessica is a broody mess. You'd think that this is because of what Kilgrave did to her, and her emotional goal for the series would be to reclaim what was stolen from her. Except all of the flashbacks show her pretty much the same as she is now. So, what is she trying to win back? What is the goal, aside from "kill the bad guy?" (which they never do when they have the chance)
Hope was that goal. It was Jessica's chance to fight for the person that she can't be herself. Now what?
And in rendering the Hope arc pointless, they rendered the  entire Hogarth character (and everything around it) useless.

Simpson... a random cop that Kilgrave whammies, right? And then he is so torn up by what he's done that he uses his military skills to join the fight.
Except this random cop turns out to be part of some super secret military-ish unit that uses magic pills to get strong, but it turns him into a crazy killer. That makes his being a part of the show too much of a coincidence in the first place, and destroys the interesting character element that he brought to the show, AND plays into the trope of suddenly turning a love interest into a total jerk and/or crazy killer... and in doing so, flies in the face of his early character arc.

In short, his character became complete nonsense.

The powers on the show are handled incredibly poorly. They never keep track of how powerful they want Jessica to be, so she ends up looking like a Heroes character whose abilities grow and shrink according to whatever the writer wants that week. This carried over into Simpson... he can throw Jessica through a wall, but can't break down a bathroom door. Jessica can take the impact of jumping off of a building, but getting hit by a car disables her.

And the end of the episode, at Luke's bar missed so many possibly good moments in favor of a scene that was completely lacking any emotion whatsoever. We know that he can't be hurt. Kilgrave doesn't. Seeing Kilgrave tell him to jam a knife into his face, only to see the knife bent or break would have been a great moment. But we didn't get that.
Seeing Jessica burst open the fire hydrant that was right next to her to put out the fire on Luke would have been an okay moment that showed her power. Instead, she smacked him with a blanket.
Seeing her stand against a street lamp as Luke walks out of the bar on fire, and have her remain perfectly calm as the burning dude walks over to her and says "What the f--- was that?" would have been a really cool moment, since the fire would be nothing to him.

But they wanted to play the fear of him being in the bar as it exploded, hoping that we would forget that it won't hurt him at all. Why would we forget that?!

When I first started watching the show, I thought that I might be wrong about the impression I was getting from the trailers. But unfortunately, I wasn't. It's a poorly constructed, poorly written series. It still has better production value than Agents of SHIELD though, so there's something.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm currently playing catch up with Agents of SHIELD.

Skye is now Daisy. Cal is great. Daisy's Mom is now alive but really really dull. Ward has Agent 33 and a Pet Bakshi but Bakshi's Character is so disappointing as I really hoped he would be a good Villain in his own right. May is being Whiny. Hate Bobbi not because of betrayal stuff but because she is so generic. Hunter I'm warming up to slowly. Sad Wards Mentor Garret comeback was a fake out as he was fun. Fitz is kind of cool now not because of brain stuff but more because he is more daring and not a Lab Desk Jockey so much. Sad Simmons was not Hydra Conditioned that would have been good.

Episode I just watched was Cal and Daisy in Milwaukee with Hydra, Coulson/Ward pseudo Team Up and Deathlok captured with that Aussie Actor from the 2013 Tomorrow People by Bakshi.

And the end Scene with Coulson? That is SO definately Agent 33!

"It's only a matter of time. Were I in your shoes, I would spend my last earthly hours enjoying the world. Of course, if you wish, you can spend them fighting for a lost cause.... But you know that you've lost." -Kane-

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The Daisy thing doesn't work for me. She is Skye and trying to change that is just weird and off putting.

I am actually really mad about the Fitz storyline because of how they handled his traumatic brain injury. They toyed with it for shock value, but it ultimately just went away whenever they didn't want it around and then popped up again when they did. They treated it like an emotional trauma that he could overcome (without super intensive therapy even) rather than what it was. A chunk of his brain is dead. That doesn't just go away.

Maybe it just annoys me because my father had a major stroke and I have seen brain damage up close. I'm just sick of TV shows magically making brain damage or paralysis go away after a while. It doesn't work that way, and it seems shallow and unprofessional to use these things for shock value if they don't intend to follow through.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Gradual recovery from cerebral hypoxia's not uncommon due to the elasticity of the brain given continued therapy, treatment and support. Personally, I think Fitz is still suffering from it -- his symptoms seem to recur whenever Grant Ward is in the room.


I liked JESSICA JONES a lot, and I enjoyed the tension with Luke in that we didn't know how unbreakable he was. There were definitely flaws, however -- I felt that Jessica's boss, Hogarth, was an awkward fit. The character's divorce plotline seemed to be from a completely different series and didn't feel connected to the Jessica vs. Killgrave story. The character of Simpson was a total misfire for me as well -- it was so random for this cop to happen to be part of a supersoldier program.

I understood what they intended. They wanted it so that every character in the show has their own story colliding with the main one; Jessica collides with Simpson and DAREDEVIL's world as well as Hogarth -- but there was no thematic connection. One would think that control would have been the theme to focus on; Hogarth is a controlling person who is forced to contend with being controlled by her estranged wife, Simpson is an ordinary person trying to feel control in a world of superpowers -- but that wasn't sufficiently emphasized and at times undermined, so there was no connection to the theme of Killgrave's controlling nature and power.

I didn't think the inconsistent powers were any more inconsistent than any superpowered show. I thought Simpson didn't smash down the door because on some level, he didn't want to hurt Trish although he wanted to get to Jessica and this was holding him back. As for Jessica's strength, I can handle impact on my feet and legs that I couldn't on my head.

I thought Jessica was pretty different before Killgrave. The performance was almost a different character entirely. As for Hope's death -- it reminded me a bit of David Peckinpah deciding he was going to quit drinking, heroin and cocaine for his wife and children and only making it 20 years before the death of his teenaged son, Garrett, caused him to backslide into drugs that eventually killed him. You can't choose to live for other people and sustain that unless you're also living for yourself.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The hypoxia could have been played as less severe than it was, so the full recovery and lack of intense therapy wouldn't have been as big of a deal. But they wanted more drama, so they stated that Fitz was deprived of oxygen for long enough to result in a nine day coma. That is pretty significant and would probably not be something that he would fully recover from. And again, his therapy was shown as pretty much just his friends telling him "You can do it".

Yeah, Fitz gets more flustered when Ward shows up, but that is an emotional/psychological reaction. It's not brain damage. They should have:

A. Not played his situation as being as dire as they did.
B. Kept him disabled in different ways, even after his recovery
C. Come up with a miracle cure, which would have been super easy for them.

I finished Jessica Jones last night. Overall, I thought it was pretty unsuccessful. It should have been six episodes, maybe eight. They spun their wheels too often and introduced plot elements for season 2 or a spin-off which just detracted from this show, which isn't even standing on stable ground yet. They're acting like this is an established, successful series when it's not. They didn't even bother to sell us on this show's story, like Daredevil did.

We were given the sense pretty early on that Luke was pretty unbreakable. He took a power saw to his stomach without a scratch, so I really didn't worry about him at all when he was blown up or shot. They kept playing drama around his peril, but I never felt it. And on top of us seeing him as indestructible already, we knew going into this that he was getting his own show. They treated the audience as though we were completely ignorant of the big plan, and they don't get to do that.

Inconsistent powers annoy me. I remember Jessica taking some big falls without landing on her feet, but maybe I'm just remembering it wrong. Either way, I didn't like how they played her powers.
I didn't feel the same way about the flashback Jessica. I thought that she was pretty even. Brooding over the death of her family. Brooding over her life after that. Brooding about not wanting to be a spandex-wearing superhero. It was all just variations on that theme. Trish came across as much more layered character.

I get what you're saying about Jessica having to live for herself, but it wasn't a well delivered theme if that's what they were going for.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

So, Coulson flat out murdering Grant Ward.

I generally don't approve of superheroes executing defenseless antagonists, partially because it deprives future writers of villains. That said -- I really wasn't feeling any kind of moral ambiguity towards Grant Ward's death. Ward had killed a shockingly high number of innocent people and proven impossible to incarcerate, meaning every episode in which he was killing more people was an episode where Coulson and the SHIELD team look incompetent.

I thought the final hunt for Ward was a really gripping two-parter and I really liked the silent moment in the mid-season finale with Coulson crushing Ward's hart and throwing away the hand that did it along with the rage and hatred. I was also really moved by Gemma's wordless grief that Will hadn't made it back alive. It really says a lot about how much actors define a show after they've grasped their characters.

The reviews were hilariously caustic towards this two-parter, mocking how the HYDRA soldiers battering down the walls are represented through animatics and how any monster that geeky Fitz can defeat is hardly worth HYDRA's efforts. It is, of course, always easy to mock. AGENTS OF SHIELD has gone from being a joke to me to a real high point of the Marvel Universe.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Just want to put TF's post somewhere suited for us to keep talking about it!

TemporalFlux wrote:
Informant wrote:

Maybe if Civil War had been the first Captain America movie, it would have made more sense. These characters wouldn't know each other, or how to work with each other. They would be uneasy, and conflict could arise. But one of the first things you learn about using a gun is that you don't even point the thing at anything that you don't intend to destroy. I honestly can't buy into a plot where Captain America or Iron Man would intend to kill each other, and if that is taken off the table, the whole thing looks more like childish bickering than a real plot. If Civil War had been the first movie, it would have explained why those two characters bicker so much later, but earlier bickering can't explain them full-on turning on each other.

The trailers place emphasis on super-hero registration, but I'm not sure that's the full reason for the fight.  In the previous Cap movie, Zola insinuated that the Winter Soldier killed Tony Stark's parents.  I'm not sure how much Tony cared about his Dad, but his Mom may be a different story.  In that light, such a revelation would be analogous to Batman finding out that his parents were killed by Superman's pal Jimmy Olsen.  Would Bruce care if Clark claimed Jimmy was brainwashed at the time?

As for Civil War, I think the comic idea worked a little better than this movie spin; but it had problems too.  The comics presented the spark point as a bunch of kids playing hero which led to the destruction of a town (including a school full of kids).  The government then pushed for super powered registration and mandatory training of people with powers.  It was a metaphor for the current U.S. debate on gun control and school violence. Despite Cap's own experience in being helped by his army training, he saw too much of a Nazi / Jew dynamic in the idea of registration; so Cap was opposed.  Iron Man had a more modern point of view removed from the idea of Jewish concentration camps because all he had ever seen of that was in books or movies.  It was of an academic exercise to Tony while Cap had his heart in it.

We may see some of the above brought up in the movie version of Civil War; might see none of it.  I don't think think Civil War was a response to Batman v Superman, though.  I think it was a response to the Spider-man rights becoming available.  Marvel wanted a quick way to shove Spidey into things as part of a big event; and the comics version of Civil War fit that bill.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I have total confidence that CIVIL WAR will be good. Joe and Anthony Russo did an amazing job on all their COMMUNITY movies and WINTER SOLDIER.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

TemporalFlux wrote:

The trailers place emphasis on super-hero registration, but I'm not sure that's the full reason for the fight.  In the previous Cap movie, Zola insinuated that the Winter Soldier killed Tony Stark's parents.  I'm not sure how much Tony cared about his Dad, but his Mom may be a different story.  In that light, such a revelation would be analogous to Batman finding out that his parents were killed by Superman's pal Jimmy Olsen.  Would Bruce care if Clark claimed Jimmy was brainwashed at the time?
As for Civil War, I think the comic idea worked a little better than this movie spin; but it had problems too.  The comics presented the spark point as a bunch of kids playing hero which led to the destruction of a town (including a school full of kids).  The government then pushed for super powered registration and mandatory training of people with powers.  It was a metaphor for the current U.S. debate on gun control and school violence. Despite Cap's own experience in being helped by his army training, he saw too much of a Nazi / Jew dynamic in the idea of registration; so Cap was opposed.  Iron Man had a more modern point of view removed from the idea of Jewish concentration camps because all he had ever seen of that was in books or movies.  It was of an academic exercise to Tony while Cap had his heart in it.
We may see some of the above brought up in the movie version of Civil War; might see none of it.  I don't think think Civil War was a response to Batman v Superman, though.  I think it was a response to the Spider-man rights becoming available.  Marvel wanted a quick way to shove Spidey into things as part of a big event; and the comics version of Civil War fit that bill.

I can see Tony being pissed, if they choose to go the route of Bucky killing his parents. Would the Disney-run movies want to do that though, or will they want Bucky's hands clean enough to remain a part of their universe without this hanging over him? I guess we will find out.

As for the registration stuff... It's going to be a hard sell, getting Tony of the movies to a place where he wants the government to take that much control. Regardless of that though, the idea of these two characters being at "war" with each other doesn't sit right with me. They bicker like little kids at each other, but it's mostly been played as light, fun banter. To suddenly have them at each other's throats... I don't know. Are we supposed to believe that either one of them would kill the other? Yet, if they're not willing to do that, how can they really be at "war" with each other? Maybe it will play out differently than I am imagining it in my head, but it just feels weird at this point in the game.

The reason why I said that it felt like a response to Batman v Superman to me was that Civil War wasn't announced until... was it October 2014? I don't think the Spider-Man deal was worked out until a few months later. Either way, it seems like they saw the excitement surrounding the Batman v Superman concept (announced over a year earlier) and they wanted a piece of that action. The plot itself (at least, what I've seen of it in the trailers) doesn't look like the next natural step for these characters or this plot. It looks like they wanted a big event... Even if it's not a direct attempt to copy Batman v Superman, it basically is just that. Two of their biggest heroes facing off against each other, and released within a couple of months of each other.

If it is fair for people to say that Justice League is DC trying to cash in on Marvel's success (an opinion that I disagree with), it is at least as fair to suggest that Civil War was Marvel's way of trying to steal DC's thunder with Batman v Superman. Batman and Superman on screen together is the biggest event in comic book movie history. I would say that it is bigger than the Justice League movie, even with fewer characters. Fans have wanted it for decades. I think that this fact was definitely on Marvel's mind when they looked at the schedule and realized that they couldn't release a run of the mill Captain America movie right after BvS came out.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's hard to say that Civil War was affected, at all, by DC's plans.  Tony and Cap have been bickering since the first Avengers movie, and it's pretty obvious that Marvel has wanted to go in the direction of Civil War since the beginning (it's one of the biggest events in recent history - they're, of course, going to want to take things there).  Also, there's no way Civil War can compete with Batman vs Superman on a cultural level.  The Avengers are having their biggest moment in the sun, and they're possibly still not on the same level that Batman and Superman have been on for decades.  So that's really not a competition (at least, as far as most adults are concerned).

Now have they been at each other's throats?  No....but sorta?  In the first Avengers, they are about to fight numerous times.  In the second Avengers, they disagree time and time again.  The only reason they don't fight is because, basically from the beginning, they have bigger fish to fry (Strucker - then Ultron).  In fact, the second-oddest scene in the MCU is the final scene between the two of them in Age of Ultron because they're acting much friendlier than they ever have.  The oddest will be the scene in Civil War where Cap says "...but (Bucky's) my friend." and Tony will respond " was I." because they haven't liked each other since the moment they ran into each other.

"War" is probably a bit of a misnomer because, in the original comics, neither side wanted the other to die.  Just to surrender.  When Cap dies in the end, Tony is devastated.  The Super Bowl spot sorta confirms this.  Bucky looks to try to assassinate Tony in his street clothes, and when he fails, Tony's shocked.  It looks pretty clear to me that Bucky crossed a line that Tony didn't think they'd cross - actually trying to kill each other.  I'd expect it'd be the same thing if, say, Rhodey tried to kill Cap.  So I think the "Civil War" will be a "Civil Spar" just like it was in the comics.  And just like in BvS, the actual "title match" will only be in the first two acts before they unite to fight a bigger enemy.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Probably. But, just like with The Avengers and Man of Steel, we're going to be left with another big game of "who wore it better?" With MoS and The Avengers, it was the alien invasion storyline. Man of Steel played it serious, with heavy character notes and huge repercussions. The Avengers played it lighter, more fun, with less actual destruction but characters in following movies/shows talking as though it was on the same level as Metropolis... Basically taking unearned tragedy points.

If these movies come down to the same comparisons, Marvel will really have to step up their game. This will require rock solid character work, because you will either have a legitimate fight between two equally relatable good guys, or you will have the world's more expensive bickering match. Marvel likes to play lightness and fun, then claim the glory in the recap. They can't do that here.

That's probably why this feels like a response to BvS to me. It doesn't feel natural or earned. It feels like the cheap knockoff cereal at the store, with have the flavor of the brand name stuff. Not only do they have to justify the actions within this movie, they have to justify coming out with *this* movie, at *this* particular moment.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I mean, I see that.  But I still say the seeds were planted a while back.  Marvel doesn't make character a priority, but we have seen a lot of these characters.  This will be Tony Stark's sixth movie (and let's be honest, he was the main character in the previous five).  It will just be Cap's fifth, and even though Winter Soldier is probably the best overall movie in the MCU, there's still not much to Cap's character besides doing the right thing.

I think a disagreement that blows up into a "war" was sorta inevitable in the series.  I'm a little surprised that this wasn't the plot of Avengers 2, but there's still seeds in that movie that lead directly to Civil War.  So even if it wasn't announced until later, I think it was planned a while back.

BvS should be the superior film.  Snyder worked a bit more on character (although, honestly, I still don't think MoS took the devastation of Metropolis any more seriously than the Battle of New York - Avengers had schwarma, MoS had "I just think he's hot."), and Batman/Superman have way more cultural coin than Cap/Iron Man.  DC wanted to finally make them fight, and I think it's just a coincidence that it happens to come out while Civil War was coming out.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah, Marvel could have had it planned all along. Or not. There's really no way to know. But all I can really speak to is my impression. When I see the trailer, I see the knockoff of the bigger movie that's coming out around the same time. If it was planned all along, that is just unfortunate for them.

The difference between the devastation in the two film universes, as I see it is... The Avengers actually made a joke of it. They were sitting in the ruins, as a family was trying to put their lives back together, and they joked about it. While shows like Daredevil or Jessica Jones try to play up the horror of that event, it wasn't in the original story at all. It was a joke. Anyone who died (if anyone did) didn't matter. Any building that fell didn't matter.

Man of Steel didn't focus on the devastation at the end. Instead, they opted to go for the more hopeful ending. It makes sense from the perspective of the story actually being about Clark's struggle to choose humanity over his kryptonian side. So it fit with the theme of the movie. But they didn't make a joke of what happened. They aren't going to ignore it going forward, and only bring it up when they want drama points. BvS is a direct follow-up to what happened in MoS. They're not just moving on to the next big story, they're telling the same story.
You and I tend to see Man of Steel very differently. I can totally understand you perspective on it and how you could view that final scene as a way to shrug off what happened. I just don't see it that way. I see it as the inevitable end to a story of destruction. Those who survive move forward. I didn't get the sense that this was the next day, or even the next week. I don't think they shrugged it off or joked about it, the way they did in The Avengers. I just don't know that there was any good way to end the movie at that point, if they decided to go back to the destruction rather than the return to (or the progress toward) life.

We will probably never agree on this. But look at the bright side... neither one of us is arguing about the fact that Superman had to kill Zod! That makes our discussion far more interesting than most of the MoS disagreements out there.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The Agent Carter finale was pretty good. The series isn't super deep or brilliant, but it accomplishes what Agents of SHIELD doesn't. It tells a well placed story, using characters with real personalities and chemistry. They never un-handicapped Daniel, which I appreciate.

I hope it is renewed for season 3... But AoS should still be cancelled, in my opinion. Easily the worst of the Marvel TV shows.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I liked Agent Carter.  But I still say Agents of Shield is fun.  In the same way that the MCU movies are fun.  It isn't deep, and their characters are a mess.   But if you just watch for action and movie references, it's still fun to watch.

I'm looking forward to the return of Daredevil, though.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

We're supposed to get the final Civil War trailer tomorrow.  Bets are going up on whether or not they'll show Spider-Man in it.  I'm in the group that sorta hopes that they don't, although I wouldn't mind getting some reference (a line, a shadow, or a web-shooting sound effect).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

They will. He is a selling point, so there will be something Spider-Man related, I'm sure. They didn't negotiate their butts off just to not use him to draw a crowd.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Something Spider-Man related, I agree.  But will he actually be seen?  I'm guessing we get something like the Vision reference in the final shot of the final Avengers 2 trailer.  Just a tease.  Particularly since I don't expect Spider-Man to be more than a glorified cameo.