Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

I... Agree.

I agree! We agree on something!!!

Oh come on, we've been on this board for almost two decades (holy crap, that's true).  We've had to have agreed on more than just this big_smile

Which is why I think that comparing the franchises is a mistake. They're playing entirely different games, aimes at entirely different audiences. There is no "will DC catch up to Marvel?" competition, because they're not remotely similar, beyond being "comic book movies", which only sounds like one specific thing if you don't actually read comic books.

Exactly.  The problem is that I don't think people are sophisticated enough, as a whole, to differentiate the two.  It's why parents brought their kids to BvS and then had to chase them out of the theater as they ran away crying.  There's an expectation gap about what DC is doing and what people expect them to be doing.  It's a Superman movie....it's gotta be for kids.

What's always confused me is the idea that it has to be one or the other.  I've said many times that BvS isn't fun - you might've seen what I just wrote and ask why BvS has to be fun - fun is the question I ask of Marvel films.  But I think the Dark Knight, a fairly dark film that takes itself very seriously, has true moments of fun and levity.  There are a few moments between Bruce and Alfred that make you laugh.  There's a couple of legitimately funny moments from the Joker.  And more than that, the opening sequence with the bank robbery is fun.  The sequence in Hong Kong is fun. 

And that's why I've been saying that one "fun" sequence with Superman probably changes the entire dynamic of that movie.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

So I saw Civil War today.  My thoughts after the spoiler space:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I loved it.  I thought it was a nice culmination of so many things in the MCU, and I think it showed the potential of the entire concept of a cinematic comic book universe.  I know Informant doesn't think there's a ton of character development in these movies, but while they're definitely more goofy and childish, I think we have a pretty good idea of who these characters are by now.  And while it's a bit odd for Tony to side with the government, it's important to realize that Tony is an egomaniac who's been responsible for most of the disasters in the MCU.  He figures if he can make that many mistakes, anyone else could too.  I thought the brief scene with the mother of the person who died in Sokovia was a nice touch and a semi-callback to the comics. 

And while Captain America is generally a pretty bland character, I thought his motivations made sense too.  He's seen pretty much everything he's ever worked for betrayed by him.  He loved what the United States stood for in WWII but now those ideals are old and forgotten.  He admired working for SHIELD, but he lost faith in them in Avengers, further lost faith when he learned of Fury's flying weapons of mass destruction, and then he found out that Hydra had infiltrated everything.  It doesn't matter who he's reporting to....everything he's ever believed in has betrayed him.  So the idea of being his own boss and having the freedom to make the "right" choice - that's what Captain America stands for.

And the minor stuff.  War Machine signs up because he's a soldier who understands modern war more than Cap does.  Vision does it because it's logical.  Scarlet Witch doesn't want to be a prisoner like she was for Hydra.

And what's great is that because we know these guys, a lot of their motivations can be understood....which allows for the proper introductions of Black Panther and Spider-Man.  The Russo Brothers have done a pretty good job of introducing people on the fly - with Falcon in Winter Soldier and Black Panther here.  Much better than the awkward introduction of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in Age of Ultron.  I thought his character made sense and had some depth to it, although he sorta becomes a background character in the middle.

Spider-Man.  I'm shocked at how much Spider-Man is in this movie.  They must've been tipped off and written a new script with Spider-Man before the agreement was made because everyone kept saying there'd only be time to get him in as a cameo.  And damn if he doesn't get a scene with Tony and Aunt May (a proper introduction to the universe) and then he plays a huge part in the airport fight.  As it was all happening, I was trying to figure out how it would've gone differently if Spider-Man hadn't been available, but he was woven so well that I figured it was completely re-written for it to end that way.  He's a bit like Quicksilver in Days of Future Past, but he definitely is worth it.  Classic Spidey and very well done.  I'm looking forward to his solo movie.

The "Civil War" itself.  I was impressed by how much the fight was simple but also how complicated it was beneath the surface.  Unlike the comics, the Sokovia Accords / Registration Act doesn't seem to be the driving force.  As we all figured in the trailers, it's more about Bucky.  And the build-up makes sense.  Cap crosses the line by helping his friend escape custody - the fact that he didn't sign doesn't really seem like a big deal at first.  Then he escapes with Bucky and becomes a fugitive.  Then he learns the truth but simply can't trust the rest of the team with it.  Tony is simply trying to catch a fugitive, who, by all means seems to be violent and dangerous.  As soon as he figures out Zemo's plan, he's more than happy to truce with Cap.

The fight at the airport is brilliant.  It's funny, it's well choreographed, and it's exciting.  Every character gets to shine, although I still feel like Vision should be more dominant than he's ever really shown himself to be.  Spidey steals the show, but I thought Ant-Man's big display was also pretty fantastic. 

Then the finale.  I thought it was pretty cool how simple Zemo's motivations were.  And, honestly, how simple his plan was.  I don't know if it's possible that he was able to do all that, but the stuff about Tony's parents is all stuff we were able to ascertain.  And what's cool about it is that the movies have planted little clues, and it's cool that they got to pay it off this far down the line.  We've seen Howard Stark a ton throughout the movies and TV shows, and now we get the answer to how he died.  It felt earned.  And it felt earned that Tony and Cap would be having their own brutal battle.

And unlike when Zack Snyder tried it, the moment when they frame a famous comic book panel fits within the story as opposed to working as a distraction or an odd character motivation.

I was a little surprised that no one died.  Not even the villain.  And even Rhodey's injury was toned down - he seemed less paralyzed than I thought they were going to do.  I thought it would end with Cap dying or Tony dying, but they pulled their punches.  I guess they want everyone on board for Infinity War (or whatever they're going to re-title it).

I just really thought it was fun.  Like Winter Soldier, it was a little more serious than other MCU titles, but I thought it was great.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Okay, while I am not as invested in this as I am the DC movies, I still hold out hope that they've learned some lessons after 11 movies or whatever it's been. So I will avoid this thread until I see it. See you in September, or whenever!

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

Okay, while I am not as invested in this as I am the DC movies, I still hold out hope that they've learned some lessons after 11 movies or whatever it's been. So I will avoid this thread until I see it. See you in September, or whenever!

It's funny because it's both unfair to compare Civil War and Dawn of Justice and also impossible not to.  Marvel and DC aren't really trying to do the same thing, but they're also trying something similar enough in the same genre (kind of) that it's hard to just ignore the similarities.

So I'll just say this: the advantage that the Marvel model has over the DC model is patience.  I know why DC did things the way they did, but the problem with BvS and Civil War is that Civil War feels earned.  And BvS is stuck in this weird place for a lot of the film where they have these main characters (Batman, Alfred, Lex, Diana) who people know but don't really know.  This is Batman, but it's a very different version of Batman than we know.  And it has to spend so much time on Batman that Superman gets ignored, and things start to get muddled.

And while Tony and Cap are weaker characters than Batman or Superman, Civil War felt "earned" to me.  These characters might be five-story buildings compared to the Batman/Superman skyscrapers, but their foundations are solid.  And you can understand why these two might want to kick the crap out of each other and while they might fight beside each other five minutes later.  What I liked about it vs. BvS is that they try pretty hard not to fight.  There's a handful of scenes in Civil War where they try and talk it out.  And it doesn't work.  They're both entrenched and won't be persuaded.

So the fight does feel earned - at least from Cap and Tony's story.  The rest is sorta assumed.  But instead of spending time on why Cap and Tony are there or who the Starks are or who even someone like Ant-Man is....we get proper introductions to Black Panther and Spider-Man.  I know more about those two than I do about Diana, and both of them were actually introduced in the same way as Diana (minor part in someone else's movie - then her own movie).

I went to the movie with two people.  One of my buddies has seen every MCU movie but Thor 2 and Ant-Man.  My other buddy has seen pieces of the MCU here and there.  I'm not sure he saw any movie in Phase 2, including Avengers 2.  Both of them really enjoyed it.  The first guy actually said he's interested in going back and seeing Ant-Man now.

What's interesting about the second guy is how much I assumed was lost by not seeing all the movies.  Something as simple as Scott's line about being a criminal being nothing new was funny, but you wouldn't really get it unless you knew (from comics or from the first movie) that Scott's a petty criminal.  But he said there was enough there (and, he said, enough that I'd told him about movies he hadn't seen) that it all sorta fit.  He enjoyed it.

So, yeah, there's stupid in the MCU, but they're for kids.  Still, I thought (like Winter Soldier) that there was some darkness there.  Tony is legitimately trying to kill Bucky at the end.  Not as violently as Batman fighting Superman, but it's brutal.  And Cap has to stop him.

What I really liked is that both guys are really the good guys in this.  I could see myself arguing either side of it.  And while I'm a bigger fan of Tony than Steve, I found it hard to really be Team Cap or Team Iron Man.  I was sorta like Black Widow - where I'd probably side with Tony but switch if the situation was dangerous enough.  And to compare it to BvS unfairly again, that disagreement is way deeper and way more human, but in the end, it's really weak.  It could be (and is) solved with twenty seconds of real conversation.  So that's why I felt like the fights were earned.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Okay, I read that last one because it was a reply to me. smile

The thing is that with Batman and Superman, the only way for them to really fight like that is by not knowing each other. The second they know each other, they will never reach a point where they are willing to kill each other unless one of them is being controlled by some outside force. And that was the point of BvS, because as you say, the thirst for blood ends once Batman can stop viewing Superman as some inhuman alien force. The movie acknowledged that.


One of the problems that I have with the MCU is that a character like Captain America can really be used however they want, because he has had such little character or development thus far. Five movies in, and how much do we know about him as a person? (Well, four movies in for me)

I am trying to break the habit of comparing the franchises, because they are different. So I won't do that. But I am a character guy. They need to make sense to me. They need to live within the world of the story. My problem with the MCU is that they don't do character stories.

I guess it comes down to Murder, She Wrote vs. Veronica Mars. MSW is fun to watch when you're bored. VM digs a little deeper. On the surface they seem similar, but they're really not.

Still, a crossover would be a hoot!

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Still have not seen it. It's hard to justify going to the cinema when I have such a lengthy Netflix queue -- I'll probably watch it soon because it ties into AGENTS OF SHIELD -- or rather, AGENTS OF SHIELD ties into the movie while the movie's screenwriters confessed to being wholly ignorant of AGENTS OF SHIELD. ("What's an Inhuman?")

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, again, I think Civil War handled territory that Dawn of Justice *should've* handled.  If you look at the screenshots from the movie, less than 200 people have died as a result of the Avengers' actions in the MCU.  In Dawn of Justice, it's stated that thousands died.  We can talk about the realism of any of those figures (I think both are insanely low), but DoJ should've been the film that dealt with putting heroes in check between the violent vigilante and the cold/distant alien god.

In Civil War, there's many conversations about whether superheroes need checks and balances.  In Dawn of Justice, the message is, at best, muddled, and at worst, basically states that most people were pretty much okay with Superman destroying half the city.  Only murderers and terrorists were really that upset about it tongue

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Did I see a different Batman v Superman than you? I swear, sometimes it seems like it.

Anyway, I finally saw Fantastic Four. Finally, there is a Marvel movie that I can enjoy. They finally put some effort into character, and they seemed to care about the visual elements and how they aid a story on screen. It was just really refreshing, after all this time.










I am joking. My goodness, I'm joking. There was a climax to a movie that didn't even exist before the climax started. It was like they cut together two movies and at some point, the actors obviously just gave up. I was willing to accept changed in the source material, but only if it actually worked. This did not.

And I kept waiting for Sue's father to offer her some ribs.

109 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-05-09 00:11:15)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

Did I see a different Batman v Superman than you? I swear, sometimes it seems like it.

It'd certainly explain a lot, right?

At the risk of turning this into another thing, I think I'm going to just say that I expected a lot more Man of Steel fallout than we got.  You know how I feel about Man of Steel, and every DC fanboy (not you) told me to just wait....it'd all be settled in Dawn of Justice.  And....honestly, I didn't think it was.  Yeah, Batman was mad.  Yeah, it was the catalyst for Batman being mad.  And, yeah, Wally was mad.  And Lex was mad....but there wasn't really any reason for him to be.  He doesn't really seem concerned about Superman - he just wants him dead because he's the bad guy.

What I wanted was a world divided.  Instead, I felt like every background character pretty much supported Superman 100%.  If they supported him because they were scared of him and felt there was no other way, I didn't pick up on that.

And that's why Superman's temperament is so key to my thoughts on the movie.  Everything in the movie is telling me that Superman has tirelessly spent time saving people for 18 months, earning back everyone's trust.  That his public persona has basically morphed back into the Superman we know and love - the TaS version, the Reeve and Reeves versions, the Routh version, etc.

But the movie implies that while showing us a Superman that never smiles.  Who is more interested in looking cool than actually saving people (floating above the flood instead of saving the people begging for help, grabbing the person out of the burning building while it's still burning, allowing people to worship him when he could be helping more people or at least putting the fire out, standing in a burning congressional building while he could be helping survivors, etc).

But for Snyder's movie to work the way Snyder wanted it to work, Bruce can't be crazy.  Other people have to mistrust Superman or Bruce is basically Lex.  So while Superman is floating over the flood, we can think "maybe he's deciding whether or not to save them."  When he's being worshiped in Mexico, maybe he's thinking "yeah, these people *should* worship me."  When the bomb goes off in Congress, Superman does nothing so maybe he's involved somehow.

So you have a movie that's telling us one thing and showing us another.  That wants Superman to be this divisive figure when there's no other indication that he's anything other than the Reeve version as far as anyone in Metropolis is concerned.

In Civil War, a mother says Tony is responsible for the death of her son.  To her, it doesn't matter if Tony was saving lives or if the Avengers *entire plan* revolved around saving civilians as much as it was defeating Ultron.  Tony was there, leading the charge, and Tony was the one who invented the monster in the first place.  To her, everything else is unimportant.

Dawn of Justice has that character, and it's Wally.  But instead of taking his anger out on Superman, he seems to direct his rage at....Bruce?  And takes his revenge on.....a congressional panel trying to *indict* Superman?

And I kept waiting for Sue's father to offer her some ribs.

House of Cards is my least favorite show ever.  I really, truly hate it.

FF2015 is on HBO right now.  I might watch it just to see how much of a disaster it is.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Okay, we're in the wrong thread again, but I'll do this anyway...

Yeah, Batman was mad.  Yeah, it was the catalyst for Batman being mad.  And, yeah, Wally was mad.  And Lex was mad....but there wasn't really any reason for him to be.  He doesn't really seem concerned about Superman - he just wants him dead because he's the bad guy.

To me, the movie was about perception. It's about how different people view this being, when there has never been anything to measure him up against before. Even he doesn't know how to do it. So yeah, Batman was mad, Wally was mad and Lex was mad, but their anger was all different. They had different motivation and different reactions to it. They represented the people who were furious at Superman, for all of the various reasons. They are the extremes.

Batman - Superman is a threat unlike anything we have ever faced. He is completely alien, which means that we have no idea how to begin to trust him or know what he's thinking. He is more powerful than anything we can throw at him, and allowing that power to go wild will get people killed. Essentially, Superman is a phantom, comprised of everything untrustworthy and dangerous that Batman has ever faced.

Wally - He came here. He destroyed lives. People died. And now he has a f*****g statue built in honor of his heroic actions, taken during an event that wouldn't have even happened if he hadn't come here in the first place! People need to see this for what it is. People need to understand. And on some level, he's pissed because for all of the people that Superman saved, he didn't save *him*.

Lex - I have spent my entire life working to become the most powerful man on the planet, and this guy literally has to do nothing in order to take the title. He just has to exist. How do I compete with that? How do I become that powerful? How do I get what he has? Or, alternatively, how do I take it all away from him?

Then we have the people who are less committed either way. The Perry Whites of the world, who will take things for what they are at any given moment. Or the Senator, who wants the answers, but isn't as committed to the cause as some.

Somewhere in the middle, we have Martha and Lois, who know him, trust him and support him. Not because of his power, but because of who he is. Which is something that other people don't have access to. To them he is human.

Then, opposite to Lex or Bruce, we have the people who are in awe of Superman. The people who worship him. The people who see him coming to save the day, and see a god. The people who celebrate him, even when he doesn't deserve it. The people who are blind to him humanity, and to whatever bad he has brought to the world.

We don't get a lot from Clark's point of view. What we do get is somewhere in the middle, torn between sides. He wants to be the good guy that is deserving of trust, but nothing he does is good enough (for him, much less other people). It doesn't matter how many people he saves. He didn't save them all.

The whole movie was about exploring that conflict. I think they did a good job of making painting that divisive figure, because nobody is all right or all wrong. As much as I want the MoS sequel from Superman's point of view, I don't know that this story could be done if Superman were one of the main point of view characters in the movie. If we know him as the Clark Kent from Smallville, we can't understand any of those other points of view. Everyone who hates him becomes irrational and evil. So we have the information from MoS to work with, but this movie has more distance from his point of view. That works for me.


We should discuss House of Cards sometime. I'm curious to see why you hate it so much.

I watched Fantastic Four on HBO. It's an interesting movie to watch.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Without trying to weigh in on the Informant/SQ21 thing, I saw Civil War and I loved it. It hit all the right notes, it balanced story with set pieces, had motivations for each 'side' of the argument that made sense and didn't try to heal all the wounds in the final act.

Ex-member

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

No I can definitely see all of that.  The problem is that (in my opinion) there wasn't enough of the "in the middle" crowd.  You're right - the movie can't really be from Superman's point of view because otherwise Batman is a murderous psycho. 

But I wanted more world-building where it's implied that people other than Lex (a crazy murderer) and Wally (a crazy murderer) are on Batman's side.  Like I've said before - protests.  Pressure on Senator Finch from other countries to control Superman.  Even one-off lines where it's just implied that people are torn ("you hear about that poll that came out the other day.  First time since he showed up that people in Metropolis support him more than don't support him.")

Instead, the statue is "beloved."  There's no indication that anyone support's Wally's vandalization of the statue.  The Daily Planet is running "puff pieces" on Superman.  It describes the Christopher Reeve Superman more than the one we've seen for two movies.  Everyone in Metropolis loves him.  The whole city is rebuilt, and here's a statue.  The entire government is trusting enough of him that they're not willing to look into weapons that might hurt or possibly kill him.

I think everything you said is right.  Superman has to look sorta cold and alien because that's the way Batman sees him.  And we, as the audience, are supposed to think of Batman as being rational. 

The problem is that the message was lost on me.  Batman doesn't look rational - he still looks like a murderous psycho.  And now Clark looks like a cold alien.  So I don't really feel anything either way.

What I think the script wanted was Batman to be the bad guy.  He sees this event happen and snaps, no longer able to use his own judgment and just sees a super-powered Joker who can destroy the planet whenever he wants.  And so he goes on this plan...and as the movie moves with him, we see that Lex has the same plan.  Maybe even have parallel stories where they're each building tech suits.  And Bruce realizes, "Holy shit, I'm Lex Luthor.  I'm the bad guy."  And if you do that, then you can have a human Superman who's trying his best to make up for everything.  He's saving people, not just physically but emotionally, and he's training so that he never has to put people in harm's way again.

And if Batman is the bad guy, Superman gets to be the protagonist.  He gets to save the day twice, and the end is so tragic for Batman.  If they could've just done that, then BvS blows Civil War out of the water no question.

The problem is that Tony and Cap's story is a true moral dilemma.  Bruce and Clark's is an imaginary dilemma that's twisted so that Zack Snyder could make a Batman movie.

And yeah I'm happy to talk about House of Cards.  I gave it two full seasons (well, I quit after the penultimate one of season two) and I'll never go back.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think that BvS is a lot like the world we live in. It's a very binary culture. People are lovers or haters. On or off, with no interest in being in between.

When Obama was running for President, there was a lot that the media wouldn't seriously talk about, because they liked the story of this political messiah, coming to save the day. The RNC could have demolished Trump early on, but they didn't like the alternative, so they have crazy republicans saying crazy things about Cruz, while remaining silent on Trump. Hillary isn't really winning her nomination, but she will get it anyway.
Even with the issue of transgendered people in bathrooms, most articles aren't discussing the opinions that people have. They're discussing the opinions that they want people to have, so they can make absolute rights and absolute wrongs.

The movie showed protesters in Washington. They showed that there are non-radicals who don't like Superman. They showed that there are non-radicals who do like him. But the movie plays to extreme sides, because that is where our culture is. Now, they could have shown Superman as the absolute right, but that isn't as compelling. It's more interesting if even Superman doesn't know for sure. The Planet makes him out to be the Reeves Superman, because it sells papers. He knows that's not who he is really. And they are willing to turn around and write attack pieces the second that makes them more money.

At this point in the game, he has shown that he is willing to kill for humanity, and he is willing to die for humanity. That's interesting.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

DieselMickyDolenz wrote:

Without trying to weigh in on the Informant/SQ21 thing, I saw Civil War and I loved it. It hit all the right notes, it balanced story with set pieces, had motivations for each 'side' of the argument that made sense and didn't try to heal all the wounds in the final act.

Accidentally stepped on the toes of this.  Agreed.  What's funny is that a ton really isn't resolved at the end.  I imagine that will be touched on in future movies (and won't be "resolved" until Avengers 3), but I don't really see it as "open-ended."  A lot got done - but it's just  the kind of argument that doesn't really have a complete answer.  So it's left nebulous.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Question: Does anyone know the marketing budget for Civil War? I did a quick search, but couldn't find it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Have any of you seen the Original British House of Cards?

"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

I haven't seen that one. I may check it out sometime, to see what the US version was based on. I'm just worried that the foreign politics won't make as much sense.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

Question: Does anyone know the marketing budget for Civil War? I did a quick search, but couldn't find it.

Not sure, but any movie that makes $700 million in five days can be considered a runaway success even if it spent BVS levels in marketing and production.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It has actually been out for longer in other countries.

But I'm still curious what the marketing budget was. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, any movie that enters $700 million in two weeks is still a runaway success.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I agree. And I'm sure that it will eventually make over a billion. I'm just curious! smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Comparing the earnings of Civil War and Batman v Superman seems foolish considering that BvS deliberately ignored a huge segment of its audience (kids) and by its nature, isn't the type of movie that people want to see multiple times in theaters.

Accordingly, BvS' marketing budget shouldn't have been anywhere near as much as Civil War's was.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Agreed. But what was their budget? smile

When BvS came out the media counted every penny. I had never seen that before. I'm curious to see if they do it with every big movie, but I haven't seen it with Civil War.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think it's fair to say that the media has been unfair to Batman/Superman, but I don't see any reason why they would.  I don't think it's nefarious.  And, honestly, I don't think it hurt the movie.  I think, more than anything, the movie didn't perform as well because of the media.  I still maintain that if the movie was better, that it wouldn't have mattered.  For it to have mattered, the bad press would've had to have scared people away from the theater.  And I don't think that really happened.  The opening of the movie was huge, but the dropoff shows that people either didn't go back to the theater (where movies make a ton of money) and people that missed week one just never saw it.

And, yeah, the media might've impacted that second group, but word of mouth makes a bigger impact on people than the media.  If the media hated Civil War, I'd still tell my friends to see it.  And I think they'd listen to me.  When people asked me what I thought of BvS, I told them the truth - I liked it better than I thought I would, but there were fundamental issues I had with it.

Getting back to Civil War, I think the huge cast made things easier for certain people.  Like I've said, my roommate hadn't seen a single phase 2 movie.  But he saw Iron Man and Iron Man 2.  He saw Avengers.  He saw the first Cap movie.  He's seen the Spider-Man films.  So it's an Iron Man and Captain America movie with Spider-Man.  And I'm sure that could've applied to a lot of people.  Even if you didn't like Iron Man or his movies, maybe you liked the Captain America movies.  Maybe you liked Ant-Man.  Maybe you just wanted to see what happened with Spider-Man.

So there were a lot of reasons to go see Civil War, even if you're not a Marvel diehard.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm just fascinated by the media's handling of BvS. I don't understand it, unless they had some sort of payment for being that negative. But it's fascinating, because it was so oddly extreme. I think BvS did fine. I am not comparing the movie or its success to Civil War. I don't think you could possibly do that. I'm just looking at the media now. There are movies that, for whatever reason, they want to fail. When that happens, it seems to be a unified anti-publicity campaign. It seems almost political.

But yeah, I'm not comparing the two movies.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Agent Carter has been cancelled. That is a shame. I'd prefer to see it stick around and have AoS cancelled.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

This is painful, especially when there were reports of ABC being keen to find some way to renew it in the way FRINGE got renewed every year. But the truth is that even the Season 2 renewal was a miracle. The series was CRAZY expensive due to the period setting, even with the short episode orders. ABC stuck with the show and received a ratings bomb for AGENT CARTER's second season. However, given the mighty Marvel machine, I don't really think this is the end for AGENT CARTER; there'll probably be a series of view on demand episodes at some point in some form and format, if only to wrap the series up properly.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Looks like the Most Wanted series was also passed on. Which means that AoS wrote off two characters for no reason. Not that they can't come back, because their reason for leaving was lame anyway.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think they'll both be back on Agents of Shield at some point.  Sounds like their story was just gonna be them as fugitives, and that can just-as-easily be done on SHIELD.

What's interesting is that Marvel seemingly cancelled the Inhumans movie.  Considering how much the Inhumans have played in the last couple seasons of SHIELD, I wonder if the Inhumans they haven't been able to use (primarily Black Bolt) become game for AoS.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

So the CinemaSins guy didn't like Civil War, and a lot of his comments echo stuff that Informant said before the movie was released.  I'm gonna put a spoiler tag just in case:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So the issues he came up with are that a) no one died and b) there were no consequences.

Regarding point B first, I agree that there wasn't a ton resolved regarding the central question of the film.  Is government oversight good or bad?  It really isn't answered.  And, in fact, there's not even really a situation in the film (nor a place for it) where government oversight is shown at all.  Cap is worried about bureaucracy interfering with saving people, and Tony is terrified of all the mistakes they've made and wants something done.  Tony wins the argument in the sense that the Avengers are now government-sanctioned, but we still don't know if that was the right call or not.

But no consequences?  I know no one died and Rhodey's injury was basically overridden (although I think that's also a bit trite since he's still paralyzed), but look at all the lives that were affected.

Cap is a fugitive from the law.  He wants to do good, but now he's going to have to do it from the shadows.  Bucky has to go back in cryostasis, and he's hated by just about everyone.  Black Panther's father is dead, and he's been thrust into the leadership of Wakanda.  And he's now risking his country's privacy by harboring a fugitive.  Falcon is a fugitive.  Hawkeye is a fugitive, and while I'm sure he can grab his family and disappear, that's going to be a huge change.  Ant-Man spent his whole movie trying to get back with his family, and now that's blown to Hell.

On Tony's side, after trying to get passed Iron Man and failing, he's now lost everything.  And now he's in charge of a broken group of Avengers.  Vision is going to be questioning why he failed when he shot Rhodey.  Rhodey is paralyzed.  Scarlet Witch still doesn't know her place.  Black Widow broke ranks, and she might be out of the trust tree.

So the story moved a distance, and these characters are all changed.  So it's not like there wasn't any consequences.

Now regarding deaths, I still maintain that these guys didn't want to kill each other.  As is mentioned in the movie, they're pulling punches.  Yeah they're dropping cars on people and using guns and explosives, but these are superheroes.  There's not any real anger because it's just a disagreement.  Even in the big fight, it's all about getting Cap and Bucky away.  When that's achieved, the rest of Team Cap surrenders.

If someone died, it wouldl've had more emotional impact.  If Vision had killed Rhodes instead of just paralyzing him, it would've had a lot of impact.  But let's say this was a Batman/Superman bloodbath - killing the other side doesn't win anything for either side.  Tony doesn't want to kill Cap - he just wants him brought in.  If he does kill Cap, it could actually make things worse for his cause - because there's a martyr to keep fighting for (which is what happened in the comic story).

And Cap definitely doesn't want to kill Tony because that accomplishes nothing.   He'd still be a fugitive, and he'd basically be confirming the government's concerns that he's dangerous and needs to be brought in.  And the same applies for every member of both sides.

Yes, it's a disagreement that boils over into a fight.  But no one seems eager to do it.  And I think the movie shows that every character is pretty disappointed with him/herself for letting it get that far.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Just got back from seeing CIVIL WAR. I liked it! It wasn't the cinematic event of the century and it wasn't as significant as I would have liked, but it was very character oriented and very focused on the personal conflicts that become physical ones. It was a very enjoyable piece of fantasy escapism with a lot of strong emotional points. The humour throughout kept the film lighthearted and fun and actually made the more serious moments stand out when the jokes disappear.

I also liked how CIVIL WAR worked in a lot of references to the previous films in a respectful way, like Steve saying "I could do this all day" or the fact that Tony blames himself more than anyone else specifically because he insisted on creating Ultron. The film did a great job of giving every character a significant visual moment and there were really tender moments like the Falcon abandoning Steve and Bucky because he saw War Machine go down.

In terms of consequences, I think killing any one of the heroes off would have pushed the film too far into the bloody vengeance that the Black Panther specifically rebukes and refuses to engage in to the point of refusing to let his father's killer die.

In terms of the criticisms -- anyone looking for a specific political statement in a Marvel Cinematic Film might as well complain that a car sucks because it can't serve as a boat. This is hardly meant to be Serious Cinema. It's a children's fantasy presented for a family audience. Those seeking superhero films of infinite grimness and misery have already had their turn this year.

**

The INHUMANS movie was a pet project for ousted Marvel Film executive Ike Perlmutter whose anger over FOX hanging onto the X-MEN rights had him declare that Marvel's film and publishing would use the Inhumans as a replacement for mutants -- hence their increased presence in AGENTS OF SHIELD and the plan to lead to an INHUMANS film -- except Perlmutter was removed from the film side, so while he's still doing the TV and Netflix material, the films are no longer pursuing Perlmutter's interests. In fact, the CIVIL WAR writers were told they needn't even watch AGENTS OF SHIELD.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, it's weird.  I don't necessarily think the movies need to be beholden to Agents of SHIELD.  I think it's bizarre that they haven't gotten Coulson involved in the movies, but he's the only part I think even fits in the cinematic parts (and I think the fact that he hasn't is an indication that bringing him back was a bit of a blunder).  Because the movies drive the MCU.  I see the Netflix series' and the ABC series' as the children of the movies.  They're important and exist in the same house, but the parents are really doing all the important stuff smile

And that's coming from someone who's watched literally everything the MCU has produced, including Agent Carter and all the One Shot Films.  I think the show(s) exist to supplement the movies, and I don't think the movies owe it to them to make any references.  I would like to see Daredevil or some of the Defenders make the jump to the films, and but if the Inhumans don't have any place in the feature films, most of the AoS stuff is just background stuff.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I don't know. As much as I like the shared universe ambition, I'll be the first to declare that shared universes are often a contradictory mess of opposing genres existing in the same space. Even the Marvel Comics universe is kind of a mess with the X-Men hated and feared while the Fantastic Four are loved and adored. AGENTS OF SHIELD, in its first season, seemed like an awkward student fan film rather than being set in the MCU proper while the Netflix material has convinced me that it's the life on the street perspective of the big movies. I agree that a crossover isn't necessary, but AGENTS OF SHIELD really stepped up with WINTER SOLDIER and AGE OF ULTRON, creating the illusion of both fitting into each other well with Coulson's near-season-long secret built into the climax of AGE OF ULTRON -- the terrifying, super-secret weapon was a means of evacuating civilians.

It's probably not as big a deal as it seems, but the CAP3 screenwriters confessing they were totally ignorant of AGENTS OF SHIELD was a huge blow to the sense that it all matters. AGENTS OF SHIELD treated CAP3's registration accords as a minor side detail at best; the tie-in was perfunctory.

**

Tony shouting that Steve didn't deserve the shield and Steve leaving it on the ground next to Tony was a really bittersweet moment as Steve tried to show some measure of grace towards Tony's anger.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

An interesting recurring line in CIVIL WAR was, "You move." It's from the AMAZING SPIDER-MAN issues that tied into CIVIL WAR which show the event from Peter Parker's perspective. In the stories leading up to CIVIL WAR, Peter had joined the Avengers and taken a job as Tony Stark's protege and second in command. Tony, choosing to help the US Government with the Registration Act, tells Peter that he must reveal his identity to the authorities or become a criminal. Spider-Man unmasks at a massive press conference and joins the Avengers (Iron Man, Captain Marvel, the Fantastic Four, Giant Man, Wonder Man) against the Anti-Registration heroes (Captain America, the Young Avengers, etc.).

However, Spider-Man experiences a crisis of conscience when Tony threatens Peter with imprisonment if he doesn't remain loyal to the Registration heroes, imprisons captured Anti-Registration without trial, accepts billions in no-bid security contracts with numerous countries to enforce Registration, drafts supervillains into hunting down Cap's forces -- and Spider-Man decides to switch sides. Iron Man attacks him and Spider-Man defeats Tony, then meets Captain America.

Spidey says he's not sure what to do -- he cannot stomach the Registration's measures, but the whole world seems sure that Registration is right and that the Anti-Registration heroes are turncoat criminals. Cap tells Spider-Man that a real patriot aligns one's self with what's right and true and that when the rest of the world is insisting on moving away from the river of truth, a true patriot says, "No. You move."

Interestingly, these issues, written by J. Michael Straczynski, were largely undone by continuity and the rest of the CIVIL WAR event. The hostile, threatening Tony Stark of the AMAZING SPIDER-MAN issues was well-meaning and earnest in the main CIVIL WAR series; the supervillains were shown to be totally controlled by mental implants, all the profits from the no-bid contracts were shown to be going into funds for victims of superhuman battles, Stark was looking for ways to help his friends get out of prison, etc..

These issues are also an odd fit with the CIVIL WAR mini-series where Cap surrenders to the Pro-Registration heroes after seeing the fear that normal people have towards the heroes fighting.

Tony would later declare that he'd done wrong with Peter -- and helped Dr. Strange and Mr. Fantastic erase the world's memory of Spidey's secret identity, allowing Peter to resume a normal life again. The CIVIL WAR editor, Tom Brevoort, noted that he'd not edited the AMAZING SPIDER-MAN issues as he wasn't the SPIDER-MAN editor, and that Tony's villainous characterization should not have been scripted that way.

The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN issues were an anomaly, and writer J. Michael Straczynski would confess he couldn't wrap his head around Tony being Pro-Registration and he saw Registration as fascist and morally unacceptable -- as opposed to the CIVIL WAR mini-series presenting Registration in a highly ambiguous fashion. Straczynski quit SPIDER-MAN shortly after this, saying he wasn't good at crossovers and he wished he hadn't gotten involved. The Marvel Universe moved on.

But it's cool that they used his dialogue. (Sorry, Informant.)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah, I think it's a bit odd that Tony Stark would side with registration, but I think it sorta makes sense in the context of these movies.  I think they probably could've done it a little better, but I think it's sorta the natural progression of the character.

A lot of people point to the fact that Tony stands in front of the government in Iron Man 2 and tells them that they can't have his property.  That he's a private citizen and that the government is infringing on his rights.  And, yes, that's a huge turn from where he is in Civil War, but people forget that Iron Man 2 is the third movie in the MCU.  In the mean time:

- Tony learns that there are aliens (Chitauri) and that Norse gods are real (Thor/Loki).
- He fights an army of these creatures, almost dying in the process.
- Almost dying gives him panic attacks/PTSD, and it causes him to build tons and tons of suits to feel safe. 
- When this doesn't work, he decides to build Ultron and the Iron Legion.  He decides that he might not be smart/strong enough to defend the Earth, but he's smart/strong enough to build something that can.
- Once again, this blows up in his face.

The man who faces the government in Iron Man 2 has built this kickass suit of armor, has dominated every foe he's faced, has "privatized world peace," and has his dream girl.  And while he wins in the end in Iron Man 3 and both Avengers movies, it comes at a great cost.  He almost dies, Pepper almost dies, his arrogance has turned against him (literally) in all three movies (the Stark Tower becomes the conduit for the Chitauri, the Mandarin is borne from his arrogant past, and Ultron his literally his baby).

So I saw him agreeing with the Sokovia Accords as finally admitting that he can't do everything on his own.  But it's still the same guy because he still thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and every fight in this movie is basically him trying to convince Cap that he's right about whatever decision he's made. 

And I think one of the key ideas is that he's lost Pepper.  In Age of Ultron, they explain away Gweneth Paltrow's absence by saying that Pepper is away or something (same with Natalie Portman's Jane Foster).  The truth is that there was no place for Pepper in an already-bloated movie.  And the same was true of a very-long Civil War movie.  And, again, they could've explained her away with a throw-away line.  But the fact is that Pepper is gone - and Tony's lost something else.  It's more doubt to throw in Tony's face and more reason why he might be willing to accept oversight.

(And what's funny is that Tony still basically works alone, with no oversight, the entire movie.  So it's still basically in character).

And Steve's stuff make's sense too.  He wants to be a good little soldier, but in every movie, the government has been evil.  SHIELD was secretly run by HYDRA.  Nick Fury was spying on him.  Then SHIELD disbands, and he starts working for the Avengers.  But then Tony builds an evil robot that they all have to fight.  So he can't really trust the Avengers either. 

Because, at the core of things, Steve is a soldier.  It was easy in World War II because Germany and HYDRA were obviously evil.  There was a clear indication of who was good and who was bad.  And in each movie, Steve has to question who to trust.  Who's the good guys and who's the bad guys. 

And, yet, Steve is still a trusting guy.  He forms a quick bond and instantly trusts Falcon after knowing him for a very short time in Winter Soldier.  He instantly trusts Ant-Man right before one of the biggest battles of his life without knowing anything about him.  And, of course, he's firmly loyal to Bucky despite everyone else turning on him.   

That's what I like about the MCU.  Yeah, they're kids movies without a whole lot of deep thought or character development.,  But after movie after movie, I really do think they're allowing these characters to evolve and change.  I think Civil War the movie might be more earned than Civil War the comic.  And even if a lot of the stuff I wrote wasn't explicitly stated (or even intended), the pieces fit together well enough that it does feel earned.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/captain-am … 13569.html


Alternative headline: "Civil War loses $106 million in second weekend."

The studio must be freaking out! They are probably overhauling the entire slate! Any directing or casting news that comes after this must be a sign of panic. This movie was unquestionably a disappointment and a flop.


I'm kidding, of course. But you know what I'm saying. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Haha I was actually going to say there was still a sizeable drop in box office results.  #FairAndBalanced smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

CIVIL WAR has been out for two weeks and earned 950 million dollars globally. BATMAN VS SUPERMAN has been out for eight weeks and earned 870 million dollars globally.

I don't think it's hard to see that CIVIL WAR's box office drop is dropping from much higher earnings than BVS. CIVIL WAR probably cost as much as BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN to make and market. There is no way that CIVIL WAR could be reasonably portrayed as anything but a financial success. I also don't think it's hard to see that Warner Bros. would have hoped for CIVIL WAR level success with BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Globally a success, like David Hasselhoff's singing career. But in the US, I think it is a horrible flop. Disney will probably reconsider all Marvel movies going forward. They've been humiliated on their home field. The movie will probably be vaulted, next to Song of the South or From Justin to Kelly.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Sarcasm aside, I don't know what you're arguing for at this point that isn't increasingly detached from anything resembling objective reality. You want to say that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN is just as successful as CIVIL WAR but CIVIL WAR is receiving preferential treatment lauding its success when CIVIL WAR has earned more in two weeks than BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN has earned in eight.

You want to argue that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN is actually doing better from an American standpoint when these giant budgeted blockbusters are designed for both domestic and foreign markets. You insist that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN is a much loved film when the reaction from critics and the audience has ranged from middling to negative. You declare that the production and marketing budgets should not be a concern in measuring success even though CIVIL WAR likely spent just as much as Warner Bros. did on BVS.

Also, you insisted earlier that JUNGLE BOOK can't be considered to be doing that much better than BVS when it has a similar budget and earnings when JUNGLE BOOK has earned in four weeks about as much as BVS earned in eight.

You liked BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN. That's up to you and I am glad you enjoyed it (a sentiment to which you previously responded with 519 words of rage). You feel the Marvel Cinematic Universe "doesn't work" creatively, but you also want to argue that it doesn't work monetarily with claims that Netflix overspends on New York filming (based on your estimates on cost) while declaring that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN's theorized marketing budget shouldn't be considered (as there are no estimates you feel you trust).

This petulance matched with your meltdown in the DC thread is looking increasingly like tantrums over reality not matching your personal preferences. It would suggest you've just decided that you'll insist upon the supremacy of DC cinema in every area regardless of facts and figures when the only area in which you can reasonably argue their superiority right now is that you personally prefer one to the other. Which, quite frankly, is the only argument you ever need to make when it comes to film and TV.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The problem with the CIVIL WAR crossover in comics, in my view -- the Registration Act should have been played consistently as something ambiguous; some heroes are for it, some are against it and the audience is free to choose which side they support. The core CIVIL WAR series by Mark Millar was cautiously non-committal. However, Marvel editorial encouraged every writer writing the tie-ins to use their own opinions. The writers scripting NEW AVENGERS, SPIDER-MAN were largely against Registration and proceeded to portray the Pro-Registration side as the villains. As a result, the readers got the impression that Captain America's team of Secret Avengers were supposed to be the heroes, full stop.

The tie-ins that were Pro-Registration (IRON MAN, FANTASTIC FOUR, SHE-HULK, MS. MARVEL), due to scheduling, came out much later than the Anti-Registration tie-ins and contained the Pro-Registration heroes' justifications -- but the impression that the Pro-Registration side was wrong had become impossible to overturn for the readers who thought the message was that these were the (reluctant) bad guys. As a result, Captain America surrendering to the Pro-Registration side in the CIVIL WAR mini-series came off very awkwardly.

Straczynski seemed to have some sort of breakdown while scripting the CIVIL WAR tie-ins. His work on AMAZING SPIDER-MAN was completely out of sync with the CIVIL WAR mini-series. The reason for that was partially due to Straczynski's style and politics; his view is that all governments are inherently untrustworthy and self-serving, so his version of CIVIL WAR wasn't going to be ambiguous over which side was right. The other part of it -- there were some strange miscommunications throughout; Straczynski was given script pages that mistakenly gave him the impression that Anti-Registration heroes would be imprisoned without trial permanently when Millar's pages were meant to present it as a temporary option. Straczynski was told that Iron Man and the Fantastic Four would profit hugely from the government contracts with Registration; he wasn't informed that all those profits were going to relief funds for survivors of superman battles. As a result, he thought the Proi-Registration side was evil.

Straczynski also scripted FANTASTIC FOUR and he visibly failed to explain why Mr. Fantastic would support the Registration Act, having Mr. Fantastic declare that the law was the law and had to be obeyed. Straczynski, after completing this issue, quit FANTASTIC FOUR in mid-storyline, again confessing that he just couldn't figure out why this character would behave in this way. The subsequent writer who completed the story had Mr. Fantastic reveal that he was mathematically predicting future events, and he believed a terrible superhuman disaster would result without the Registration Act. Later tie-ins would also reveal that Tony Stark felt that superheroes may explore and save people, but ultimately, they fight and would eventually fight each other and terrify the populace and that Registration was inevitable, but with Tony's involvement, it could be humane and empowering instead of fascistic and horrific.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Nah. At this point, I'm just trying to annoy people. smile

But seriously, I'm not arguing about the success or quality of either movie. I'm talking about the media coverage and obvious bias. That is what I'm mostly fascinated by. I don't care who likes what, or even how much either made. As far as I'm concerned, the movies themselves aren't in competition against each other.

I hate the X-Men movies. I really enjoyed Deadpool. I have fun with the Captain America movies, bit find Thor boring and The Avengers movies are pretty horrible. Ant-Man and Guardians are good. Fantastic Four (the new one) sucked. The Spider-Man movies are fun. Daredevil is great. Jessica Jones had weak writing, but not as bad as Agents of SHIELD. Agent Carter was fun.

Basically, when it comes to the Marvel movies, my opinions vary from movie to movie and show to show.

With DC, Man of Steel is really the only Superman movie that I've liked. I liked the Nolan Batman movies. BvS was good, but not my favorite comic book movie by far. Arrow was good, but now sucks. Legends is silly fun with pretty bad writing. The Flash is good. Supergirl sucks. Basically, as with Marvel, my opinion varies from mo is to movie and show to show.

I have been arguing in favor of BvS on the certain points that I see differently than you guys, but I've also expressed opinions on its weak spots. There is just less to talk about when we agree on something.


But I am fascinated by media coverage, in terms of these movies and just in general. That is the argument here. All the stuff about Civil War being a flop is just me joking around. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well the thing about moral question in both versions of Civil War is a good one.  And I think it's a good one because I could honestly see myself arguing both sides.  I mean you have these living superweapons fighting other living superweapons, 90% of the time near civilians.  The governments responsible for keeping those people safe (and fixing any damage caused by the superweapons) would honestly want some say in how they interact.

It's a fair point, and I agree with Tony that it would be inevitable in a realistic situation.  And it makes sense that Marvel, being the more realistic comics, would tackle it.  The only problem I had with the scenario is that it took so damn long to do in a Marvel universe that prides itself on not rebooting.  It'd honestly be something I would've expected to see in the Ultimate universe or one of the many recent DC reboots, just because it's something that the governments would probably be quick to try.

And I think the moral question is severe enough that, as ireactions said, the writers' opinions seemed to matter more than the heroes themselves.  Because I could take most heroes and find a way to argue either side.  And I don't know if Civil War is honestly that different of a story if Cap is pro-registration and Tony is anti-registration.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The real big problem re Registration is that even if Individual Heroes could go either way the Marvel US Govt is pretty Morally Bankrupt and is involved in really Shady, Illegal and Unethical stuff on a regular basis.

SHIELD itself even Minus Hydra is a Bad Guy/Antagonist more often than not too.

"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

Rampant speculation on my part; but now that Nathan Fillion is freed up, I could see him as Mar-vell in a Carol Danvers Captain Marvel movie.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/8/80/Secret_Avengers_Vol_1_27_Textless.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120314011719

If Mar-vell's powers got transferred to Carol, he could play the powerless sidekick role (kind of like Rick Jones).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

There were thoughts that he'd show up as Wonder Man somewhere.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I thought the Agents of Shield finale was pretty good.  Sorta like the flashforward on Arrow, it was kinda distracting to wait for the moment we'd been shown.  And the whole moving around of the cross from team member to team member to amplify the mystery was sorta dumb.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I thought the death of Ward was pretty great, actually.  Too many times the villain is dehumanized so much at the end that you don't feel too bad that they died.  And while I thought it was stupid to keep Ward on the show after his "death" - I thought that Brett Dalton did a pretty great job with Hive.  And at the end, there was no big battle.  No fight.  Just a good guy and a bad guy, sitting together for a minute, waiting for death.  Hive trying to explain to Lincoln why he thought he was the good guy, and the argument just not mattering that much. 

There was something sorta beautiful in that moment and oddly unique for TV these days.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I liked it up to a point. My problem was with Hive's plan to turn the vast majority of humans into mindless drones. I ultimately found that so fanciful that I didn't believe it would actually happen, given that AGENTS OF SHIELD needs to exist in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. And I also didn't feel the show sold us on the dehumanizing horror of that -- all those SHIELD agents get turned and while the team are angry about it, they were all extras.

So I would have shifted Hive's plan -- where his ability to sway Daisy and others would have become global over anyone with Inhuman potential, and he'd be able to turn people against their families and friends the way he turned Daisy. Then, the show would be threatening a horror we'd already experienced and could fear -- and also, if Hive is swaying people covertly, then this could be conceivably playing out even while the next THOR movie is taking place.

That said, I definitely felt all the character moments and I really liked how, as you said, Lincoln and Hive ended up having a quite, civil conversation as they awaited their fates. The end teaser with Daisy using her powers to super-jump was also stunning.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah I never really worry about any of these plots any more.  I know that Agents is never going to have an impact on the bigger Marvel universe, so I'm okay with that.  I'd obviously prefer if it mattered (and, honestly, last season it did - they were able to work in an Agents of Shield plotline into Age of Ultron, even if that wasn't really stated in the movie). 

What's sad about the whole "the Russo Brothers were told they didn't have to watch AoS" is that the Inhumans actually could've made Civil War a bigger scaled movie.  Civil War was so epic in the comics because it affected everyone.  In the movie, it seemingly only affects a dozen people.  Agents of Shield retroactively makes it affect the Inhumans and the secret SHIELD, but a line about registering all the new Inhumans could've made the whole thing feel more epic.

If I were them, next season would be a smaller scale.  Now that Ward is out of the picture for good (hopefully), I'd like to see no more Hydra stuff.  Not necessarily season one - like missions of the week but something more intimate and less "end of the world."  Especially since a) they aren't going to have to work around any big Marvel movies (I doubt they'll have a crossover with Dr. Strange or Guardians 2).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Do we know that Lincoln is leaving the show? There is usually a press release about actors leaving a show, right? Has there been one for Lincoln? His last words were "They're just human" or something like that, which made me wonder. He controls energy. Could he become energy?

It doesn't really matter, I suppose. There is something about the show that just fails to connect. Nothing feels natural or honest in the story. Even character interactions, which is weird after three seasons. Skye's (sorry... Daisy... it is stupid to change her be, no matter who she is from the comics) breakdown was acted well, but each character in that scene felt like they were in their own bubble. Like they filmed separately and edited it all together . But that's how it feels all the time. It's strange.


Okay, new topic...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/leth … 39996.html

RDJ wants Mel Gibson to direct an Iron Man movie, if another one ever happens. But apparently, Mel Gibson is black listed... which is pretty obvious at this point.

Thoughts?

Personally, I would love to see him get back on top. RDJ did it. And Mel has helped others get back up after they've fallen hard. I like seeing RDJ stand by him. Gibson is a great director. I'm just not sure that he is a Marvel director. I think he would actually fit better with DC.

As for why he is black listed, I disagree with the opinion that it is about what he said to the police. Crap like that happens every five minutes in Hollywood and nobody cares. Roman Polanski drugged and raped a kid, fled the country, and still gets standing ovations when he wins an Oscar. Hollywood doesn't care about anyone's morals or character. I think that Gibson was black listed because he broke etiquette when he made The Passion, and the fact that it was a huge success made that sin unforgivable. They needed to kill his career in order to protect their system.

They would sooner allow Polanski to direct a Frozen sequel than allow Gibson to direct an Iron Man movie.