Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

At the end of the day, I think it comes down to this - is the goal to sell a product?  To give an example, Dan Harmon *is* selling his product; it’s why the pedo attack on him didn’t stick.  Anyone who watches Rick and Morty was not surprised by any of that stuff they dug up on Harmon; and maybe that’s the kind of creator Gunn wants to be.  Again, nothing wrong with that - there’s money there; but that’s not the kind of product or company Gunn was associated with.

I think what I keep coming back to is that the Gunn situation (drawing attention to himself over Trump) is just a gross sign of incompetence.  He didn’t know what he had or who he was dealing with - he thought he was too big to be affected.  He threw it all away.  I can’t applaud that or sympathize with it.  Gunn’s arrogance revealed just how much he was out of his depth.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I don't see what is remotely arrogant about a citizen criticizing the job performance of a civil servant. I mean, Gunn lives in America, right? Why should any one be afraid to be critical of any elected official in the US? Why should we want anyone in a supposedly democratic nation of liberty and free speech to be afraid to criticize those in power?

Slider_Quinn21's already run through how Gunn became a very different person. I have nothing to add. I think Gunn knew there would be consequences for speaking out and he has accepted them and will continue to work as a director, just not a Disney director. In his public remarks, he blamed no one, accepted responsibility and accepted the situation.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Here is a question though: if you were the parent of a child actor, would your kid be working on a James Gunn movie?

There is no evidence to suggest that he ever did anything to a kid... And yet, he associated himself with those who do. So, if you're a parent and you see those comments, or the pictures, do you shrug it off and sign on, or do you walk away, just in case?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Free speech has nothing to do with getting or keeping your job; it doesn’t even get you to the head of the line at the soup kitchen.  But if Gunn truly wasn’t worried about it, then more power to him.  Personally, I don’t buy it.  I believe he thought he was protected and there could be no consequences; and I just have zero sympathy for those attitudes when it blows up in someone’s face.

There’s a thing called tact; and there are far too many people these days who have no understanding of what that means (including and especially Trump).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

TemporalFlux wrote:

Free speech has nothing to do with getting or keeping your job; it doesn’t even get you to the head of the line at the soup kitchen.  But if Gunn truly wasn’t worried about it, then more power to him.  Personally, I don’t buy it.  I believe he thought he was protected and there could be no consequences; and I just have zero sympathy for those attitudes when it blows up in someone’s face.

I don't think it's that Gunn wasn't worried; it's that he knew what he was doing would have blowback, especially with his past history.

TemporalFlux wrote:

There’s a thing called tact; and there are far too many people these days who have no understanding of what that means (including and especially Trump).

We can agree on that.

Informant wrote:

Here is a question though: if you were the parent of a child actor, would your kid be working on a James Gunn movie? There is no evidence to suggest that he ever did anything to a kid... And yet, he associated himself with those who do. So, if you're a parent and you see those comments, or the pictures, do you shrug it off and sign on, or do you walk away, just in case?

I have a niece. I would have no problem with her working on a Gunn project, but that's a very personal thing. I understand why Gunn said and did the things he did about pedophilia. He wanted to be funny and he thought the way to achieve that was to provoke people through insensitive remarks about sensitive subjects. The party photos are *not* photos of a party celebrating pedophilia; they are photos of a party celebrating the TO CATCH A PREDATOR TV series which is, as the title indicates, about exposing pedophiles and getting them arrested. The party is mocking pedophiles.

The problem is that this mockery and mock-celebratory atmosphere and the jokes have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the victims. No consideration for the grief and loss and broken lives and shattered spirits that result from being sexually assaulted when one is most vulnerable. No thought to how someone who has been raped as a child would feel from seeing those words and photos. It's unacceptable. It's disgusting.

Gunn's brother, Sean, said that those jokes (and presumably the photos) came from a time when Gunn was finding his voice. He found a bad one. He set it aside and found a good one. He has changed a lot. His later humour indicates he realized that intimacy and connection were better sources of laughs than empty provocation. He clearly regrets those jokes and those parties -- which is why, when Disney fired him, he didn't protest. I do not think Disney was wrong to fire him. It was impossible to retain him; he was making family movies, not DEADPOOL or RICK AND MORTY.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah I don't get the idea that Gunn is the same guy who'd make jokes like that.  Like I said, I followed him on Twitter for months, and I never saw anything like that.  He seemed to have a lot of compassion for various people, and he was happy to engage almost anyone that was interested.  I know that doesn't say much about his private life, but he certainly never made off-color jokes like that.

I ended up not following him for political reasons, but it was just because I was tired of the political argument in general, not because of his specific arguments or the way he treated anyone.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Maybe I've just heard too many stories about Hollywood, and have heard too many personal stories from victims of child molesters, but if I had a kid (or if it were my nephews or niece) and I saw those jokes and pictures, I would walk away. Not because I believe that Gunn is guilty of any crime, but because I just don't know, and those comments which make light of pedophilia would make me nervous about letting any of the kids in my family work closely with him. Hollywood has a long, long history of not only hiring pedophiles, but of covering up for them (many A-list celebrities still make excuses for Polanski and gave him a standing ovation when he won an Oscar... plus *they gave him an Oscar!*). Even the slightest hint would send me walking in the other direction.

But yeah, it's a personal call. He might have changed, or he might have stopped making those jokes once he was hired by Disney. I hope that he has grown as a person, I really do. If so, I wish him the best of luck. I'm not for any sort of boycott at this point.

It's just a really sensitive subject. We all know that I'm not a super-PC SJW. I make all sorts of inappropriate jokes (mostly around those who know my actual personality and know when I'm joking), but the thought of making a pedophilia joke or associating myself with NAMBLA would never even cross my mind, because the thought disgusts me so much. I don't know what it takes to get to a mental place where it wouldn't be disgusting.


Anyway, I guess it's over with. We'll see which of the actors walk away, if any. And if Disney pushes the third GotG movie back some, just to let it breathe. Though, that might cause their whole schedule to collapse, like dominoes. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, for the MCU as a whole, it sucks because Phase 4 was/is supposed to be more cosmic.  Between the Guardians and Captain Marvel and the Earthbound Avengers meeting the Guardians, it was supposed to create more space stuff.  And clearly the Guardians are a big part of that, and Gunn was a big part of what made the Guardians successful.

Now is it all Gunn?  Is it replicable with another director?  If Dave Bautista holds his ground, would they kill off Drax or recast him like they did with Rhodey and Banner?  Or will they go Cosmic some other way?

I don't know.  But if they get the Fantastic Four, that's one way to do it.  Spider-Man replaced the Inhumans when the latter petered out.  And the Guardians, like the Avengers or the Fantastic Four, has had a varied lineup.  It can survive Gunn or Bautista leaving.  That's somewhere they could put Hulk, for example.  Or someone like Vision.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

For me, the obvious replacement for Gunn is the team behind Thor Ragnarok led by director Taika Waititi.  And as for Bautista, his replacement is built into the character of Drax.  Drax has died and resurrected multiple times in the comics taking on a different form each time - including the original, more intelligent Drax:

https://www.writeups.org/wp-content/uploads/Drax-the-Destroyer-Marvel-Comics-Captain-Marvel-1.jpg

and the super dumb Drax:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/sonicgt/images/f/fc/Drax-the-Destroyer-Marvel-Comics-Infinity-Watch-a.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170919033243

Though they’re likely not to do it, I think the best move would be to shelve Vol 3 and just leave the Guardians wherever Avengers 4 leaves them.  Marvel has a lot of other properties to mine, and Guardians isn’t worth the baggage it has now with the director / writer gone and cast potentially in revolt.

And if Adam Warlock needs a home, he was never a Guardians character anyway.  Warlock was introduced in Fantastic Four and sometimes associated with Captain Marvel.  Even better than giving him a vehicle on another property, just make an Adam Warlock movie instead of Guardians.  Warlock has a pretty rich history from his dealings with the High Evolutionary, the Universal Church of Truth (led by his corrupted future self, the Magus) and of course Warlock’s connection to the soul gem.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

And to add, if they truly want to go all in on cosmic, I think Marvel could follow up on some ideas from the Jim Krueger / Alex Ross series Earth X.  We’ve seen the head of a dead Celestial with Knowhere in Guardians; but what are Celestials and their motives?

A nearly extinct race from a long fought war, the Celestials seed young planets like eggs in order to reproduce; and they modify the evolving indigenous population so that a percentage can have have special abilities and intelligence to act as anti-bodies to protect the planet egg until it can hatch into a Celestial.  Galactus serves as a kind of galactic mongoose poaching the eggs so that “snakes” don’t overrun the universe.

It raises the interesting question, would the heroes save the world to doom the universe?  Defeating Galactus could mean that.

It was reported awhile back that Marvel is planning a movie based on The Eternals.  That’s notable because the Eternals is where the Celestials and their lore was introduced.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

One of the things that I liked most about the first Guardians movie was the fact that it didn't really seem like an MCU movie. It just felt like its own thing, and not some commercial for another movie that would come out a couple of years later, like most MCU movies. I guess they can't go back to that, but it'd be nice if Marvel had some movies that weren't so interconnected. I don't mean to say that they can't exist in the same universe, but it feels like all of their movies are smothered by other movies.



On an unrelated note, did anyone watch Cloak and Dagger on Freeform? The series definitely feels more like one of the Netflix shows than it does AoS. Maybe not the same cinematic feel, but similar in terms of story. The politics of the show are about as subtle as a brick to the head, which can be irritating (even I would like to just enjoy a TV show without politics sometimes). There are some things about the state of "young people" TV in general that I don't love, but the show was still pretty watchable. I don't know how well it sticks to the comics, since I'd never heard of these characters before this show (though I do sometimes watch the 80's movie of the same name... good times).

They do name drop Misty from the Netflix shows, and I think they mentioned Stark and Rand as well, but I don't remember the exact quotes.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Has anyone watched season 2 of Luke Cage? If so, is there anything important that I need to know when going into the next season of Iron Fist? I know some characters are going back and forth between shows, but I just can't watch Luke Cage. I watched the first episode of season 2, and it was like watching a PBS documentary about paint drying. I don't know who writes that show, but it is insanely boring for a superhero series.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Ummmm, spoilers I guess.

Misty and Colleen have become better friends.   There's a fairly cool fight sequence in a bar where the two of them are fighting off a bunch of assholes.  I don't remember which episode but it'd be fairly easy to scan and find if you know which episode Colleen is in.

Danny and Colleen got Misty a robot arm.  It seems to have no issues and she uses it at an expert level.  It doesn't do anything that a regular human arm doesn't do, but it's stronger.  This is only relevant because Misty is in Iron Fist.

There's an episode that Danny guest stars on.  You can/should watch that episode, not because it gives any insight to what Danny has been doing, but because it's the best episode of Luke Cage season 2 and the Danny Rand there might be a better representation of the Danny Rand you'll see in Season 2.  The two of them work together well, and there's some cool action sequences that take advantage of their power sets.  And you shouldn't be too confused on what's happening because it takes place right after a big thing and before another big thing.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyMumktc51k

Because I like you, here's the fight scene with Misty and Colleen smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Okay, I watched the Danny episode, and the fight scene that you linked.

The fight scene was cool, just because I like Colleen. The two work well together.

The episode with Danny was still boring. I didn't miss anything from previous episodes, because they are constantly explaining everything about every single scene... slowly... and with more melodrama than a reality show set in high school. I really can't do this show. The cast is okay, but the writing and directing are horrible. And does it have a lower budget than the other Netflix Marvel shows? It looks cheaper.

Sigh. But Iron Fist is coming back soon! It might not be super great, but it should be watchable at least. Plus... Colleen.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think LUKE CAGE is good, but I confess that I'm only halfway through the season and have taken a break. The series does not appeal to my personal sensibilities in that it's less about plot and the characterization is presented through mood, atmosphere, deliberate pacing and presenting the texture and experiences of Harlem and black people in New York City. It's not *for* me, but I can see and appreciate the quality of the writing, characters, cinematography, locations, music and performances. LUKE CAGE is primarily about different forms of masculinity -- and that's not something I relate to. Also, LUKE CAGE is an extremely serious show like JESSICA JONES and DAREDEVIL and PUNISHER and... I prefer my Marvel adventures to be more in terms of heightened escapism like AGENTS OF SHIELD or AGE OF ULTRON or IRON MAN III. I think I took months to finish DAREDEVIL and JESSICA JONES in their second seasons.  Also, I tend to identify more with women than men which is why, when Claire left LUKE CAGE, I felt the need to take a breather.

Jessica Henwick is splendid and I have high hopes for IRON FIST in its second season... although I would finish watching LUKE CAGE first.

I haven't seen RUNAWAYS or CLOAK AND DAGGER yet. I haven't even seen ANT MAN II. I generally only go to the cinema for special events like MISSION IMPOSSIBLE. The only reason I saw INFINITY WAR in theatres was because I was expecting AGENTS OF SHIELD to tie into it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm even more behind than you. I haven't seen Black Panther or Infinity War. I guess if they're ending their deal with Netflix, I'll have to rent them at some point. I just haven't felt a big need to see them yet.

But that ranks them above the last couple of Star Wars movies, which I'm pretty sure I've just given up on. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Black Panther comes to Netflix soon so you'll have that one for free at least.  I still think Infinity War is worth the $2 Redbox fee since it's just so incredible to have that many characters in one movie and for it not to be a cluster.

Although you'll think it's a cluster.

And I liked Danny and Luke working together, and I thought there were some good fight scenes using their powers.  Better than some of the stuff in the Defenders.  I think the problem with the Defenders is that Luke and Jessica are essentially the same powerset, and Daredevil and Iron Fist are essentially the same as well.  There's obviously slight differences, but it's a lot of either kung fu or brute strength.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

... I don't think Informant should pay to watch INFINITY WAR. We all know he would not enjoy it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Agreed.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's not that I'm incapable of enjoying a Marvel movie, or even one of their big group movies. The problem that I have is that they've never actually put any effort into one of those movies. They coast on the thrill of the big event, but put very little thought or care into producing a good script. It's all about marketing and deadlines, and they hope that the audience will be too distracted by shiny objects to notice that the plots make no sense.

Believe it or not, the reason why I keep watching the Marvel movies is because I want to like them. It's just that they're so, so bad! smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I can't wrap my head around what Sony is trying to do with their portion of the SPIDER-MAN cinematic rights. They've agreed to a sharing arrangement with Marvel Film: Marvel can use Spider-Man in their films and provides consultation and creative guidance on Sony's Spider-Man features. Sony receives no money for Spider-Man's appearances in Marvel movies and Marvel will receive no payment for Sony's Spider-Man movies.

But Sony is also producing a feature films with Spider-Man's rogues gallery: a feature film starring VENOM is coming and there are plans for movies starring Silver Sable, Black Cat, possibly the Sinister Six and Jackpot -- and according to Kevin Feige, neither the upcoming VENOM nor any subsequent spin-off films take place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Marvel isn't involved with them.

According to Sony, VENOM and Sony spin-offs will neither contradict nor tie in to MCU films or Spider-Man films, nor will they feature Tom Holland's Spider-Man -- which has me wondering how these films can qualify as Spider-Man spin-offs if they don't originate in an actual Spider-Man film.

It'd be fair to note that DAREDEVIL, JESSICA JONES, LUKE CAGE, IRON FIST, PUNISHER and DEFENDERS have never been acknowledged by the MCU feature films nor did they spin out off the Avengers' movies. But Sony is producing films with characters who, in the source material, were introduced as antagonists to Spider-Man; the Netflix properties existed alongside Avengers in the comics as opposed to originating from them. The Black Cat and Silver Sable are conceivably fascinating standalone characters, but Venom and the Sinister Six always existed in opposition to Spider-Man and Sony is trying to sell Venom based on its connection to the Spider-Man brand from which Venom will be isolated.

I don't get it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think comic book movies are catching up to comic books. There are a ton of different branches, with a ton of different styles, some of which go together and some of which don't, which we're supposed to just accept.

DC is doing a Joker movie that doesn't take place in the DCEU, and probably doesn't feature Batman in any major role (though I suppose he could appear in some capacity). They also have TV shows, only some of which exist in the same universe, but all of which may potentially exist in the same multiverse.

Just pretend you're browsing a shelf of graphic novels. Pick and choose as you see fit.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think Sony is just throwing some stuff at the wall to see what sticks.  After all, The Punisher started as a Spider-man antagonist in 1974; it took 12 years before Punisher was given his own solo mini-series.

The problem Sony has is if any of the other characters could replicate that success, they would have already done it in the comics.  Venom did, but it’s very hard to separate him from his Spider-man origin.  Silver Sable had her own series for awhile, but it never set the world on fire.  Black Cat has had a few mini-series, but never took off.  The latest I’ve seen is that Sony is wanting to do a solo Kraven the Hunter movie; and I honestly have no idea where you take him without an existing super-heroic universe to put him in.  Kraven’s whole motivation is finding more dangerous game because he’s already bested every animal on earrh.

Sony is really just spinning their wheels unable to accept they should just take their part of the money from the Marvel Studios movies and let it go.  Their best bet is to be a Spider-man holding company; not a producer of material.

Incidentally, the comics are trying to separate Venom out at the moment - they’re trying to say we’ve misunderstood the white spider symbol all these years - the legs are actually wings. Venom is a dragon.

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2018/08/STL089106.jpg

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

TemporalFlux wrote:

The latest I’ve seen is that Sony is wanting to do a solo Kraven the Hunter movie; and I honestly have no idea where you take him without an existing super-heroic universe to put him in.  Kraven’s whole motivation is finding more dangerous game because he’s already bested every animal on earrh.

I've heard an explanation that makes sense - Kraven shows up to hunt Venom.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Watched Black Panther.


That leaves Infinity War and Ant Man 2 before I'm caught up.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

IRON FIST's second season is a quantum leap forward from the first series. Season 1's inexplicable obsession with corporate politics is gone. Season 1's fixation on multiple and conflicting renditions of the Hand is gone (as is the Hand organization). Season 1's inability to stage effective martial arts sequences with Finn Jones is gone. Season 1's baffling scripting where it wasn't clear if characters were ineffective and stupid or if the writers were ineffective and stupid is also gone. Best of all, Danny Rand's childish impulsivity and cultural appropriation (the latter of which was a flaw in the original source material) is central to the season's arc.

Also, for most of Season 1, I would watch Colleen Wing, the capable martial artist played by the splendid Jessica Henwick and constantly feel like she was too good for IRON FIST. Amidst Finn Jones being unable to convincingly throw punches or kicks, Ramon Rodriguez's clumsily insincere performance as the supposedly charismatic Bakuto and the bizarre fetish for boardroom conversations dominating a kung fu action show was Henwick.

She had a gentle yet sardonic take on her dialogue, her face was a beautiful canvas for serenity and melancholy, her fight scenes showed a stunningly graceful ferocity and she could alternatively convey warmth or animalistic savagery in a single look. She was so instantly endearing that Colleen being exposed as an agent of the Hand was heartbreaking and the performance was so strong that the ridiculousness of Colleen immediately turning against them was convincing onscreen.

I imagined in future decades that Henwick would lead a sci-fi action film, headline a few romantic comedies, feature in a five season courtroom drama as the star, perform some successful sitcoms, take on a number of critically acclaimed indies -- and then, in interviews, when asked about IRON FIST, she'd smile self-effacingly and say that IRON FIST paid the rent and was a stepping stone to better roles. Colleen was likable, sympathetic and played by an actress who could perform fights -- why wasn't she the star of IRON FIST?

The writers of the DEFENDERS seemed to be asking the same question as throughout those eight episodes, Finn Jones was repeatedly knocked unconscious or tied to a stretcher while other characters dismissed him and Stick described him as the stupidest Iron Fist in the history of the role. Throughout DEFENDERS, it was Colleen who performed what would presumably be Danny's role among the Defenders, even providing the means to blow up the Hand's headquarters in the climactic finale.

Why wasn't she the lead character of IRON FIST? Why wasn't an Asian-American female lead put into place to buttress the white saviour narrative that's always been at the heart of Iron Fist's story about a Caucasian man taking an American approximation of an Asian cultural form for himself? In retrofitting IRON FIST from its unworkable Season 1 situation, Season 2 dives fully into what DEFENDERS advised and suggests that Colleen is the star of IRON FIST and that she has always been the star of IRON FIST. The first season of the show is recontextualized as Colleen's story rather than Danny's and I'm really intrigued to know how the audience will react.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Spoilers for IRON FIST Season 2 --




























IRON FIST's second season is getting mixed reviews. The highest praise it's received is that it's not as much a disaster as the first season. Even the worst reviews noted that Season 2 was less boring than Season 1 and demonstrated basic competence.

My view: the show suffers from its inability to explore the mythology of the Iron Fist. All the Netflix shows are street level crimefighting stories, but DARDEVIL has courtroom drama mixed with crime noir, JESSICA JONES has female empowerment, LUKE CAGE has reappropriated blaxploitation, PUNISHER is militaristic -- IRON FIST should have dragon-punching mystic spectacle, but it can't afford it on a Netflix budget. As a result, IRON FIST lacks a distinct identity to justify its existence.

I still really enjoyed Season 2, but I confess -- I enjoyed it more as a writing exercise in repairing a troubled series. IRON FIST's first season had a ton of problems. It had Danny Rand as the heroic Iron Fist, sworn enemy of the Hand, protector of the city of K'un Lun.

However, his foster brother, Davos, declared that Danny, in returning to New York, had abandoned his post, stolen the Iron Fist power and left the city defenseless. Danny protested that (a) as the Iron Fist, it was up to him to define the role and (b) Davos was only upset that Danny left their friendship and that protecting K'un Lun was not an issue. This didn't address the accusation that Danny had robbed K'un Lun of its heritage and protection. 

Another conflict: Danny spent Season 1 regaining control of the Rand corporation. At no point did Danny articulate any intentions for his company beyond regaining his identity. This claim on the company, while valid, suggested his winning the Iron Fist and taking it to New York City was the same sense of entitlement. The show's only real response was to show Danny was an incompetent businessman before dismissing the plot.

This left the show's moral position confused: was Davos correct to call Danny a thief or was it Danny's right to leave K'un Lun? Davos was written to be violent, petty and cruel towards innocent people, effectively dismissing his criticisms. Yet, the ending of Season 1 showed K'un Lun destroyed, indicating that Davos was correct and that Danny had no right to take the Iron Fist and return to New York.

But the immediate follow-up was DEFENDERS which didn't explore the issue, switching the focus to defeating the Hand. The show couldn't seem to articulate any position, offering conflict but unwilling to commit to any defense or criticism of Danny's choices.

Showrunner Scott Buck would later take his clumsy grasp of moral judgment to INHUMANS (which is about a brutal monarchy of slavers as the heroes and their slaves as the villains and I don't even want to imagine how Buck would handle that one).

Anyway. IRON FIST's Season 2 had a new showrunner, M. Raven Metzner, who had inherited quite a mess. The premiere makes a number of immediate shifts: Danny has exited the corporate world and works as a mover, no longer using the Rand Corporation's money. This effectively declares that he only pursued his company as part of regaining his identity.

In this premiere, Davos confronts Danny over K'un Lun being left unprotected and now destroyed. Danny doesn't dispute this but notes that the Iron Fist is also sworn to fight the Hand which he helped destroy in DEFENDERS. Davos declares Danny unworthy of the Iron Fist and where Danny in Season 1 dismissed this, Danny is now deeply shaken.

Season 2 also shows some flashbacks to K'un Lun where Danny and Davos were regularly tortured to prepare them to compete for the Iron Fist. It shows that their final competition was rigged: both are evenly matched with Davos initially superior, Danny getting the upper hand at which point the judges (one of whom is Davos' father) declare Danny the winner when they could just have easily ruled in Davos' favour earlier or waited for the fight to turn Davos' way again.

This doesn't exonerate Danny from taking the Iron Fist from the city it was meant to defend. But it was the Iron Fist judges who steered a traumatized and dislocated orphan into a violently abusive competition and then rigged the match to assign him their most powerful weapon. It was the judges who abused Danny and then gave him the job of defending their home despite knowing he'd try to get home the first chance he got.

Season 2 also shows: Danny didn't 'win' the Iron Fist for being the best fighter; Davos was beating him. Davos' father saw Davos' psychopathy and preferred the Fist go to the weaker candidate, someone less volatile and supposedly easier to control.

Where Scott Buck introduced ambiguity that was confusing and frustrating, M. Raven Metzner offers clear definition. Danny Rand concedes the truth: Davos is too unstable to wield the Iron Fist, but Danny only pursued it for the power and prestige it held in K'un Lun. There is only one person in IRON FIST thus far who has shown the compassion, responsibility and commitment needed to bear the Iron Fist and wield it well. It isn't Danny. It isn't Davos. It's Colleen Wing.

Colleen is a teacher, not a soldier. Colleen seeks to protect, not to fight. Colleen had the strength to realize her commitment to the Hand was based on a lie and to turn against them. Colleen is worthy. And when Danny comes to this realization, IRON FIST shows Danny to be a hero in the true Marvel position where his strength is not in wielding power, but in his willingness to give it up.

It's strong writing. It doesn't come off as strong writing. IRON FIST in Season 1 was terrible. Season 2 is so focused on repairing Season 1 that the terrible and excellent collide to produce a Season 2 that is extremely average. Season 2 is so busy retrofitting itself into the show it wants to be – Colleen Wing as the Immortal Iron Fist – that by the time the job is done, Season 2 is over.

At the same time, deciding to replace your leading man is an extremely difficult proposition. It has to be earned over time and Season 2 is quite determined to earn it over its 10 episodes.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Daredevil Season 3 is going to come out October 19.  That means, in a 12-month period, all five Netflix shows will have released a season.  Pretty cool.

I've liked the first half of Iron Fist season 2.  It's a lot more fun.  I'd actually like to see a Heroes For Hire series with Luke Cage and Danny, but I don't know if that's possible with the ending of Luke Cage (not even knowing how Iron Fist ends).  I'd rather have that show than a third season of either show separately.