Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I really do miss when Agents of Shield would show the aftermath of the MCU movies.  I know it was an abusive relationship, but that part about it I really liked.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, I recently binged Agents of Shield from start to this past episode.  Wow, really an amazing show.  I'd seen it here and there in the past, but always put it on the backburner.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Am I a bad person for wanting Natasha/Black Widow to stay dead after her solo movie?  I just would like her sacrifice in Endgame to mean something, and I like the idea that, for the most part, deaths in the MCU have stuck.  And I think they're probably going to try and resurrect the Vision in WandaVision (with potentially effects rolling into Dr. Strange 2 and beyond) so it'd be weird if they kept undoing the Phase 3 deaths.

(Because you know Tony's coming back in one form or another).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I dunno. It's hard to say because I am completely resigned to superheroes coming back from the dead and it's convinced me that Quinn and Arturo will also come back someday. I feel like Robert Downey Jr. is done with Marvel contractually... but even then, I feel like at some point, we'll get Corey Fogelmanis playing out the teen Tony from the past storyline at some point. Onscreen, Black Widow is defined by the fact that she's played by Scarlet Johannson who is a performer of rare talent and charisma. She's great in WINTER SOLDIER, but she's primarily a chameleonic blank slate.

I did have this joke I was going to make where you, Slider_Quinn21, were grousing about David Mamouz being too short to play Batman and I was going to ask why Batman brings out the worst in you: first your hatred for old people by raging about how Ben Affleck is too old to play the character, now your hatred for short people over Mamouz. But then your wife had that miscarriage and I felt I needed to take it easy on you and also, to say you have ever raged about anything is quite an overstatement.

Black Widow is not the hill I want anyone to die on.

**

People love the first AVENGERS. I thought it sucked when I saw it and the thing I hated most about AVENGERS was the ridiculous ending where destroying the Chitauri mothership inexplicably incapacitates all the foot soldiers, a bizarre and nonsensical design flaw that Joss Whedon apologizes for in the AVENGERS audio commentary, explaining that he was extremely tired.

I also thought CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER was absurd in that Steve is nonsensically determined to commit suicide by piloting the bomb-equipped plane away from its target and never considers bailing out before it blows.

Spoilers for the deleted scenes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gViSJitqG4k








Naturally, I enjoyed some of the ENDGAME deleted scenes released a little while ago. There's one where Rhodey and Steve are reviewing Steve's final WWII mission and Rhodey point-blank asks Steve why he didn't parachute out of the soon-to-explode jet. Steve reacts with a blank stare, grimly realizing that his decades-long hibernation and time-displaced situation are because he got caught up in the moment and missed the obvious.

I also liked the scene where Rocket Raccoon expresses astonishment that the Avengers spent two to three hours fighting the Chitauri, an invading force Rocket describes as "the suckiest army" in the galaxy as everyone knows they're easily beaten by taking out the mothership. Steve explains that the Avengers weren't aware, Rocket laughs in their faces and Tony, who experienced post-traumatic stress after blowing up the mothership, grabs an electric razor and shaves a chunk of fur off Rocket.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:

I did have this joke I was going to make where you, Slider_Quinn21, were grousing about David Mamouz being too short to play Batman and I was going to ask why Batman brings out the worst in you: first your hatred for old people by raging about how Ben Affleck is too old to play the character, now your hatred for short people over Mamouz. But then your wife had that miscarriage and I felt I needed to take it easy on you and also, to say you have ever raged about anything is quite an overstatement.

Ha, don't let anything ever stop you from calling me out on anything smile  It's what makes this fun.

I like Batman a lot.  I think he was the gateway drug to my love of superheroes, and I just think that there's something poetic about a guy in a bat costume trying to keep up with a group of literal gods.  Batman's best superpower is unlimited wealth, and while it's sometimes significantly overblown, his true superpower is just his incredible brain.  I think there's something sorta beautiful about a guy who had some tragedy and decided to do everything in his power to stop it.

I also think there's room for different versions of the character.  I think it's sorta great that David Mamouz played Batman because I don't think there's necessarily any reason for Bruce to be 6'3 and ripped.  There's something kinda cool to the idea that he's sorta short and average build and could still kick ass.  I think my main gripe is that sticking with Mamouz sorta ruined my longstanding prediction (from season one) that they'd replace him with another actor when it was time for him to be Batman.  I was sorta right, but I'm glad they didn't do it.

As far as Affleck, I think he did as good a job as anyone could've.  My main problem with Batfleck were 1) (pre-BvS) that I wanted Superman to face a Batman in his prime and didn't want to hamstring Batman even more when he's already significantly outmatched and 2) (post BvS) didn't think that the movie gave enough explanation for why Batman was acting the way he was acting.  He can be an older version and work and he can be a grittier/darker version and work, but I felt like they needed to explain why he was acting the way he was acting.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I finished Agents of Shield season 6.

Some spoilers (stop reading if you don't want to be spoiled), but I wonder if the show would've been better if they'd somehow transitioned the cast to a parallel universe.  I understand the behind-the-scenes issues forcing them to be completely in the dark about both the Snap/Blip and the resulting 5-year time jump, but it's oddly distracting to have such little connection between the show and the movies. 

The Snap/Blip was a universal event.  It's not something that would simply never be discussed, even if every character happened to escape it.  Even if they didn't, the galactic portions of the show would certainly be talking about it.  At least, on Earth, there were witnesses to what really happened.  In other parts of the galaxy, even ones that knew of Thanos, people would've just disappeared (and possibly reappeared) with no explanation.

Then there's the other side.  Whether it be the destruction of the Earth from Season 5 or the invasion of Earth from the end of season 6.  When the Lighthouse is attacked, the Chronicoms talk about getting rid of SHIELD as their primary foes.  No mention of any of the Avengers.  No mention of trying to take over the planet that either just experienced or just fought off an invasion of Thanos.

I know, for all intents and purposes, they already don't take place in the same universe.  But it's odd that we've had tons of connections throughout the life of the show, but now we're just supposed to pretend that none of that happened?

With all the technobabble on the show, I think they should've at least tried to give an explanation.  Gemma tried to get Fitz back and did a thing and now they're in a pocket dimension.  Or they moved across the multiverse.  Or something.

The events of Infinity War and Endgame were too big for SHIELD to ignore.  The happenings that happen on SHIELD are too big for the Avengers to ignore.  So I would've tried to put them on an Earth where there are no Avengers.  Or maybe they all left or all died.  SHIELD is all that's left.  It wouldn't even need to be a big scene.

MACK - "....what just happened?"

SIMMONS - "The Beta Device brought back Fitz.  But it also seems to have separated us from our known reality."

MACK - "English, please."

SIMMONS - "We are on Earth, but I don't think it's our Earth."

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

PIPER - "We've scoured this Earth's internet, and you're never going to believe this."

MACK - "I already don't."

PIPER - "There's nothing about Tony Stark.  No Iron Man.  No Chitauri invasion.  No history of Steve Rogers or the supersoldier program.  Thor is simply a legend on this Earth.  As far as I can tell, there's no metahuman activity or any reference to any Avengers.  This world doesn't even know aliens exist."

MACK - "What about SHIELD?"

PIPER - "Nothing."

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

MACK - "I know the last few days have been tough.  But even though FitzSimmons fixed the Beta device, we've decided to stay behind on this Earth.  We all saw what's been happening with those aliens and that mysterious guy that looks like Coulson.  I think we owe it to this place to help them stop it.  Our Earth has the Avengers.  This one doesn't.  It needs us.  It needs SHIELD."

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Man, why do you have to take the joy out of everything by overanalyzing it in terms of canonicity and continuity and event scale and impact? Why do you have to write 6,500 word novellas explaining what happened to Henry the Dog or spend months crafting two lines of dialogue to wrap up Colin's clone storyline? Why can't you just enjoy and be amazed? What happened to you to make you like this?

(Above are all things I feel Slider_Quinn21 should say to me.)

**

I think it would be difficult to transition AGENTS OF SHIELD Season 6 into a parallel Earth and insist that it is just as significant as the Earth of Seasons 1 -5. Surely the team wouldn't want to do anything other than get home. However, Slider_Quinn21 makes the insurmountable argument that an Earth which makes no reference to 50 per cent of all biological life being erased and then brought back five years later is ALREADY a parallel Earth.

I have no good response to that aside from saying that if that is indeed the case, I would be disinclined to draw attention to that.

**

From a behind the scenes standpoint, even if AOS' writing team had known ENDGAME's story, their options to tie in would have been limited. I can't see them changing Season 6 significantly or even at all.

Removing 50 per cent of their contracted and regular cast would be financially unworkable; even if the actors don't appear, they still get paid. Setting Season 6 five years after Season 5 might have been an option, but they could not have done it too overtly. If ABC's airdates shifted, AOS would spoil ENDGAME's endgame.

Even if AOS had known of ENDGAME and set their timeline accordingly, they still would have been able to refer to ENDGAME as much as they did in the end -- which is to say not at all.

However, when watching the show... I continue to feel that AGENTS OF SHIELD is set after ENDGAME and concurrently with the events of FAR FROM HOME (which I have not seen).

I think that the Snap took place during the Season 5 finale after the Zephyr touched down in Tahiti. Everyone vanished: the entire SHIELD team, Deke, everybody. Five years passed. Then the Hulk brought everyone back in ENDGAME. Nobody remembered having been absent. The team bid their farewells to Coulson and May, flew off in search of Fitz -- and then realized in mid-air/mid-holiday that what they perceived as a split-second had been a five year time jump. Everyone went into counselling or shrugged it off, and we picked up with the characters one year after the reversal.

Why wasn't it discussed? We don't see everything. We don't see the characters use the washroom or eat three meals a day. We never even saw how Fitz rescued Simmons from the HYDRA world when the last shot we had on the location showed Fitz losing his grip on her hand. We never saw how Agent Davis escaped Aida. The narrative force of the scene cut is not to be doubted.

Creatively, I feel this was the intention, although the offscreen events covered by the cut are far greater than AOS expected. They expected that they were leapfrogging over a year; instead, their approach is now bounding over five to six years.

Looking back at the last five seasons of SHIELD, perhaps I'm being disingenuous, but the Snap seems like one of SHIELD's lesser situations. In Seasons 1 - 5, SHIELD was exposed as a HYDRA cell, Inhumans were awakened across the globe, HYDRA unleashed HIVE, SHIELD faced a man with a flaming skull, killer robots mounted an AI apocalypse, the team was trapped in a virtual reality where HYDRA won WWII, monoliths sent everyone to the future, and then the team got home and spent half a season walking down one empty hallway after another and fought the lead of Disney's LIV AND MADDIE.

After all that, being erased from reality and then reinstated five years later with no memory of the experience is one of the least important things that has ever happened to these people. They fought Liv & Maddie! Liv & Maddie! This Snap-Blip nonsense that they don't even remember would barely register.

That's what I keep telling myself anyway.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

(Still spoilers)

Yeah, I enjoyed Season 6, and I think the writers did just about as well as they could considering the abuse they took from the movie department.  If the people who made Endgame can be trusted to know the secrets, then the people who made Agents of Shield should've been allowed to as well.

They made fun little references to Thanos in season 5 and whatever chaos they could imagine happening in New York, and I think it was fine.  With *literally nothing* to work off from Endgame, I think they did as much as they could with what they had to work with (nothing).  They wrote a fun story that was isolated to parts of space that haven't been dealt with and mostly isolated parts of Earth.  You're right - the people they interact with either wouldn't be in a position to constantly talk about the Snap/Blip or they're in enough danger that it isn't the focus.

The one mistake they made is to have another apocalypse-level event at the end of their season.  The season 6 finale primarily takes place in the Lighthouse and in some random jungle (I'm sure they said where - let's say South America).  Even if the Avengers knew about it, they wouldn't be able to get there in time.  So I think it was contained.

But with spaceships and colonization and invasion, it doesn't really fit.  It's nice for the team to have stakes and the Chronicom invasion certainly provides stakes.  But when they specifically say that they want to wipe out SHIELD as their primary enemy even though it seems to be common knowledge that Thanos is going to Earth.  So either he already decimated the planet or someone defeated him.  Plus, they know what Fitz and Gemma know (that there is a group of super-powered beings that protect the Earth).

I think the only mistake they made was not keeping the threats covert.  There's no reason for the Avengers to be involved in HIVE or HYDRA.  There's no reason for them to know about the Shrike or Izel.  These are SHIELD-level problems that can be written off as SHIELD's problem.

When the Earth is literally in danger, it's harder to write off the Avengers stuff.  For the most part, they did as great as they could.  It was only at the end that I started worrying about it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I haven't seen FAR FROM HOME, but that puts me in the same position the AGENTS OF SHIELD writers were in when conceiving their Season 6 threat. What about the Avengers Initiative? What's their situation post-ENDGAME? The AOS writers decided not to refer to what they didn't know.

However, even if the Marvel Film and Marvel TV connection were intact via Joss Whedon and even if the actors were willing, available and affordable, AOS could not have brought the Avengers into the Izel storyline.

If AOS had been in the ENDGAME and FAR FROM HOME loop, I can only see the references being made by having Daisy declare that they can't call in the Avengers because if Izel possessed Hulk or Dr. Strange or Captain Marvel or even Ant Man, she'd kill all of SHIELD in a second.

The AOS writers have said that the uncertainty of whether Season 6 would air before or after ENDGAME was also an issue, in which case such a scene might have been filmed twice: once with specific Avengers named, once without specific names, and both times establishing the same effect: The anti-possession devices are ultimately devices. They're breakable and possessing a human is bad enough. SHIELD cannot call in any more superhumans. Yoyo is already a liability.

That's the only Avengers tie-in I see being possible. Season 6, whether by accident or design, created a villain who made it unwise to bring in any Avengers.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Agreed on Izel.  The issue I have is with (spoilers).  But it would've also been an issue for season 5.  When the Earth was destroyed, did all the Avengers die?  What happened with Thor and Captain Marvel and Hulk (who were all off world) in the decades that happened?

When SHIELD was fighting covert battles, I think they could easily explore their little section of the universe without tying in with the movies.  When they expand into situations where the Earth is in danger from something that the Avengers would have a) obvious visibility to and b) the ability to respond to, it makes it more complicated.

The Avengers wouldn't show up to fight Grant Ward or Izel.  But if the Earth is destroyed or invaded, the lack of superheroes becomes a problem.  That's all I'm saying.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It'd be interesting to contemplate what Marvel TV shows would be like if Joss Whedon had stayed with Marvel after AGE OF ULTRON and continued to be the bridge between the film division and the TV branch.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Spider-Man allegedly out of the MCU.  Sony and Disney couldn't come to a deal.

First off, it's a bummer for the fans.  Tom Holland is great as Spider-Man, and I think his appearances have been amazing.  Two pretty great solo films and three other appearances.

Second, I understand that it's a business.  Sony wanted to keep the original deal (Disney gets 5%), and Disney wanted more.  Disney did all the work and wanted more of the profit.  Sony wanted to maintain the money role in their biggest property and didn't want to hand over about half their lunch money to the biggest kid on the block.  I understand.

Third, narratively, it's kinda in a clean place to make a break.  Far From Home essentially ends the Tony/Peter storyline that had been built since Peter first showed up in Civil War.  He's too young to be "friends" with any of the other Avengers, and without Tony, there's not as much of a reason for him to tag along.  The villain most connected to Stark is Mysterio and he's dead.  Even if he's not, his main problem is with Peter now, not Tony.  You could bring back Vulture without any connections to Stark or the Chitauri.

Of course, assuming Holland's contract isn't somehow connected to Marvel Studios (I don't think it is), it simply means that they'll move Holland over to the Venom universe.  They'll probably keep the "Peter is enemy #1" storyline from his movies and intersect him with the Carnage storyline from Venom.  They'll have a team-up movie and then do solo movies at Sony, I imagine.

It sucks, but I think it's probably the best for both studios.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The Sony/Marvel agreement was more a consultancy than anything else. Marvel provided creative stewardship, but Sony kept most of the money and allowed Spider-Man to feature in Marvel's AVENGERS films. Sony also continued developing its Spider-Man-adjacent properties with BLACK CAT, SILVER SABLE, MORBIUS, SINISTER SIX, INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE and VENOM and did so separately from Marvel. It was evident that Sony didn't see the Marvel Cinematic Universe as their universe; they wanted a Sony-based Spider-Man Cinematic Universe.

VENOM is unfathomable to me, but for some strange reason, it was ridiculously successful. I'd argue that it was a fluke that's unlikely to be repeated. VENOM, creatively, indicates that without Spider-Man himself, all of these Spider-Man rights are fairly useless. INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE, however, indicated that Spider-Man could indeed start a franchise separate from Spider-Man through using other Spider-themed heroes from Miles Morales to Spider-Gwen. INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE made a strong creative case for Sony ending their dependency on Marvel.

My personal opinion is... mixed. I do think Spider-Man benefits from being part of a shared universe with the Avengers. But I also personally prefer that Spider-Man, in film and TV, exist in his own universe. The Tom Holland version of Spider-Man, to me, is a diluted version of what I find appealing about Spider-Man. His connection to the Avengers and his tutelege under Tony Stark and his going on space missions and having a high tech suit -- none of that is Spider-Man to me. To me, Spider-Man is more like the characters of SLIDERS. The sliders have no official status, no authority, no support system and are perpetually faking and blustering their way through their heroics. Spider-Man, to me, is a blue collar, working class hero. The Spider-Man of the MCU is a rich kid; this version of Spidey has been tailored for the Avengers.

I don't see that changing if Spider-Man remains the Tom Holland incarnation but with no further references to the Avengers, but I also don't really understand HOW this character could function without the Avengers because he was created specifically to be on their team unlike Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield. And this split is more business oriented than creatively oriented; Sony hit it big with VENOM and INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE and doesn't need the Avengers. Tom Holland's Spider-Man might, but they're not looking at it that way.

My other concern is Sony head Tom Rothman who was responsible for X-MEN THE LAST STAND and X-MEN ORIGINS WOLVERINE (actual title) and micromanaging the poor directors to the point of having sets repainted without their knowledge and slashing budgets relentlessly. Rothman delayed the DEADPOOL movie for years because he didn't believe in comedic superheroes while being firmly behind the unintentional comedy of X-MEN ORIGINS WOLVERINE (actual title). I don't think his creative instincts are strong and he was lucky to have Feige... although Rothman is also behind the brilliance of SPIDER-VERSE, so many he's changed. I mean, Robert Greenblatt cancelled SLIDERS, but he saved CHUCK. Sci-Fi betrayed SLIDERS at every turn, but they saved WYNONNA EARP. Transmodiar gave various people in this community PTSD, but he cured mine. People change.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Looking back, it’s apparent that Feige was hedging his bets - he knew this could happen.  From a pure story perspective, the divorce damage to the two studios’ plans could be mitigated with some skill and care.

The ones I feel sorry for are the actors, writers and director with the MCU’s Spider-man.  They’re caught between a rock and a hard place here; and Disney could dish out retribution on them if they help Sony succeed.  Disney and Marvel both have shown that kind of spite in the past.

This could see a new era of hardball as Disney tries to choke Sony into giving Spider-man up.  They were already trying it with Fox by killing the merchandise and even comics related to Fantastic Four and X-men.  What happens when Sony makes their big Spidey movie with no merchandising to back it up?  Look what happened with X-men and Fantastic Four.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

TemporalFlux wrote:

Looking back, it’s apparent that Feige was hedging his bets - he knew this could happen.  From a pure story perspective, the divorce damage to the two studios’ plans could be mitigated with some skill and care.

The Sony/Disney split is unfortunate for the fans, but because Tony Stark is dead, it might work creatively. You could have Sam Wilson's Captain America in an MCU movie remark that recruiting high school students to fight crime was Tony's thing and that Sam will not be putting children in the line of fire.

You could have Peter in his Sony movie comment that he's no longer getting support from "the adults" ever since his "boss" passed away and that "they" just want Peter to get into college and leave superheroics behind.

TemporalFlux wrote:

The ones I feel sorry for are the actors, writers and director with the MCU’s Spider-man.  They’re caught between a rock and a hard place here; and Disney could dish out retribution on them if they help Sony succeed.  Disney and Marvel both have shown that kind of spite in the past. This could see a new era of hardball as Disney tries to choke Sony into giving Spider-man up.  They were already trying it with Fox by killing the merchandise and even comics related to Fantastic Four and X-men.  What happens when Sony makes their big Spidey movie with no merchandising to back it up?  Look what happened with X-men and Fantastic Four.

Perhaps I've misread my superhero history and TF would educate me in his inimitable TF fashion, but it doesn't seem to me that X-MEN and FANTASTIC FOUR suffered under FOX due to Marvel's lack of support. Marvel's antagonism seemed, at least to me, ineffective and symbolic. FOX crashed X-MEN and FF all by themselves.

Marvel indeed sought a partnership with FOX to produce those film properties and share the profits. FOX refused. Marvel retaliated by cancelling FANTASTIC FOUR (with a big series finale and a crossover event) and blocking any further merchandise (trading cards, original art, etc.). X-MEN sold too well to justify being cancelled, but Marvel adjusted their comic book universe to have INHUMANS replace X-MEN's mutants in their mythos and de-emphasized X-MEN in their output. However, FOX wouldn't have earned much from the mechandising for X-MEN and FANTASTIC FOUR anyway and I can't see them relying on Marvel Publishing to promote a feature film. FOX had its own marketing department for that.

Bryan Singer's degeneration has been well-documented and he turned in the mess that was APOCALYPSE. Josh Trank was unprofessional and unreliable on FANTASTIC FOUR and that was a mess as well. FOX did nothing to help matters with cutting action sequences and budgets shortly before filming. I haven't seen DARK PHOENIX, but APOCALYPSE had made the McAvoy/Fassbender team unwatchable for me and I wasn't inspired to see DARK PHOENIX no matter how pleasant and likable Simon Kinberg seems in public.

If APOCALYPSE, FANTASTIC FOUR and DARK PHOENIX had earned the same acclaim and success as DOFP and LOGAN, I don't know that Marvel's recalcitrance would have meant anything? All Marvel really did, in the end, was refuse to publish comic books or create merchandise that would promote FOX properties and that promotion was fairly meaningless whether it existed or not. Marvel lost that money, not FOX... unless I'm wrong? At this point, Isaac Perlmutter, the Marvel executive who led the charge against X-MEN and FF has been demoted to overseeing Marvel TV and Marvel Publishing specifically for such retaliatory behaviour.

Marvel Film is under Kevin Feige and while merchandising is technically under Perlmutter's purview, I can't see Disney withholding control of merchandising from Feige if he wanted it for a Marvel Studios project. I don't know how vindictive Feige might be towards Sony; there had to be a relationship there for the original 5 per cent of gross and all merchandising profits to exist. I'm not sure Perlmutter have a role in this fight now that he's been diminished at Marvel, ousted from Disney and left to TV and comics.

While Marvel owns the Spider-Man character, they sold the film rights to Sony (for far less than they should have) and did so in perpetuity so long as Sony puts out a product within a contractual window. Sony has every right to use what they bought to earn as much as they can. I would hope that Feige would respect that and aim for peaceful co-existence and declare that Sony and Marvel are both in the superhero business and their success is Marvel's success.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:

I don't see that changing if Spider-Man remains the Tom Holland incarnation but with no further references to the Avengers, but I also don't really understand HOW this character could function without the Avengers because he was created specifically to be on their team unlike Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield.

I agree that he was brought in with a desire and a "need" to be in the Avengers, but I think the end result of his arc (ending with Far From Home) was to show that he'd grown passed that.  That he's become his own hero who can handle things on his own.  I think he was humbled a bit by the events of Infinity War and Endgame, especially to the point where he was physically overwhelmed by Thanos' army, even with the "instant kill" mode on.

Enough has changed that, by Far From Home, he doesn't even want to respond when Nick Fury wants him.  I don't think he's done being Spider-Man because he's still patrolling the neighborhood up until his trip to Europe, but he's not interested in fighting another Avengers-level threat.  His confidence is back up by the end of the movie, and I think he's grown beyond a need to be in the Avengers.  I kinda see him like any of the other main Avengers - ready to accept the call if they need him but happy to be his own hero in the mean time.

So on the Spider-Man side, I think the solution is easy.  Peter's never going to get another call from the Avengers, and he's never going to be in a position where he thinks he needs help (like with the rest of the MCU heroes on their solo adventures).  The biggest hole to fill in his life is the fact that he's good friends with Happy Hogan and funded almost entirely by Stark.  I think there's a couple ways to fix this without outright saying it - I think they could simply write into the narrative something like:

NED - What do you mean you can't afford your rent?  Aren't you best friends with a billionaire?
PETER - I can't call him for everything.  I just want to make it on my own.

It's also possible to just swap out the money that Peter gets from being friends with Tony to money he gets from being friends with Harry or Norman Osborn.  Maybe Norman fills the mentor role of Tony, and they could walk around it without saying it (which is easily enough to do - just hire the Netflix Marvel series.  They were experts in dancing around continuity).

On the MCU side, I think it's even easier.  No one was really "friends" with Peter except for Tony.  There's absolutely no reason for Dr. Strange to need Peter's help, and I don't even know if Dr. Strange would consider asking for it.  There's a huge age gap between Peter and the rest of the Avengers, and I don't think any of them would reach out to him for help.  I don't think anyone dislikes Peter and they're happy to fight alongside him, but he's a kid.  Tony had no problem including Peter, but even that had a limit for him.  The rest wouldn't consider putting Peter in extra harm.

If they really want to stick it to Sony, they could say something like:

WAR MACHINE - We need all hands on deck.
SAM/CAP - What about the kid?
WAR MACHINE - Let him be a kid.  We need the rest of the hands on deck, though.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The choke of merchandising had a big effect on Fox in pure dollars.  My understanding is that the Fox deal saw them getting a piece of everything that had an X-men or Fantastic Four character associated.  So this T-shirt made Fox money:

https://dyn.media.forbiddenplanet.com/w … 9351_1.jpg

Where this T-shirt did not:

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/05/15 … s-t-shirt/

Sony sold all the merchandising rights for Spider-man back to Marvel in 2011, so the pure money issue isn’t there any longer; but merchandising has a phantom effect that is more subliminal than people may realize.  When Spider-man is in everything from your corn flakes to your happy meal, you’ve got Spider-man on the brain.  Everywhere you look, you’re reminded about the movie.  Without the merchandising, well...I hope you watch tv commercials or got to the theater in time to watch the trailers or saw that one picture on the bottom of your potato chip bag.

Disney does have a bigger trigger to pull here, though.  What if all future Marvel based video games are X-Box exclusive and Nintendo exclusive?  Sony was using the recent Spider-man game as a big part of their PS4 console advertising.   Buy a PS4 if you want to play Spider-man.  Maybe people won’t need that PS4 or PS5 for Marvel in the future.

Disney doesn’t have reason to worry about losing some money here; they’re about to replace any Spider-man losses with renewed X-men money (once they build it back up again).  Sony as a whole could face some pain they can’t afford if the movies do not continue to perform at current or better levels.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

People are going to get their way, eventually.  I don't know if it'll necessarily mean buying all of Sony to get Spider-Man back, but I think Disney will eventually see the value of buying Spider-Man back, even if it means paying some ungodly amount of money for him.  Sony has to have a price, and Disney will eventually have the money.

Again, I think this ended up being something that sorta works out for all parties.  As TF said, Disney/Marvel can lose one character because they're picking up a handful of them.  Phase Four was announced without a Spider-Man movie, and that wasn't the top story.  So while people love this version of Spider-Man, I don't think the MCU will suffer for it.

Sony keeps one of their biggest characters, and they can try again to build up a Spider-Man cinematic universe starting with Venom.  Whether they keep Holland or recast is anyone's guess, but I'd have to think a Maximum Carnage movie will do fairly well for Sony.  And I don't know if their Morbius movie is on track or not, but they can now put Spider-Man in any of their spin-off movies.  They can do a Sinister Six movie again.

They'll have to lower their expectations because the MCU Spider-Man movies had other draws (like Iron Man) to make them successful, but I would still think a solo Tom Holland film, MCU or not, would make a lot of money.

And, again, I don't think it's a hamper to the narrative on either end.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:

Perhaps I've misread my superhero history and TF would educate me in his inimitable TF fashion, but it doesn't seem to me that X-MEN and FANTASTIC FOUR suffered under FOX due to Marvel's lack of support. Marvel's antagonism seemed, at least to me, ineffective and symbolic. FOX crashed X-MEN and FF all by themselves.

TemporalFlux wrote:

The choke of merchandising had a big effect on Fox in pure dollars.  My understanding is that the Fox deal saw them getting a piece of everything that had an X-men or Fantastic Four character associated.  So this T-shirt made Fox money:

https://dyn.media.forbiddenplanet.com/w … 9351_1.jpg

Where this T-shirt did not:

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/05/15 … s-t-shirt/

Sony sold all the merchandising rights for Spider-man back to Marvel in 2011, so the pure money issue isn’t there any longer; but merchandising has a phantom effect that is more subliminal than people may realize.  When Spider-man is in everything from your corn flakes to your happy meal, you’ve got Spider-man on the brain.  Everywhere you look, you’re reminded about the movie.  Without the merchandising, well...I hope you watch tv commercials or got to the theater in time to watch the trailers or saw that one picture on the bottom of your potato chip bag.

Thanks, Temporal Flux! It's always an education.

TF's correction speaks to something else a novelist once told me about STAR TREK novels: while the individual writers and editors may care about the content, from a corporate standpoint, it's about having the logo on some shelves whether those shelves are in bookstores or clothing shops or junk food packages. ViacomCBS doesn't really care about what's under the cover or the wrapping. I might be deeply concerned with the novel THE GOOD THAT MEN DO revealing that Trip Tucker's death in ENTERPRISE was a historical fraud to obscure his investigation into Romulan efforts to start a war, but the corporation cares about the content about as much as Slider_Quinn21 (who sees such things with benign indifference and points out that these media tie-ins are not essential and not canonical).

That said, I do wish people wouldn't get so up in arms about Spider-Man returning to Sony. The hashtags, the protests, the marches -- it's a bit much over a corporate property moving from one massive conglomerate to another one down the street. I know we all obsess over these things for fun and I've written absurd amounts of text on Quinn Mallory who is ultimately an asset on the NBCUniversal balance sheet, and I've put in ridiculous amounts of time writing scripts and...

Actually, I don't see how my fixation on Quinn is any different from people getting fixated on Spider-Man except it's an issue of corporate ownership. I raised hell over Quinn's portrayal in "Mother and Child," but this is like getting upset because SLIDERS is moving from FOX to Sci-Fi and no longer being able to cross over with THE X-FILES after numerous past adventures with Mulder and Scully. But then again, I would get upset over no longer getting to see the Professor tell Mulder off for coming up with theories before facts and Quinn having a juvenile crush on Scully.

There was a point to this rambling, but I've completely cancelled myself out.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I see positives and negatives with a separation of Sony and Disney.

With Disney, what they’ve really done with the Spider-man movies is create a movie series based on the comic Marvel Team-Up.  In that series, every issue featured Spidey teamed up with some other random Marvel hero.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/d/d2/Marvel_Team-Up_Vol_1_49.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20181025050103

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/9/9a/Marvel_Team-Up_Vol_1_83.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20180911043843

But on Marvel’s other properties, Disney has given the solo hero and his family a chance to shine alone.

With Sony, they focus on the solo hero and let him shine; but the quality is hit or miss.  The worrying part is that Rothman is running Sony.  A short history of Rothman:

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/uv2yO

And that list doesn’t even mention X-men Origins Wolverine.

So what you’re likely to see now with a Sony Spider-man is more like a “what if Fox had made Spider-man?”  That point really isn’t being talked up as much as it should be.

Picking between the two, I would probably rather Spider-man stay with Disney; but I’m also not happy with how they seem to only ever present Spidey as a guest star.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Tom Rothman's handling of the X-MEN franchise and superheroes with FOX is indefensible. The era in which he made a lot of these moves, however, was when superheroes were viewed with derision after BATMAN AND ROBIN. The technology wasn't available to render the spandex costumes of comics with 3D printed texture that matched the contours of the actors. The filming methods of the era made hypersaturated colours like the yellow of the X-Men's costumes or the blue of Superman's tights look flickeringly overbright.

Spider-Man's face, a vivid, elastic surface of human emotion in the comics, was an inflexible statue in live action. I think of this as the SMALLVILLE and UNBREAKABLE era where the film and TV avoided overtly depicting superheroics because they could not be rendered well onscreen. Rothman was working on the X-MEN in this time period when fantasy fiction seemed distant from the semi-plausibility of live action. He had in his hands the film rights to X-MEN and FANTASTIC FOUR and he used them the way studios use video game properties: he produced some shabby product before expecting he'd sell them back to the original copyright holders.

That's not the era Rothman's working in now. Rothman now exists in a world where on his watch, INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE offered a diverse and vivid canvas for Spider-Man characters as well as incredible profit. Where the two live-action SPIDER-MAN films he worked on have been massive earners. Superheroes have proven themselves at box office without diluting them or apologizing for their absurdities or refusing to show them in their costumes or using their powers.

The tech is there and there's money to be earned and Rothman wants that money. The same way he wanted some money for producing some films to make a quick return on a small investment before selling back the rights for a little more money. He might now see the value of Spider-Man as a massive franchise to be fostered and nurtured for what will be massive amounts of money as opposed to the smaller earnings he chased down before. We all have the capacity for the most incredible change. We can evolve into people who now adore superheroes while still staying true to our natures as people who are mostly driven by money. I'm not saying Rothman has changed, but the box office of HOMECOMING and FAR FROM HOME could have done something.

Or we'll get SPIDER-MAN: THE LAST STAND and ARACHNID ORIGINS: PARKER and DARK SPIDER followed by a NEW WEBSPINNERS movie that's so bad that the studio decides not to release it and dumps it on iTunes. But I prefer to be an optimist.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I feel like the solution to the Spider-Man issue is rather simple (but I usually do).  I'd give Disney the option to use Spidey for Avengers movies and Sony can make solo outings.  Sony can prove they can make good solo movies, and Marvel can use him for their big team-up movies.  I'd allow Sony to make references to the Avengers and the snap and his past adventures, but they could let Peter stand on his own and tell his own stories.  Sony would get 100% from these movies and then they'd get some percentage of the Avengers movies.  Even if they got something like the 5% that they gave Disney for Avengers movies, that'd still be a hundred million dollars potentially.

So it's a version of the deal they have for the Hulk if Universal wanted to make Hulk solo movies.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

An interesting thought - is the Dark Phoenix bomb the reason that the Spidey deal fell apart?  Not something one would logically connect up, but the article makes some sense.

https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/08/23 … e-failure/

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I like to blame everything that's ever gone wrong on DARK PHOENIX. My coffeemaker got clogged with grounds this morning; I blame DARK PHOENIX. ;-)

It could be true, but it's corporate nature to blame any problems on a previous regime.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I feel like the solution to the Spider-Man issue is rather simple (but I usually do).  I'd give Disney the option to use Spidey for Avengers movies and Sony can make solo outings.  Sony can prove they can make good solo movies, and Marvel can use him for their big team-up movies.  I'd allow Sony to make references to the Avengers and the snap and his past adventures, but they could let Peter stand on his own and tell his own stories.  Sony would get 100% from these movies and then they'd get some percentage of the Avengers movies.  Even if they got something like the 5% that they gave Disney for Avengers movies, that'd still be a hundred million dollars potentially.

So it's a version of the deal they have for the Hulk if Universal wanted to make Hulk solo movies.

Thinking about this -- creatively, if Marvel Film agreed to avoid telling any stories that had major impact on New York City, then Sony's SPIDER-MAN films could carry on as though it's in the Marvel Cinematic Universe's New York City. Sony has the rights to Spider-Man and his cast of friends and enemies.

Most of Spider-Man's villains are situated in New York City. Sony could do whatever they wanted so long as their movies never ventured outside the five boroughs and Marvel could politely agree not to destroy planet Earth.

However, Marvel Film (Marvel Studios) is currently refusing to even acknowledge the existence of Marvel TV (Marvel Entertainment) with the writing staff of the Netflix and ABC and Hulu shows only knowing what happens in the movies when they attend the premieres, so I can't see Marvel Film showing any grace to a rival studio when they're coldly indifferent to their office mates in the next cubicle.

When VENOM came out, it was part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or at least Sony producer Amy Pascal said it was in a joint interview with Kevin Feige and Kevin Feige reacted with astonishment. In a follow-up, Feige said that only Sony's Spider-Man films were in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that VENOM was a Sony project and had nothing to do with Marvel.

Pascal in turn said that she'd meant that VENOM was drawn from the Marvel comic book universe, but that all the Sony films featuring Spider-Man adjacent characters were set in the same world as the Marvel films even if they'd never be seen in a Marvel movie. Feige said that Pascal's explanation was "perfect" and it seems to be Feige's attitude to the Netflix, Hulu and ABC shows (although AGENT CARTER seems to get a special exemption from being exempted).

The key point of interest, however, is that whatever arrangement between Marvel Film and Sony existed, it allowed Marvel to bar Sony from featuring Tom Holland or Spider-Man in VENOM. Sony would have absolutely featured Spidey in their VENOM movie unless they couldn't; my guess would be that Holland's contract was specifically for CIVIL WAR, HOMECOMING, ENDGAME, INFINITY WAR, FAR FROM HOME and two more sequels -- and Marvel could prevent that from being expanded to Sony's spin-offs in which they had neither ownership nor profit. Marvel, fairly or not, was able to restrict Sony from fully making use of its Marvel characters (Venom, Morbius, Silver Sable, Black Cat) by withholding Holland and making them seem illegitimate.

It doesn't seem like Marvel and Sony will coordinate. I think we may have to see future Spider-Man films as being set in a parallel universe and featuring, in SLIDERS parlance, a double of Tom Holland's Spider-Man in a Sony variant of the Marvel Cinematic Universe where, for whatever reason, the AVENGERS characters and story elements do not appear again even if their impact on Holland's character remains intact.

It reminds me of how DAREDEVIL refers to the Chitauri invasion in AVENGERS, but only in the vaguest of terms, calling it "The Incident." Meanwhile, the Avengers Tower is inexplicably absent from the New York City skyline. And in LUKE CAGE, street vendors are selling videos of the Hulk/Abomination fight from INCREDIBLE HULK, but we have to assume that those videos would show Mark Ruffalo instead of Edward Norton and that the fight would be set on the same streets we saw in LUKE CAGE instead of the generic Canadian city that passed for Harlem in the movie. Except in this case, DAREDEVIL and LUKE CAGE were set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Sony's SPIDER-MAN films won't be on account of branding.

Wow. Even DAREDEVIL and LUKE CAGE can't seem to make clear connections to AVENGERS and INCREDIBLE HULK despite explicit references and DD and LC are part of the Marvel family. What chance does Sony have as the competition?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

From my understanding, the Sony, Venomverse, makes no mention of Spiderman specificaly because Sony was afraid of any character that was from the Spiderman universe that they own,  but used in any movie in the joint universe could potential y lead to Disney having a stake in the ownership for story development reasons.


Honestly cant ame Sony, the deal was beneficial to Disney, as th hey invest very little and get 5 percent off the top.  Plus, Sony still has no idea I'd their Spiderman universe movies will work, Sony hasn't had a true bomb yet.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

No, Tom Holland filmed a scene as Peter Parker for VENOM. He was seen on set for one day of filming. It’s now been reported that Marvel told Sony to cut the scene. Marvel didn’t want VENOM validated as part of the MCU and their consultancy agreement forced Sony to comply.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I wonder if they'll release the scene, either in Venom 2 or in between to get people excited.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I’m still wondering if Disney will use the nuclear option.  Disney has full tv rights to Spider-man (Sony sold them in 2011); so in theory, they could make a Holland Spider-man show for Disney+ while Sony continues making their separate Holland movies.

Holland was playing coy in a recent interview about him doing something for tv soon - didn’t say what.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

That's another thing that confuses me. Sony announced that they would be bringing SPIDER-VERSE style productions to television. Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE, HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER) would be showrunners. But Marvel holds the TV rights to Spider-Man. Was Sony's announcement based on anticipating that the Marvel consultancy would continue? Is the announcement now null and void?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Found this which sheds some light on things:

https://screenrant.com/spiderman-tv-rig … explained/

According to the contract, Sony's rights encompass the following areas:

Live-action and animated movies

Live-action TV series

Animated series with episodes longer than 44 minutes

So Disney’s tv rights are much more limited than I thought; but they do have the plum spot for animated series.  An hour long animated series (accounting for commercials) isn’t going to be very appealing to networks.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Disney already does a Spider-Man cartoon (and has consistently done one, I believe).  Outside of What If?, which is animated for logistical reasons, I imagine...I don't know if there's a market for an in-canon Spider-Man MCU show, even if Tom Holland does it.

If I were Kevin Feige, I wouldn't go nuclear with Spider-Man.  I'd let them do their own thing, focus on the X-Men and the Fantastic Four as new playthings, and wait for Sony to implode again.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Sony and Marvel have come to an agreement.  Spider-Man 3 (in the MCU) will come out July 16, 2021 with both Sony and Marvel producing.

I think it could've worked on it's own and we'll probably still get Venom in the MCU, but I'm glad he's back.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I finally got around to watching FAR FROM HOME today. It's a fun movie. Tom Holland and Zendaya are cute together. And FAR FROM HOME completely entangles Peter Parker in the Marvel Cinematic Universe from exploring his successorship to Tony Stark to intertwining Happy Hogan into the Parker family and creating a cliffhanger that demands the involvement of Stark's company and the Avengers. So, I think it's for the best that Sony and Marvel came to an arrangement.

I don't think Spider-Man needs to exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but Tom Holland's Spider-Man was made specifically to function as part of the Avengers and the narrative distance that allows Daredevil and Daisy Johnson to steer clear of the Marvel movies wouldn't work for a version of Peter Parker who's constantly being directed by Nick Fury.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:

I finally got around to watching FAR FROM HOME today. It's a fun movie. Tom Holland and Zendaya are cute together. And FAR FROM HOME completely entangles Peter Parker in the Marvel Cinematic Universe from exploring his successorship to Tony Stark to intertwining Happy Hogan into the Parker family and creating a cliffhanger that demands the involvement of Stark's company and the Avengers. So, I think it's for the best that Sony and Marvel came to an arrangement.

I don't think Spider-Man needs to exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but Tom Holland's Spider-Man was made specifically to function as part of the Avengers and the narrative distance that allows Daredevil and Daisy Johnson to steer clear of the Marvel movies wouldn't work for a version of Peter Parker who's constantly being directed by Nick Fury.

I agree to a point.  Obviously the MCU Spider-Man idolizes Iron Man and the Avengers, and to have him no longer be able to reference them at all would be damaging.

But consider this.  Let's say a deal didn't get done and Spider-Man is on his own.  Well, based on the end of Far From Home, that's exactly the position Spider-Man is in.  On his own.  If Mysterio's plan worked, Spider-Man would be a fugitive.  So maybe he calls someone (off-screen and without referencing their name) and finds out that no one is able to help him.  It's too hot.  So he's on his own.  Fury can't help (maybe say "The Director").  The Avengers can't help (maybe say "The Team").  So he's on his own.

I guess the hardest part would be whether or not they could reference the events of Far From Home and Mysterio himself.  If so, they'd be good. If not, it'd be way more complicated.

But either way, I'm glad it worked out.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

This is some goofball geekery that may be a better fit for the RANDOM THOUGHTS thread. But I've been re-reading Spider-Man comics on my tablet on the treadmill and I was typing all this up Saturday night as part of my reading journal. The Spider-Man comic books once found themselves in a state of being unsure of how to refer to the past and how much of it had happened (or not happened).

New Avengers: In 2006, Peter was on top of the world. His marriage had Mary Jane working with him as an equal in his Spider-Man career. Spidey had joined the Avengers and was being mentored by Tony Stark. His job as a high school science teacher was fulfilling. He'd let Aunt May in on the secret and she had been a source of strength and support. And he joined the Pro-Registration side in CIVIL WAR, unmasking on live TV to support the new law and gaining the respect he'd always lacked from law enforcement and the government. In addition, due to a mystical event where Peter embraced his inner spider, he now had organic webshooters, acidic stingers he could use to stab enemies, the ability to communicate with spiders and night vision. Peter was happy. And he barely ever thought about Harry Osborn, his old college friend who had died of a drug overdose.

Back in Black: In 2007, Peter was in a dark time. In the aftermath of CIVIL WAR, Peter was a fugitive as an unlicensed superhero who chose Captain America's (losing) side. Also, Peter had unmasked and was now a target on all sides. When Peter joined Captain America, his wife Mary Jane and Aunt May escaped Avengers Tower with him and then Aunt May got shot and was dying in a hospital.

All of this also made it hard for Peter to handle his day job as a high school science teacher.

This led into BACK IN BLACK, a half-a-year branding title across all the SPIDER-MAN titles. In AMAZING SPIDER-MAN by J. Michael Straczynski (BABYLON 5), Peter identifies Aunt May's would-be assassin as a Kingpin thug and puts on the black costume to take revenge. He beats the Kingpin to an inch of his life and vows to execute him if Aunt May dies.

In FRIENDLY NEIGHBOURHOOD SPIDER-MAN by comics veteran Peter David, Peter impersonates his own cousin, Ben Reilly (a clone of Peter who dyed his hair blonde and then died), and resumes his teaching job as his own substitute. And in SENSATIONAL SPIDER-MAN by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa (RIVERDALE), Peter attempts to continue fighting crime while being hunted by the police and the official Avengers and while Aunt May is dying.

The AMAZING issues end with Aunt May's identity about to be exposed which will summon the police as she is an accomplice to Peter's crimes against the Superhero Registration Act. Peter and Mary Jane fake paperwork, impersonate paramedics, steal an ambulance and transfer Aunt May to another hospital. Afterwards, Peter realizes that he has committed fraud, grand theft auto, stolen paperwork, resisted arrest, and become the very thing he became Spider-Man to fight. He has become a criminal.

One More Day: BACK IN BLACK leads into ONE MORE DAY (by Straczynski) where Aunt May is deemed terminal. Desperate to save her, Spider-Man asks for Dr. Strange's help and Strange casts a spell allowing Peter to manifest at multiple points in the Marvel Universe to ask everyone he can for help -- Dr. Doom, Beast, every magician and scientist -- and they all tell him that Aunt May is too far gone to help.

The Source: Leaving Dr. Strange's house in distress, Peter is approached by Mephisto, the Marvel version of the devil. Mephisto tells Peter that he can save Aunt May at a price. The price is the source of Peter's strength and joy, the core of not only his power, but his will, the very thing that gives him light in the darkest moments, the force that sustains him against all odds. Mephisto tells Peter that he wants his marriage. After much deliberation between Peter and Mary Jane, Mary Jane stipulates that in addition to saving Aunt May, Mephisto must also erase all public knowledge of Spider-Man's true identity. Mephisto agrees and Peter and Mary Jane embrace for the final hours before their reality is rewritten.

Time Jump: Peter wakes up to find himself in Aunt May's house, in his bedroom as she wakes him up (which is weird because the house was burned down in a previous storyline). It seems to be several months after the previous scene and Peter doesn't seem concerned; the abrupt time jump is experienced by the reader but not Peter. It's established: Spider-Man is an unregistered fugitive from the law and Peter is unmarried, jobless and borderline homeless. Aunt May once again doesn't know that Peter is Spider-Man.

Peter gets on his bike, saying he has an event. He visits a massive penthouse apartment for a reunion party -- welcoming back Harry Osborn (who is somehow alive again). Everyone applauds Harry who says he has been in rehab facilities in Europe for a long time and is now celebrating his sobriety with a glass of water. Peter spots Mary Jane at the party who abruptly leaves.

Confusion: The next storyline, BRAND NEW DAY (2008), had Peter fighting crime. He was using mechanical web shooters. He made no reference to the stingers or the night vision or talking to spiders. When he ran out of web fluid, he didn't switch to organics. It was unclear what had happened: how much had removing Peter and Mary Jane's marriage altered their history? Why had they broken up? Why was Harry alive again? How long had he been alive? How was Aunt May's house restored after the second Molten Man had burned it down? It also wasn't clear: how far did the erasure of Peter's unmasking extend? How much of Spider-Man's continuity had been altered?

Gradual Answers: These questions remained until 2009. Harry and Peter go on a roadtrip and Peter notes that since SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN #200 (published in 1993), Harry was thought dead. Harry explains that his father faked his death to get him into rehab in Europe and a flashback shows Harry returning to New York City, surprising Peter and Aunt May with a return gift: he paid for Aunt May's home to be rebuilt.

Later, Spider-Man has a battle with the Green Goblin (Norman Osborn, who knew Peter's identity). Osborn is furious: he somehow cannot remember who Spider-Man used to be and Spider-Man taunts him, saying that things are different now: Osborn has no idea who Spider-Man is and Spider-Man knows everything about him.

Then, in an adventure with the Fantastic Four, the Human Torch (one of Spider-Man's very good friends) realizes that he remembers Spider-Man unmasking to him and befriending him -- but he can no longer remember who the face was beneath the mask. That memory has been wiped away. In fact, all written and digital record of Spider-Man's unmasking has been strangely altered to obscure Spider-Man's real name and face. Spider-Man explains that with help from a "friend," a psychic blindspot has been created around the Peter Parker identity.

Details: In 2010, we get a detailed flashback finally to explain the memory situation. ONE MOMENT IN TIME flashes back to the wedding day for Peter and Mary Jane: in this altered version of events, a criminal that Spidey captured is released by a magical red bird (Mephisto). This criminal later knocks Spider-Man unconscious with a lucky shot on Peter's wedding day. Mary Jane waits at the altar and Peter, lying in an alley, never arrives. Later, Mary Jane forgives Peter but tells him she doesn't want to marry Spider-Man and asks him not to ask for her hand again or to have children with her unless he is ready to give up the mask.

All subsequent stories seem to take place as originally published -- except Peter and Mary Jane were dating/living together but unmarried. (This does raise an issue: during the CLONE SAGA of 1994, Mary Jane got pregnant and was overjoyed and was devastated when she lost the baby in 1996. But ONE MOMENT declares she wouldn't have wanted to have a child. In an interview, writer Joe Quesada said that in his mind, Mary Jane's pregnancy was removed from continuity, but everything else remains, although this is not explicit in the comics themselves.)

Let's Do This One More Time: We then get an alternate version of ONE MORE DAY in flashback. This time, a dying Aunt May's heart stops beating, but then she miraculously revives. It seems to be a miracle (or the intervention of Mephisto). Peter once again leaves the hospital to visit Dr. Strange, but this time, instead of asking for Dr. Strange to save Aunt May, he asks Strange to erase all knowledge of his secret identity. Strange consults with Reed Richards and Tony Stark who agree that Peter deserves a second chance; they also describe how they have in the past unrevealed secret identities with repurposed mind control machines and magic.

Reed and Tony create a biotechnological virus augmented by Dr. Strange's magic that erases all records and memories of Peter as Spider-Man while keeping Peter in a magic bubble so only he will retain his memory of Spider-Man's true name and face. Peter grabs Mary Jane and yanks her into the bubble as well. Afterwards, Peter tells Mary Jane they're now safe, but Mary Jane is furious with him -- after the traumatizing events of BACK IN BLACK, Mary Jane wishes that Peter had allowed her to forget Spider-Man's identity along with the rest of the world or at least asked her what she wanted. She breaks up with him and leaves New York. Continuity was indeed altered only in small, isolated ways. All is explained...

Except for why the organic web shooters disappeared and why Peter doesn't have the additional spider-powers. During this storyline, however, the lettercolumn has an editor's response asking about this and the editor replied: "Those other powers really only exhibited themselves under certain circumstances. They weren't extra powers Peter could call up whenever he wanted, so whether or not they've disappeared for good is a story waiting to be told."

Throwaway: That's a strange response because in the 2011 SPIDER-ISLAND story, the entire population of Manhattan gets spider-powers and they all get organic web shooters. At one point, Peter tells a friend who has run out of organic webbing to fire that she needs to eat starchy foods to replenish -- but he doesn't have the organics himself. That said, nobody during SPIDER-ISLAND manifests stingers or talking to spiders or night vision or whatnot. In 2013, there's finally a throwaway explanation in SCARLET SPIDER #14, a title focused on a clone of Peter Parker named Kaine. Kaine was a serial killer in a decaying clone body, but the SPIDER-ISLAND storyline restored his body and sanity and took away his homicidal behaviour.

Kaine encounters a mystical spider entity, the same one that gave Peter those extra powers. The entity tells Kaine that it originally chose Peter Parker as its avatar, hence all those extra powers, but that Peter rejected 'the spider' in time and embraced 'the man,' thus losing those powers -- powers which Kaine could now claim if he wanted. It's two lines of dialogue to resolve an outstanding question from five years ago and Peter Parker doesn't even appear in this issue. At last, in 2013, we finally have all the answers to questions raised in 2008.

I guess we don't have to worry about it now, but I wondered if a Sony, de-Marvelized Tom Holland could have ended up in a similar situation of excellent stories and artistry being marred by confusion over what did or didn't happen in the past.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

My GOD. I'm finishing off the last run of Dan Slott's AMAZING SPIDER-MAN and the villain of the big story turns out to be BEN REILLY from the CLONE SAGA. This SPIDER-MAN plot twist is the SLIDERS equivalent of having a 2020 era Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo picking up the timer for a new round of adventures while trying to figure out who's been restoring Kromagg manta ships and using them to attack Earths and the villain turns out to be Colin Mallory.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Instead of talking about THE CLONE CONSPIRACY and how it relates to SLIDERS, I am instead talking about VARIETY which reports that Marvel TV is likely to be shut down with Marvel Studios (the film division) taking over all TV projects.

https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/marvel … 203349869/

Signs of this have already appeared with Marvel Entertainment developing BLADE and GHOST RIDER only for Kevin Feige's division to step in and withdraw those characters from becoming Hulu shows. If TV is absorbed into Marvel Studios, the rest of Marvel Entertainment could carry on as the merchandising and publishing wing -- but I can't help but think it's time for Marvel Entertainment to come fully under the Disney banner. It was absurd to see them split off in the first place and it only happened because Feige refused to continue working for Marvel under his old boss who owned too much stock to be fired but could be reassigned to TV and the comics and trading cards and video games and whatnot.

AGENTS OF SHIELD has done well. DAREDEVIL's first and third seasons were great. LUKE CAGE was very strong. JESSICA JONES was terrific. IRON FIST had a good second year. THE PUNISHER series was professional and watchable. DEFENDERS had a very good episode set in a restaurant. But it's clear that the TV shows exist at a remove from the films and it's silly, counter-productive and self-sabotaging for Marvel to compete with Marvel. Marvel already has Sony for that. Okay, this was a good use of a lunch break. Back to my workstation!

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's interesting to see how comics mine bad stories for good ones and draw on a publishing history that isn't always a point of pride -- something that SLIDERS fanfic has always done as well. The fascinating thing is how modern Spider-Man comic books resemble SLIDERS fanfic because modern Spider-Man comics are fan fiction -- written decades after the original Spider-Man stories, produced by fans who grew up with this character and now want to imitate, update and expand his world.

Professional Fanfic: The goal isn't to offer an original vision but instead to subsume one's own style and interests into the framework of a Spider-Man story while making the old formula relevant to the present day. And because it's fan fiction, Spider-Man comics will inevitably draw on fan familiarity with the past even if there may be periods of avoiding it.

Colin Mallory is a strangely popular character in SLIDERS fandom. I don't get it, and I have the same polite confusion towards another inordinately popular character in Spider-Man stories -- the character of Ben Reilly.

The Exodus - Part I: SPIDER-MAN: THE CLONE SAGA (1994 - 1997) is one of the worst and most-reviled stories in Spider-Man's publishing history, the SLIDERS equivalent of having Earth Prime invaded by Kromaggs and turning Quinn into Kal-El of Kromagg Prime while Wade is sent to a rape camp.

Back in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #149 (1975), a mad scientist cloned Peter Parker. The story ended with the clone dead. 1994's CLONE SAGA revealed that the clone had actually survived, gone travelling across America and taken on the name Ben Reilly. In this 1994 story, Ben returns with a shocking discovery: he is the original and Peter was the clone. In addition, Mary Jane is pregnant.

Peter Parker decides to retire as Spider-Man, move to Portland, and he gives Ben Reilly his costume and asks him to continue as the real Spider-Man in New York City.

2002 era Marvel President Bill Jemas would look back at THE CLONE SAGA and describe as the story where Spider-Man's sales went from 400,000 copies a month to 48,000 a month.

The Exodus - Part II: Fans were furious that almost 20 years of stories were with a clone. That Peter was being presented as an imposter. That he was being replaced in his own book with all the ceremony of Kari Wuhrer taking John Rhys-Davies' spot and with an incredibly convoluted explanation to validate Ben akin to Robert Floyd playing Jerry O'Connell's role.

Marvel Publishing had been attempting to re-present a single, young, unmarried Spider-Man and thought Ben could serve while the married Peter was moved offstage, turning Spider-Man into a legacy hero like the Flash and Green Lantern.

However, Marvel soon found that star writers and artists they'd hired to write SPIDER-MAN titles were now seeking to leave, not wanting to write and draw Ben Reilly. Fans accepted Ben Reilly as a fun alternative to the increasingly serious and dour Peter Parker, but they didn't accept Reilly AS Peter Parker and certainly not as Spider-Man.

In addition, the storyline was severely overstretched with all the 'intrigue' over whether Peter or Ben was the clone going from 1994 - 1997 with at least one SPIDER-MAN comic a week. It was as if Bill Dial had written all of these comics with his trademark approach of padding out scripts with characters repeating information already established.

Revelations: Eventually, Marvel elected to undo the entire storyline in 1997. Peter and Mary Jane returned to New York City. Mary Jane miscarried the baby. Peter and Ben developed a close, brotherly bond. Norman Osborn revealed that he had tricked Ben into thinking himself the original so that Peter, thinking himself the clone, might go insane. Osborn was furious that Peter hadn't fallen apart and then killed Ben. Peter threw a bag of pumpkin bombs into Osborn and didn't hear from Osborn for a few months.

Peter resumed his role as Spider-Man. And since then, THE CLONE SAGA has been largely avoided: writers did their best not to mention Ben Reilly and tried not to refer to the storyline at all. Ben was referred to once in 2004 as one of Osborn's victims with no specifics. Aside from that, it was like he'd never existed.

Oh Brother: Which made a 2009 storyline quite a shock where Peter is attacked by a villain called Velociraptor. Peter changes to Spider-Man, demands to know why Velociraptor is hunting Peter. Velociraptor says that Peter Parker is an alias for the man named Ben Reilly. Spider-Man freezes in the middle of this fight, shocked, thinking on how he hasn't heard Ben's name in years. "You moron!" Spider-Man shouts at Velociraptor who is seeking to settle a score with Ben after encountering him during Ben's wanderings across America. "Ben Reilly's dead!"

Applied Physics: A full page of flashbacks unfolds, showing panels from the CLONE SAGA, stories that hadn't been spoken of in 12 years. There was a shocking sense of sentimentality as for the first time in over a decade, Spider-Man is permitted to remember Ben Reilly and how much his clone brother meant to him and how they were good friends and allies and how much Peter mourned Ben's loss (silently, I guess).

And it meant a lot to fans who missed Ben even if they hated the four year (!!!) CLONE SAGA arc. It acknowledged the positive memories of the CLONE SAGA, specifically Ben, and focused on his legacy while not delving into the who's the clone/who's the original conflict.

This is something you can only do in comic books where characters barely age despite the passage of decades. Stories that happened during the Ford US presidency can be treated like they happened a couple years ago. In contrast, I can't imagine the 2020 season of STAR TREK featuring Captain Kirk following up on the death of his brother back in 1967.

To Catch a Slider: It makes me wonder how a present day Quinn would think of Colin. Colin was a clone. A clone of Quinn. There was never a real Colin Mallory, just an altered Kromagg spy brainwashed into thinking himself Quinn Mallory's brother. Assuming that Quinn was recovered from quantum limbo after "The Seer" and learned the truth, what would he do? Would he attempt to recover the unstuck Colin? Or would he leave him unstuck, unable to be certain that the Kromagg sleeper programming wouldn't reassert itself once Colin were recovered?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Another subsequent CLONE SAGA sequel story is THE CLONE CONSPIRACY (2016). In this tale, numerous Spider-Man allies and villains are recruited by the Jackal, the mad scientist who orginally cloned Peter. The Jackal offers them a price they can't refuse: the resurrection of loved ones they've lost.

Common Ground: Electro accidentally electrocuted his girlfriend; she is restored. J. Jonah Jameson is reunited with his dead wife Marla and his foster daughter Mattie. There's also the Lizard's dead son, Rhino's wife, just about everyone Spider-Man ever failed to save is returned. The Jackal then starts resurrecting dead Spider-Man foes and explains that no one is a clone; all these reanimated people have been restored from their original remains with their full memories, with a cloning process merely restoring their bodies.

And each reanimated individual must regularly take a pill or their body will degrade, allowing the Jackal to control them. Spider-Man confronts the Jackal, certain that this is another plot to end the world with another genetic bomb or cloning apocalypse or a virus.

The Other Slide of Darkness: But the Jackal unmasks to reveal that this isn't the Jackal at all -- it's Ben Reilly. Reilly reveals that the Jackal took his remains (back in 1997) and has been experimenting on reviving the dead. The Jackal killed and revived Reilly 24 times, making Reilly relive the trauma until Reilly broke out of his cell and overpowered the Jackal -- and Reilly has now taken control of the Jackal's technology and is seeking to conquer death.

Reilly offers Peter a price to for Peter's loyalty: Colin offers to resurrect Michael Mallory so that Quinn can apologize to his father for the terrible things he said before Mr. Mallory died in that car accident. I mean -- Reilly offers to resurrect Uncle Ben for Peter and absolve him of his guilt.

Dead Man Sliding: Reilly is obsessed with conquering death. He wants to save the world by redeeming every supervillain by bringing back all their victims, restoring hope by reuniting everyone with their loved ones, and to offer everyone a chance to be reborn (yes, he says "reborn"). But then it turns out that Reilly's plan is specifically to kill everyone and reanimate them, partially to heal them of all illnesses physical and mental, but also to control them through their dependency upon his pills.

The trauma of his 24 resurrections has left Reilly mentally scarred and Peter points out that Reilly has held off from resurrecting Uncle Ben specifically because Uncle Ben would tell Reilly that he's wrong.

My Brother's Keeper: In the ensuing fight, Spider-Man succeeds in stopping Reilly, most of Reilly's reanimated degrade and dissipate into dust, and Quinn is forced to deal with knowing that his clone -- his brother -- is now out there and his enemy. I mean. Spider-Man is forced to confront that his clone -- his brother -- is still out there and has been driven mad by his ordeals.

It makes me wonder -- if Colin came back and encountered a restored Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo, what would his role be now? I suppose he'd be an inverted mirror of Quinn the way Ben Reilly has become a twisted reflection of Peter Parker.

Net Worth: Ben Reilly and Colin Mallory are two characters that SPIDER-MAN and SLIDERS fans seem inordinately fond of. Not sure why, but I accept that this is the case. In various test audience screenings, Colin consistently scored well with women to whom the character appealed whereas Quinn was considered bland, much as Reilly was well-liked despite the catastrophes of his stories.

Ben and Colin are literally clones of the lead character and, within the narrative, they're younger variants who (needlessly?) duplicate what the original already provides. That said, affection for characters goes well beyond utility.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Rumors suggesting that Spidey Marvel Team-Up will continue - this time with Doctor Strange:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/cap … iderman-3/

And that rumor of a Spidey appearance in Captain Marvel 2 persists.  The previous (seemingly slanted) rumor had Spidey appearing only as a screw-up that Captain Marvel constantly has to save.  The slant of the rumor was that she would also be very emasculating to Spidey during all of this to make herself and female empowerment look better.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainmen … -mcu.html/

It is a shame, really.  People should be laughing with Spidey and not laughing at Spidey.  Maybe Sony does need to just take full control and cut Marvel out.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Hmmm, the Captain Marvel stuff is odd.  If you want to do that, I wouldn't think you'd waste a Tom Holland appearance.

The Doctor Strange rumor makes sense, though.  I thought they had chemistry in the little bit we saw them together, and I think combining those two worlds would be great.  And there's also the idea that Strange could undo the whole Peter's identity thing.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

TemporalFlux wrote:

And that rumor of a Spidey appearance in Captain Marvel 2 persists.  The previous (seemingly slanted) rumor had Spidey appearing only as a screw-up that Captain Marvel constantly has to save.  The slant of the rumor was that she would also be very emasculating to Spidey during all of this to make herself and female empowerment look better.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainmen … -mcu.html/

It is a shame, really.  People should be laughing with Spidey and not laughing at Spidey.  Maybe Sony does need to just take full control and cut Marvel out.

Sony should cut Marvel out because... there are rumours? Wouldn’t there be rumours regardless?

The last Kevin Feige spoke of CAPTAIN MARVEL II, he said he wanted to explore Carol’s adventures in space between her first film and ENDGAME. Unless Tom Holland’s Peter gets the Captain Universe powers, I don’t think Spider-Man would have a role. We’ll see, but given the overwhelmingly positive reaction to HOMECOMING and FAR FROM HOME, why should a rumour suddenly have people who’ve enjoyed the Feige/Holland era suddenly declare Feige doesn’t know the character? You’ve lost me on this one, although your SPIDER-MAN TEAM UP point is certainly irrefutable.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:
TemporalFlux wrote:

And that rumor of a Spidey appearance in Captain Marvel 2 persists.  The previous (seemingly slanted) rumor had Spidey appearing only as a screw-up that Captain Marvel constantly has to save.  The slant of the rumor was that she would also be very emasculating to Spidey during all of this to make herself and female empowerment look better.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainmen … -mcu.html/

It is a shame, really.  People should be laughing with Spidey and not laughing at Spidey.  Maybe Sony does need to just take full control and cut Marvel out.

Sony should cut Marvel out because... there are rumours? Wouldn’t there be rumours regardless?

The last Kevin Feige spoke of CAPTAIN MARVEL II, he said he wanted to explore Carol’s adventures in space between her first film and ENDGAME. Unless Tom Holland’s Peter gets the Captain Universe powers, I don’t think Spider-Man would have a role. We’ll see, but given the overwhelmingly positive reaction to HOMECOMING and FAR FROM HOME, why should a rumour suddenly have people who’ve enjoyed the Feige/Holland era suddenly declare Feige doesn’t know the character? You’ve lost me on this one, although your SPIDER-MAN TEAM UP point is certainly irrefutable.

“Maybe” was included in the statement because of the uncertainty.  We’ll see what happens; and even I think the emasculation aspect is a slant by someone with an agenda.

The most likely tie between Spider-man and Captain Marvel are the Skrulls; and they could be more ingrained in Spidey’s life than just a random appearance of Nick Fury.

https://www.inverse.com/article/55388-a … el-phase-4

The issue would be what happens if the Kree find those Skrulls leaving Spidey in the crossfire.  That’s where he would most likely fall into a Captain Marvel appearance.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Ah, good.

**

So, it looks like the separation between Marvel Television and Marvel Film is at an end as Marvel Film producer Kevin Feige is assuming control of the TV and publishing divisions of Marvel while retaining control of the film division. Before the original separation, Ike Perlmutter ran both divisions and was Feige's boss until he tried to fire Robert Downey Jr. off of CAPTAIN AMERICA CIVIL WAR. Feige threatened to quit over Perlmutter's interference with CIVIL WAR and Perlmutter was reduced/reassigned to only overseeing TV and publishing with no authority over Feige and the film department.

But as a result, AGENTS OF SHIELD lost the ability to tie in to Marvel movies as Marvel Film and Marvel TV were now coldly at odds. That's no longer the case: Perlmutter is no longer running Marvel TV and his top lieutenant, Jeph Loeb (who created Hush/Tommy Elliott over in BATWOMAN!) is leaving Marvel TV. https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/kevin … 203377802/

Creatively, I feel that the individual TV projects had a lot of success. DAREDEVIL's first and third seasons were excellent, LUKE CAGE did well for half of its first season and all of its second, JESSICA JONES was terrific throughout, THE PUNISHER was good if never great and IRON FIST had a good second season. AGENTS OF SHIELD has been a very well-written, well-produced show. AGENT CARTER was brilliant. However, financially and in terms of viewership, AGENTS OF SHIELD is at best a sleeper hit, AGENT CARTER was cancelled on a cliffhanger (that AOS Season 7 may resolve) and the Netflix shows all saw dramatic audience drop off that saw them cancelled. It seems to me that good TV shows weren't produced at Marvel TV as much as they escaped from Marvel TV and Perlmutter, who is not interested in creativity and was more concerned with being spiteful and selling content.

The main reason for the cancellations of all the Netflix shows: Netflix wanted to order fewer episodes per season. Marvel TV (and Perlmutter) balked at making less money despite the fact that every season of the Netflix shows suffered from overstretched plots, some handled gracefully (like DAREDEVIL Season 3) and some not (like DEFENDERS). It wasn't about making a good show; it was about getting hours sold to streaming.

And then there's the inability to effectively market TV shows about Marvel characters as being part of the same universe as the Marvel movies -- because the head of Marvel TV was adversarial and belittling towards Marvel Film. Without being able to tie into a feature film, AGENTS OF SHIELD lost a massive promotional push, lost ratings ground and has stayed on the air through budget cuts and reduced licensing fees.

That belittlement is best demonstrated in INHUMANS, a film project Perlmutter pushed forward as an effort to replace the X-MEN property in Marvel Films as FOX owned the rights. After Perlmutter was removed from Marvel Film, Kevin Feige rightly cancelled the INHUMANS movie as trying to replace a culturally iconic property like X-MEN with a non-entity like INHUMANS was insane. In response, Perlmutter ordered a cheap, rushed, slapdash TV production of INHUMANS to be filmed and had the first two episodes of this substandard product shown in IMAX theatres. The damage to the Marvel brand and to the IMAX brand was astonishing, declaring that Marvel and IMAX would peddle a cheap TV movie as a cinematic experience and it was a financial catastrophe not to mention a ratings failure when the rest of the episodes aired on ABC.

And with this kind of relationship between Marvel TV and Marvel Film, there was no way for the TV shows to sell themselves as being in the same world as the Avengers. The Marvel TV shows don't seem like a product extending from the Marvel brand. They seem like STAR TREK novels because the TV head can't and won't coordinate with the film division.

There has been no stated reason for why Kevin Feige has been promoted to take over Perlmutter's stewardship of the TV and publishing wings of Marvel, but INHUMANS was a clear sign that Perlmutter's way of doing business for Marvel was not yielding positive results financially or creatively. Meanwhile, Feige was the hero of INFINITY WAR, ENDGAME, HOMECOMING, FAR FROM HOME, CAPTAIN MARVEL, THOR RAGNAROK and the ANT MAN films. And with Marvel starting a streaming service for TV shows, it no longer made sense to keep Feige removed from TV projects or to leave Perlmutter in charge of them when he ran the Netflix shows and INHUMANS and AGENTS OF SHIELD and AGENT CARTER into the ground, any quality existing in spite of Perlmutter.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Saw the trailer for Black Widow.

It looks...fine.  I don't really understand this movie, though.  Is it just to give Black Widow a movie?  Is it meant to wrap up her character since, rightfully, Iron Man's death took priority in Endgame?  Or is this going to be an excuse to bring Natasha back somehow?

I think the movies need to be better than the comics in terms of death.  I think Nat should stay dead.  I think Tony should stay dead.  I think Gamora should've stayed dead.

I just don't really see the point of this movie.  Although of course I'll see it, and I'm sure it will be really fun.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I enjoyed the Agents of SHIELD finale.  The show came so far, and I think it grew into a really solid companion piece to the MCU.  It was the little stepsister of the movies, but I think it found it's place.  Season one wasn't sustainable, and it had to do its own thing.  And even when the movies abandoned it, it was able to find ways to be interesting and cover relevant ground.

I wish they could've kept the connections to the movies, even just in special event episodes, but I understand why things went the way they did.  And maybe it was for the best.

*
*
*
*
*
*

I was surprised that they didn't have any big cameos.  No Peggy Carter.  No Nick Fury (not even a young version unless I missed it).  I knew they wouldn't get an Avenger (even a minor one), but someone connected to the show made sense. 

But even without that, it was a good show with a good ending.  I'll miss it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I set my DVR to grab AGENTS and then promptly forgot all about it.

I guess real life in newspapers has been way too interesting lately.

I shall catch up. How was the budget this season?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's a TV budget, but I feel like they put a lot of effort into it.  They did a good job with the time travel stuff, making it feel like they're in different time periods.  But with different inhuman powers and sci-fi weapons, it also looked pretty solid for TV.

Shots looked CGI when they got too ambitious, but I definitely didn't feel like the budget was hamstringing them.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I enjoyed the Agents of SHIELD finale.  The show came so far, and I think it grew into a really solid companion piece to the MCU.  It was the little stepsister of the movies, but I think it found it's place.  Season one wasn't sustainable, and it had to do its own thing.  And even when the movies abandoned it, it was able to find ways to be interesting and cover relevant ground.

I wish they could've kept the connections to the movies, even just in special event episodes, but I understand why things went the way they did.  And maybe it was for the best.

*
*
*
*
*
*

I was surprised that they didn't have any big cameos.  No Peggy Carter.  No Nick Fury (not even a young version unless I missed it).  I knew they wouldn't get an Avenger (even a minor one), but someone connected to the show made sense. 

But even without that, it was a good show with a good ending.  I'll miss it.

I expected them to get some more in-show cameos too. Grant Ward, Trip, Bobbi or Hunter. The only one I noticed in the finale was Victoria Hand. (There were some others earlier in the season too) Part of the problem was that they never went past the 80s timeline so some of them would have been too young, but Peggy would have been doable (though would that have ruined the Sousa effect?), or Fury, or that character Lucy Lawless played whose name I cannot remember at all.

Pretty sure I heard somewhere that a lot of the budget when on the final two episodes, but I felt they did a decent job all the way through. I have a low threshold though - I can accept a lot of rubbish effects if the plot and characters are good. Either way, I've enjoyed this season a lot (though not as much as s4)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm only six episodes into AGENTS OF SHIELD's final season. It's really good. It looks to me like they spent a massive amount of their season's budget on the first four episodes set before WWI and in the 50s and 70s with all the sets (practical and digital) and location filming. Then they've switched to episodes set the standing sets (the plane, the Lighthouse base) and I guess we'll go outdoors again for the finale.

Season 4 with Ghost Rider, the LMDs and the Framework was definitely the last season in which AGENTS had its full ABC budget. Season 5 had a massive cutback so that aside from the season premier, a mid-season episode and the final two of the year, most of the episodes had few extras and used the Lighthouse sets, redressed as needed if outside the Lighthouse. Every henchman wore duplicates of the same costume so that they could use the same stuntmen over and over again.

Season 6 (and 7) seem to have had a modest increase, likely because ABC renewed the show for two short seasons of 13 and spent less money over all than they would on a full 22 but still more on each individual episode. Season 6 once again had location filming and extras with four setbound episodes to save some money for the premiere and finale.

Season 7 was renewed during the filming of Season 6, and it looks like ABC and Disney made that decision so that they wouldn't have to pay the costs of shutting down and then restarting production between Season 6 and 7. As a result, they lost Iain De Caestecker as Fitz; he'd booked some projects to film during the Season 6 / 7 break only for there to be no break, but he was still contractually obligated to be away. It seems he returned for the finale, thankfully.

There was definitely some chatter about Peggy Carter returning to conclude AGENT CARTER's unresolved Season 2 cliffhanger. However, it looks like because Season 7 started filming right after Season 6, it would have been difficult to advance book a lot of the guest-stars they might have wanted like Hayley Atwell, Adrienne Palicki or Nick Blood with no real time between seasons.

I'm not sure I would have been too thrilled to see Peggy as a guest-character to resolve her Season 2 cliffhanger.

I really loved the first season of AGENT CARTER with its period New York City setting, Hayley's amazing chemistry with Lindsay Fonseca as Angie -- but then Season 2 took an odd turn due to the budget cut and the retooling.

AGENT CARTER moved its setting to Los Angeles so that it wouldn't have to do as many computer generated sets to create a post-WWII New York City and taking Peggy out of New York made the series lose its distinctive visual style. The emphasis on Peggy being torn between two love interests was incredibly juvenile for a character as driven and mature as Peggy. The loss of the Angie character with whom Peggy had a terrific rapport caused Hayley Atwell to lose a vital scene partner. There was a lot of intrigue with Peggy's pre-WWII past and dark secrets that led to a cliffhanger that was never resolved.

I understand why AGENT CARTER couldn't afford to do the period New York setting anymore. But in moving the show from its setting, it lost almost everything that made Season 1 special with Season 2 -- and seeing Peggy as a guest-star in someone else's show and to once again see AGENT CARTER further stripped of its identity by having its remaining parts collapsed into AGENTS OF SHIELD -- I just wouldn't have liked that.

I would rather just forget Season 2 of AGENT CARTER unless Disney+ can follow up on it properly with a third season; I wouldn't want a half-measure on AGENTS OF SHIELD. Either fix it properly or leave it alone.

Alright. Back to work.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I've finished the series.  Overall I was not a huge fan of season 7.  I think the story was mucky and disjointed, and honestly could have been told in 3 or 4 episodes rather than 13.  The finale was I would say a very satisfying conclusion, very much in the way that long series used to be concluded in the 90's.  It was a marvelous series that I shall miss dearly.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:

Season 5 season looks like it was filmed in someone's basement and they clearly don't have the money for the extras and location filming that they once had. Excellent character-oriented writing and the stories are as strong as ever, but every episode feels like a bottle episode with only a few exceptions this year. I love the scripts, but the visual quality of the show has gotten frustratingly claustrophobic with the team constantly advancing down dimly lit hallways to get to more dimly lit hallways.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

By the way, since you said it, I haven't been able to unsee how every episode of Agents of SHIELD takes place in a dim corridor.

When, in this week's episode, they confront Gravity Man in his neighborhood, the natural light nearly blinded me.

Chloe Bennett (Daisy) wrote:

You’re telling me! Every day we were literally in those hallways, and if a scene was two minutes long we were there for seven hours. It was really, really exciting for the cast and the crew to get out of the stages and get out of the gray space hallways, because it does affect your mood. https://tvline.com/2020/08/13/agents-of … -hallways/

Jeffrey Bell, Producer wrote:

I wish we didn’t live in so many corridors because we had no money.

The way it works is, you know, there’s a pattern budget, we get the same amount for every episode. And so one of the things that we’ve gone to ABC about—and they’ve been good about—is we say, this week we want to have tuna sandwiches for lunch, so that next week we can have, like, a five-course meal.

And the problem is, we started in the 1930s and spent all our money. We just got backlot period costumes, which energized everybody and got everyone really excited. But we have the same amount for every episode.
So it’s up to us and our our wonderful line producer, Garry Brown, to really be able to do that. You know, we’re a network show with not a lot of money.

And so we’re sad when the corridors are more than we want—you know, we’re as aware of them as you have been from time to time. And it’s not what we want, it’s just all we can afford to do. We do try and save, so that we can go out with some scope and style.

We shoot in Los Angeles, which we’re thrilled to do, but to go off the lot, it’s just a lot. It’s cheaper to go to another planet than to go to Van Nuys.

The great thing about being in space is you don’t have to go on location because we can’t afford to go on location.

https://tv.avclub.com/the-agents-of-s-h … 1844694196

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I know that the internet doesn't exit to validate ME -- but it disappoints me that I've posted my theory of how AGENTS OF SHIELD exists alongside INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME in various Marvel and AOS forums and nobody ever responds to it, not even to disagree with it, identify flaws in it, debunk it or replace it. I expected that someone would at least tell me why they think it's wrong, but in every debate on how the Snap fits into AGENTS OF SHIELD or doesn't, my remarks are invariably ignored.

To me, the sequence of events for INFINITY WAR, Season 5 - 6 of AGENTS OF SHIELD and ENDGAME is:

  1. Thanos' forces attack in New York (INFINITY WAR)

  2. Daisy and Talbot fight in Chicago ("The End")

  3. The attack in Wakanda takes place (INFINITY WAR)

  4. Daisy is triumphant over Talbot. The Zephyr flies May and Coulson to Tahiti and lands on the beach ("The End")

  5. Thanos' Snap erases 50 per cent of all life in the universe including the entire cast of AGENTS OF SHIELD (INFINITY WAR)

  6. Five years later, Banner performs the unSnap. All the missing are restored including the agents aboard the Zephyr (ENDGAME)

  7. The agents, unaware that five years passed in the seconds they experienced, bid farewell to Coulson and May who disembark in Tahiti while the agents fly off to search for Fitz ("The End")

  8. Earth rebuilds and resumes normalcy (SPIDER-MAN FAR FROM HOME)]

  9. The agents realize from the news that they ceased to exist and were then restored and the Snap is ultimately less traumatic than any of their other recent experiences (off camera)

  10. Fitz's ship is attacked ("Missing Pieces")

  11. A year passes with the agents searching for Fitz still ("Missing Pieces")

I've come to wonder if this theory prompts a contemptuous disdain that is so vehement that it cannot be voiced.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think it works, but AoS did a good-enough job in the last two seasons of simply ignoring the movies (in retaliation for themselves being ignored) that just about any theory works.  I did have my own thoughts, but it requires spoilers:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

There's a moment in the last couple episodes that they discuss the idea that they're no longer in the same universe - that they're on a diverging timeline.  Although this doesn't exactly jive with what we understand about this via Endgame, I was actually thinking at the time that it was a fairly genius way of dealing with everything.  They'd literally chart their own course and end up in a completely different universe - maybe on where there are no Avengers or Fury or anyone they'd need to step around.

It worked well enough in my head that I actually was a bit disappointed when it didn't happen.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I think it works, but AoS did a good-enough job in the last two seasons of simply ignoring the movies (in retaliation for themselves being ignored) that just about any theory works.  I did have my own thoughts, but it requires spoilers:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

There's a moment in the last couple episodes that they discuss the idea that they're no longer in the same universe - that they're on a diverging timeline.  Although this doesn't exactly jive with what we understand about this via Endgame, I was actually thinking at the time that it was a fairly genius way of dealing with everything.  They'd literally chart their own course and end up in a completely different universe - maybe on where there are no Avengers or Fury or anyone they'd need to step around.

It worked well enough in my head that I actually was a bit disappointed when it didn't happen.

Speaking with the New York Times, Jed Whedon said that was indeed the explanation -- that the Snap happened some time during Season 7, but the Agents dodged it as they were time travelling and moving to different timelines via the quantum realm when the erasures took place. The explanation was filmed. It was cut for time. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/arts … inale.html

However, this explanation would have contradicted Season 5, episode 22, "The End" in which the Thanos-directed attacks on New York City and Wakanda are happening concurrently with the Agents confronting General Talbot in Chicago. But from Season 6 onwards, the writers wrote each script as though it were before INFINITY WAR even though Season 5's finale had led right up to the conclusion of INFINITY WAR.

As the filmed explanation wasn't onscreen, I'd prefer to go with the original authorial intent of the TV and film productions -- that it is all one shared universe unfolding on one timeline. Why isn't the Avengers tower visible in the Netflix shows that didn't wish to spend the money on the effects? Because Stark was testing out a new cloaking mechanism (as seen on the Zephyr) and made the building invisible. Why didn't the Snap take place during any Season 5 or Season 6 episodes? It happened between scenes of "The End."

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Still relevant.

Coulson wrote:

Good evening. As you all know, a HYDRA facility was destroyed yesterday. HYDRA told you that it was an act of terrorism. They told you an Inhuman named the Patriot murdered civilians. What they told you was a lie. We're going to show you what really happened.

This footage was taken from the body-cam of a high-level HYDRA operative. HYDRA used this "enlightenment center" to brainwash anyone who dared to question them. Jeffrey Mace saved these people, but HYDRA was willing to kill them just to maintain their lie. Once you see this footage, the truth is undeniable.

HYDRA doesn't think we're smart enough to know when we're being fed alternative facts to keep us afraid. To keep them in power. Remember -- there are more of us than there are of them. And now that we know the truth, we have a choice to make.

We all have the opportunity to be patriots. Will you take a stand? Are you going to hold them accountable?

Throughout history, we've seen empires rise and fall and HYDRA was corrupt from the start. It was founded by the Nazis.

A wise man once told me that a person can do anything once they realize they're a part of something bigger. It's taking me a while to understand that. For years I was just a face in the crowd, a history teacher who spread HYDRA's lies. They seemed too imposing for any one person to fight.

But now, I'm choosing to stand up. To become a part of something bigger. I really do believe that together we can accomplish anything. Because the truth is, I'm not just a history teacher.

My name is Phil Coulson. And I'm an agent of SHIELD.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I finished Season 7 of AGENTS OF SHIELD. I liked it. I really, really liked it. Despite the budget issues (hallways followed by hallways and more hallways), there was enough outdoor location filming in the first four episodes that the final nine, set in space, seemed appropriate in being set-bound. I loved the way the credits changed for each era.

I found making May into Counselor Troi from STAR TREK with empathic powers to be... a peculiar choice, to put it mildly. I don't really understand why they went that route with this reserved, physical character or how it served her despite being relevant to the plot with her ability to sense inhuman (haha) impostors.

I felt uncomfortable with Coulson being resurrected as a robot. I'm not sure the show dedicated enough time to confronting that this Life Model Decoy is not Coulson. It is a simulacrum of Coulson. It is a digital approximation. A guess. A pastiche. Admittedly, the counterfeit nature of Coulson fits in with AGENTS OF SHIELD having always struggled with the possibility that it isn't canonical to the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, but the show doesn't really question the idea that the LMD Coulson should be accepted as the genuine article. As far as the show is concerned, Coulson is merely within a different physical form and the copied brain pattern from the end of Season 4 can be considered acceptably real.

The show definitely nods to it with the Chronicoms telling Coulson that he shouldn't be fighting for humans as he isn't even human at all, just a parody of one, but Coulson doesn't struggle with that. I'm not sure it would even be in character for him to be troubled by it, I admit. Coulson is my favourite superhero because he confronts endlessly deranged situations with can-do calm and positivity.

**

I really liked how Sousa from AGENT CARTER got a happy ending with Daisy Johnson. I wonder if / how / when the SHIELD we saw at the end of AGENTS OF SHIELD will be integrated (if at all) into the Marvel movies to come. All in all, I really liked Season 6 and 7 and I was relieved that after the endless dim hallways of Season 5, Seasons 6 - 7 were able to liven up the show a bit visually and provide a pleasing post-ENDGAME epilogue to the first five years.

It was a very good show and I will miss watching Chloe Bennett throw things around telekinetically and I will miss how the show kept reinventing itself every year, going from a children's spy show to renegade agents to facing down scientific madness in Inhumans and Hive to tackling magic with Ghost Rider and artificial intelligence with LMDs and the Framework and then space and aliens and then a season of time travel.

I think what I'll miss most is AGENTS OF SHIELD's mastery of switching from action and danger to sentiment. Season 3's grand action climax gave way to archenemies Lincoln and Hive sitting quietly in a shuttle about to burn up, contemplating the world they were leaving behind. Season 4 had the Framework version of Ward seeking forgiveness for his counterpart's crimes and Coulson delivering a speech against the Trump administration. Season 5 had Coulson confronted with the possibility that AGENTS OF SHIELD wasn't canon. Season 6 had Gemma and Daisy get high in an alien casino and blunder through a rescue mission. Season 7 had Mac telling Daisy that even if the team went their separated ways, they'd always be friends.

I hope to see Coulson again.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Chadwick Boseman has passed away.
https://variety.com/2020/film/news/chad … 234753232/

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Very sad.  This one shook me up more than most celebrity deaths because he seemed like such a nice guy, and he did so much even though he must've been mad at the world and felt so, so sick.

I have thoughts on the effects on the MCU, but I'll save them for a more appropriate time.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Chadwick Boseman saved me from a prison sentence.

I once had a very abusive employer who would deliberately give me vague instructions and scream at me for failing to meet the unspecified specifics. Who would give me assignments and then deny having done so, screaming at me for doing unsanctioned work. Who would then scream at me for not doing assignments she hadn't assigned. Who would accuse me of stealing from her office if she couldn't find something. Who would accuse me of sabotaging her computer if she forgot how to turn it on. I filed an abuse and harassment complaint and she was no longer employed. But I was still seething and furious from the constant, daily attacks. The indignity. The cruelty. I wasn't satisfied that she'd been chastised and dismissed; I wanted her to suffer more pain, more grief, more agony.

One night, in a fit of rage, I looked up where she lived and decided to burn her house down and then flee the country. But since I'd purchased my ticket to CIVIL WAR a week in advance, I had to see the movie first.

I'm glad I did. I'm I saw it on opening night. I'm glad Zemo's vengeful vindictiveness made me uneasy. I'm glad I heard Chadwick Boseman, playing T'Challa, tell Zemo, "Vengeance has consumed you. It's consuming them. I am done letting it consume me."

It made me realize that as angry as I might be, it wasn't worth destroying my own life and getting a criminal conviction for a passing moment of satisfaction. It made me realize that I had to stop thinking of transgressions, past or present, as something for which I had to mete out punishment or get even. It made me realize that self-defence is one thing, but actively pursuing people for past wrongs simply to satisfy a desire to strike back was a massive waste of time and only would only ever damage my own life and well-being. That repairing the damage they'd done was more important than hurting them back.

I would probably be in jail for arson right now if I hadn't seen CIVIL WAR when I did and if Boseman's performance hadn't been as moving as it were.

661 (edited by Transmodiar 2020-09-01 14:06:26)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:

Chadwick Boseman has passed away.
https://variety.com/2020/film/news/chad … 234753232/

This hits hard because he is my age (a few months younger) and I was recently diagnosed with cancer. Fortunately, my medical outcome looks a little rosier.

Dude was badass. He will be missed.

ireactions wrote:

One night, in a fit of rage, I looked up where she lived and decided to burn her house down and then flee the country.

:-O

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Transmodiar wrote:
ireactions wrote:

Chadwick Boseman has passed away.
https://variety.com/2020/film/news/chad … 234753232/

This hits hard because he is my age (a few months younger) and I was recently diagnosed with cancer. Fortunately, my medical outcome looks a little rosier.

Shit, man.  Here's to a quick and full recovery.  Kick its ass.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

You know, Matt, if you're going to tell people you have cancer, you might also be specific in letting them know what you told me -- that you appear to be out of the woods but will be getting regular checkups. Much in the same way a once-potential arsonist might assure his readers that his days of wishing death and destruction for past slights and misdeeds are behind him.

Transmodiar wrote:
ireactions wrote:

One night, in a fit of rage, I looked up where she lived and decided to burn her house down and then flee the country.

:-O

Yeah, it's a good thing I didn't do this, or I would have been on your doorstep the next morning asking to pitch a tent in your backyard. The life of a criminal is not for me.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

lol "pitch a tent"

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, I wouldn't have wanted you to be in a CIVIL WAR type situation like Steve Rogers being in trouble for harbouring a fugitive. If I camped out in your backyward, you could claim you didn't know I was there.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:

Well, I wouldn't have wanted you to be in a CIVIL WAR type situation like Steve Rogers being in trouble for harbouring a fugitive. If I camped out in your backyward, you could claim you didn't know I was there.

You do know there are other definitions for pitching a tent, right?

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm not aware of these other definitions, but because it's you, I'm sure it's some juvenile sexual euphemism of which I know nothing but it's likely something you'd catch and remove from one of my screenplays because it'd be distracting to a large number of readers.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Transmodiar wrote:
ireactions wrote:

Chadwick Boseman has passed away.
https://variety.com/2020/film/news/chad … 234753232/

This hits hard because he is my age (a few months younger) and I was recently diagnosed with cancer. Fortunately, my medical outcome looks a little rosier.


:-O

Very sorry to hear that.   Glad there has been some positive news.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Shit, man.  Here's to a quick and full recovery.  Kick its ass.

Thanks! Looks like I did everything you asked, so it's just monitoring at this point. Gall bladder cancer is no joke but it all stayed inside that plump little bugger until they removed it, so I salute its ability to grow to twice its normal size to contain everything.

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I bought a Marvel Unlimited subscription. For sixty bucks, you can read almost every Marvel comic from the 60s to about 2019 through their digital app. And it's great value for the money and far better than paying $5 - $7 for a 22 page comic book. But...

It is really hard to figure out how to read the crossover storylines. For example, SECRET EMPIRE (where Captain America was rewritten by a reality-warping weapon into an Agent of HYDRA) -- it unfolds across STEVE ROGERS CAPTAIN AMERICA, SAM WILSON CAPTAIN AMERICA, THUNDERBOLTS, then SECRET EMPIRE. But the SECRET EMPIRE event reading list provided in the app is missing at least 8 - 12 issues of each series. I had to go on Wikipedia and various Wikia sites to find the complete list and then manually search for each issue within the app. The average person is not going to do this.

Marvel Unlimited also provides reading lists for characters. But they too are riddled with missing entries. Sam Wilson's era as Captain America is missing the ALL-NEW CAPTAIN AMERICA series even though that was his first solo series in the role! DAREDEVIL has a fairly complete run except after the Frank Miller issues, the 233 - 317 range is riddled with massive omissions.

But again -- it's only $60 to read whatever you want that's there. That same $60 would only get you 10 - 12 physical comic books or individual digital releases from Marvel. And it really shows how Marvel Comics is not seeking to make very much profit or even offer accessible reading material to people who want to get into their comics without needing to dive into guidebooks and lists to figure out what to read in what order just to figure out how to read one storyline. It's research and development for feature films and Disney+ and Hulu TV shows.

Anyway. I'm mostly reading 90s era DAREDEVIL (which is hilarious with very funny writing from Karl Kesel and Joe Kelly) and MS. MARVEL (Carol Danvers who will be Captain Marvel) comics from 1977. I did read the entire SECRET EMPIRE story with Captain America and I really, really liked it, although I was very relieved when the real Captain America came back and fought the Nazi Captain America.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well this thread has certainly been EYE OPENING lately. 

Matt hope you're "in the clear" without obviously "going clear."

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I like how people are jumping to conclusions over this:

https://movieweb.com/ant-man-3-kang-ree … stic-four/

No one is mentioning that Kang is from 1000 years in the future (give or take, some 75 generations removed from Reed Richards).  *Alot* can genetically happen between 75 or more couples pairing off.

According to Ancestry.com DNA testing, I’m 1% Indian, but I have zero characteristics of someone from India because the other 99% is all from Great Britain and Scandinavia.

The Fantastic Four has always had a connection to Black Panther; I think it could be easy to say one of the Richards off spring settle in Wakanda.  That would tie in more of the MCU as they like to do, and the racial difference would add to the surprise when it’s revealed Reed and Kang are related.  It’s actually a good message too - the whitest white man alive (Reed Richards) and someone of clear African descent are blood related.  We’re all related - we’re not different factions based on skin color.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Interesting.  I actually didn't know that.  Although with the loss of Chadwick Boseman, maybe they will try and replace him with a black Reed Richards.  I do think William Jackson Harper would be a great Reed Richards.  He could also be a great Black Panther now that I think about it.  He plays brainy well, and he's already ripped.

But, yeah, there's that theory that at some point, humanity will have enough racial mixing that we'll all be one race at some point.  So I don't have any problem with this.  They could also not have the tie to Reed Richards if they really don't want to.  I wonder if the time travel in Endgame will result in this (the Avengers create time travel which wasn't supposed to exist...more "Tony Stark" consequences).

I also read yesterday that WandaVision is still on track and might be the first part of Phase Four.  After more than a year without any MCU, it'll be interesting to see if they have a resurgence or if people will have moved on by now.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Cause and effect with time travel is seldom a straight line, but they actually laid groundwork for Kang in Ant-man 2.  During the trip through the quantum realm, there was a “blink and you’ll miss it” cameo of Kang’s base - Chronopolis:

https://static2.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Chronopolis.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=740&h=370

https://media.comicbook.com/2018/10/ant-man-city-quantum-1136881-1280x0.jpeg

Kang was one of those characters tied up in the Fox rights, though - he was joined with the Fantastic Four rights I guess due to the lineage

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

My favourite actress asked me if I've been watching THE BOYS and I told her I haven't and won't.

I don't want THE BOYS taken out of existence and I respect that it's got a lot of talent -- but I've read THE BOYS comics and to me, that is not what I am looking for out of superheroes.

In my mind, there are four definitive scenes for superheroes. The first is SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE when Miles Morales asks Peter Parker when he'll know if he's ready to be Spider-Man. Peter replies, "You won't. It's a leap of faith." Later, spurned to action, Miles climbs atop a skyscraper, throws himself off and finally swings, dispensing all his fears, doubts, insecurities, neuroses and weaknesses to realize his potential and everything he has to offer. A superhero represents the height of human achievement in a form unique to each person. A superhero reminds us of our ability to overcome our failings and be empowered by the best of ourselves.

The second superhero defining scene to me is in the recent CAPTAIN MARVEL movie where Yon-Rogg (Jude Law) tells Captain Marvel if she really wants to prove she's a true warrior, she will fight him without her powers unarmed to show she's mastered her emotions. Captain Marvel blasts him in the face and knocks him on his ass but leaves him alive, informing him, "I have nothing to prove to you," and then sends Yon-Rogg back to the Kree homeworld as a messenger to inform the empire that Captain Marvel will be ending their tyranny. Superheroes have great power, but at their best, they use their power precisely, employing precisely the amount of force that is needed and not a hair more.

The sequence of Captain Marvel being inundated with images of Carol Danvers' various defeats throughout her life only for Carol to summon to mind her memories of getting back each time is also good but didn't involve superpowers or superhero duties.

The third definitive superhero scene to me is in the "Green Arrow and the Canaries" backdoor pilot of the final season of Arrow when Mia Smoak dives through the air, lands in a crouch on a rooftop and nocks an arrow to her bow, displaying ferocity, determination and a physical acrobaticism and athleticism that arouses an intense desire in me that compels me to immediately lift some weights before hitting the treadmill. Superheroes should stir something in audiences to encourage them to eat healthy and work out, in my view.

And the fourth definitive superhero scene, for me, is in "Crazy For You" (Season 1, Episode 12 of THE FLASH) where a married couple are trapped in an overturned car struck by a powerline. The Flash extracts the husband first, then returns for the wife only for the car to explode. The husband collapses at the sight of the burning car with his wife inside only to realize she's behind him, rescued just in time by the Flash.

The first time I saw this episode, I was with a girlfriend who remarked that this teaser of the Flash saving two people had no bearing on the rest of the episode. The couple don't return for any subsequent plot function. They aren't involved with the teleporter villain of the week. They don't ever appear again; they are never even mentioned and could have been cut from the story with no impact on the rest of the episode. What was the point? The point is that a superhero's main role is not to beat people up; superheroes SAVE people. They save them from car crashes, fires, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, urban sprawl and severe weather.

I've never seen THE BOYS, but I've read the comics and I know for a fact that the characters of THE BOYS weren't created to do any of the above. I hope people enjoy THE BOYS. But for me... thanks but no thanks.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I can see that.  I do wish the show did some more positive stuff in this world.  I get what they're trying to do.  That, like athletes and actors and politicians, absolute power and love corrupts absolutely.  And I find the idea of superheroes who suck at their job (the Homelander plane crash being the best example) and a group of people with no powers who bring them in.

But while the Boys are heroic, I'd love to see examples of good superheroes (other than Starlight) in this universe.  I don't necessarily need Civil War every week, but it'd be nice to see some more of the superheroes you're talking about.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The creator of THE BOYS, Garth Ennis, has spent a lot of time talking about how ridiculous it is that Superman and Batman would have any sense of moral standards. But to me, part of what makes the Justice League and the Avengers special is the fact that with their superhuman powers also comes a sense of superhuman empathy. Superman's microscopic vision and superhearing allow him to feel the fragility of all life around him. Batman's trauma and grief is felt with his awareness that anyone can feel helpless and lost. And in response to the Zack Snyders of the world telling superhero fans to grow up and accept that superheroes must be corrupt and cruel, I hear Dr. Abraham Erskine:

Erskine wrote:

The serum was not ready. But more important, the man. The serum amplifies everything that is inside. So, good becomes great. Bad becomes worse. This is why you were chosen. Because a strong man, who has known power all his life, will lose respect for that power. But a weak man knows the value of strength, and knows compassion. Whatever happens tomorrow, you must promise me one thing. That you will stay who you are. Not a perfect soldier, but a good man.

But, as I said, there's space in the world for THE BOYS. It's just not my world, that's all.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Max Landis is a monster and allegedly a rapist, but I do like his perspective on Superman.  He said in a popular video that if you're a Kryptonian on Earth, you can either save the Earth or rule it.  Those are your options.  And instead of absolute power corrupting him absolutely, absolute power has absolved him of all of the darkness that seems to affect other heroes. 

I haven't read the boys but I have had the comic version explained to me.  The way I understood it (and this was before I saw the show so it might be wrong) is that the Boys are an actual part of the government, and that they essentially step in to do the "the sun's getting low" stuff from Age of Ultron except with short-term powers and punching instead of whatever Black Widow did.

I don't know if that's exactly what the Boys is in the comics, but I think there's more room for good stuff there.  What if Superman was traditional Superman, but using his powers made him a little crazy?  What if all superheroes were the Hulk and needed a little help getting out of Hulk mode.  Then there's still the insanity and carnage from superhero fights but the heroes don't necessarily have to be bad guys.  And the good guys are people who want to save people and do good, and they throw themselves in front of gods to make that happen.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

In the comics, THE BOYS features most superheroes as having the public image of the Avengers and Justice League, but in reality, they are serial killers, rapists and sadists with total immunity to prosecution. The Boys are a covert black-ops squad charged with supposedly 'policing' the superheroes, but the only way to police them is to kill them and The Boys start with low level heroes before making their way up the chain, except the methods they use to infiltrate and assassinate make them as monstrous as their enemies. It's all played for dark comedy and it comes to a pretty definitive and bloody conclusion.

I didn't enjoy it. But I respected it because THE BOYS forced a lot of later superhero writers to ask themselves: why is Superman a good and kind soul? Why doesn't Tony Stark abuse his wealth and power? Why isn't Captain America a jingoistic nutjob? Why are the Avengers a solid peacekeeping operation instead of a fascist regime? Why isn't Batman a murderous sociopath? In a post-BOYS era, writing these characters as they'd generally been written before but with actual reasons for their moral standards became a very important challenge.

Writers like Geoff Johns highlighted how, much like Tom Welling on SMALLVILLE, Superman lived a high celebrity and action fuelled lifestyle -- but he would generally go home to his wife or his parents at the end of the day for a family dinner and would till the land, care for cows, write newspaper stories. Even Garth Ennis, who created THE BOYS, found himself treating Superman with respect when writing him in three issues of his HITMAN comic where Superman declares, "I'm not a warrior. I'm not a soldier of any kind. I'm simply doing what I can to help." Journalism is part of Clark's public service, empowering people with knowledge. Superman rejects Max Landis' proposition that he is to rule the Earth or save it. Superman is not above the Earth, deciding its fate or dictating its course; he is a citizen of Earth. He is a man of the people.

Writers like Ed Brubaker and Greg Rucka had written Batman as a sociopathic isolationist who became so brusque and abusive that Alfred quit as butler and moved in with Robin. But subsequent writers like Grant Morrison highlighted how Batman, from his very early days, has been a teacher, mentoring the Robins, Batgirl and more and ultimately built a family around himself that would ultimately bring him back to being a man with great compassion for the weak and a nobility that makes him the equal of any superhuman. Writers like James Tynion IV and Scott Snyder would capitalize on how Batman had an instinct for building family (and publishing lines).

Writers like Mark Millar, Brian Michael Bendis and Matt Fraction changed Tony Stark quite a bit. In the 90s comics with Kurt Busiek, Tony Stark was written as a very blandly heroic, milquetoast hero. Millar, Bendis and Fraction gave Stark the Robert Downey Jr. arrogance and bombast, but they also highlighted how at the end of the day, Stark doesn't actually have any superpowers. Now-disgraced writer Warren Ellis also added to Tony Stark's persona a sense of guilt: Stark used to build weapons that were stolen by terrorists and killed millions; he is now ashamed and forever seeking redemption, hence his curtailed misuse of his privilege and money.

Captain America didn't really need too much adjustment after THE BOYS, but the comics took more care to have Cap frequently at odds with SHIELD and the United States government, at times going to all out war. But the seeds were actually sewn back in the 80s issues of DAREDEVIL by ridiculously jingoistic writer Frank Miller. Miller, like Ennis with Superman, seemed to find something greater in himself when writing Captain America.

An issue of DAREDEVIL has a corrupt general trying to steer Cap away from investigating an illegal supersoldier program, telling Cap that Cap's "loyalty" should have him defer to any order from any US Army commander. Captain America replies, "I'm loyal to nothing, General, except the Dream," a line that has defined the character since then with writers like Mark Gruenwald and Mark Waid making it clear that Captain America represents the American ideal and never the American government.

I've always liked Geoff Johns as a writer especially on Superman. A writer like Garth Ennis declares that superheroes like Superman are absurd because their decency of character is completely at odds with how people with power behave in the real world and creates superheroes that are more realistic. Why would a god on Earth work at a newspaper?

A writer like Geoff Johns, however, acknowledges that it's absurd that Superman has a day job -- but then he embraces it, reinforces it, creates new reasons for it -- because Geoff Johns understands that superheroes are myth and myths are always ridiculous. It is the ridiculous part of the myth that embeds it into the imagination along with the meaning behind the absurdity -- and realizing that ridiculous myths endure long after the realistic creations have been set aside.

Superheroes would not be as rich and meaningful as they are today without THE BOYS comic books. And we should grapple with all the questions raised by THE BOYS. But ultimately, I don't believe that we should make superheroes more like us, as bitter and as angry and as cynical and as corrupt as ourselves. We should not make Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo argumentative, cynical, chaotic, abusive, violent or indifferent in order to reflect our own failings. We should not kill them off one by one to demonstrate how we too would perish during sliding. We should make ourselves more like them; we should adopt Quinn's resourcefulness, Wade's empathy, Rembrandt's love for life and the Professor's wisdom.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

As someone who read and loved THE BOYS, you will likely find the television series (at least the first series, haven't watched the second yet) palatable because the writers have taken how dark and fucked the comics are and watered it all down and out. The show takes great pains to humanize the Seven, or at least Queen Maeve and The Deep. Even Stillwell. It's a good interpretation, but it is not foundationally the same as what Ennis wrote. Which is a shame, because I was really looking forward to Blarney Cock's chest getting caved in on screen. tongue

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think watering down THE BOYS defeats the purpose of THE BOYS. I think humanizing the Homelander and the rest is missing the point: cruelty and savagery are part of human nature and while superheroes are supposed to represent the best of humanity, superbeings can also showcase the worst with no checks or limitations.

Anyway. I have been reading a lot of 90s era Marvel comic books on the Unlimited app and this issue of CAPTAIN AMERICA (v3) #7 from 1998 is what I want out of superheroes.

https://i.ibb.co/WGYjgmY/01.jpg https://i.ibb.co/v3BHjnp/02.jpg https://i.ibb.co/m8JWHy7/03.jpg

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Years ago, Temporal Flux wrote an outline for a SLIDERS story. He wrote a story where Quinn becomes his own timer; the technology is implanted into his body, he can see the countdown in his brain, he emits the vortex from his eyes, he is eventually ripped apart by the interdimensional energies of sliding. I loved it and the painful irony where Quinn, a young man fascinated by machines, becoming the very machine he created and dying in the aftermath. https://web.archive.org/web/20010415171 … /ps5s.html

It didn't get a great response in the SLIDERS community which I found odd. I especially find it odd now: one of my favourite IRON MAN stories that I've been re-reading on Marvel Unlimited: "Extremis," a 2005 storyline in which Tony Stark is experiencing guilt over his past as a former weapons designer whose creations have maimed and killed innocent people all over the world. Stark faces a white supremacist militia leader named Mallen.

Mallen has ingested a designer virus called Extremis which re-engineers the human body's capacity to repair itself, heightening the Mallen's ability to regenerate from any injury, raising his reflexes, strength, speed and resilience to the point where a barehanded Mallen is faster and stronger than Stark in the Iron Man suit. Mallen beats Stark so badly that Stark is dying from internal injuries -- until he ingests a modified version of the Extremis virus himself, an altered build that puts the Iron Man suit inside Stark's own body.

The Extremis-enhanced Stark no longer wears the Iron Man suit to increase his strength and speed; he is the Iron Man suit itself, able to perceive, generate and respond to electrical signals and transmissions of any kind by thought alone to control nearly any kind of technology within his visual range. He can combine his new response time with the speed of the Iron Man suit. He can reconfigure the suit itself at will for any situation. He is Iron Man inside and out. He is the next stage of human evolution.

"Extremis" is one of the most popular and renowned IRON MAN stories ever written -- although it's helped by how Iron Man wasn't exactly inhabiting any kind of comics renaissance until "Extremis." Iron Man suffered from being written as a generic superhero with technology-based superpowers, but writers struggled with making Tony Stark as something other than Bruce Wayne with a mustache. "Extremis" started unambiguously playing his weapons designer past as shameful and something for which Stark would forever seek redemption and every subsequent writer stuck with this characterization and continued exploring the ramifications and applications of Stark with Extremis.

TF has occasionally shared his philosophy of good SLIDERS stories: he says it's not about looking at the past and asking what might have gone differently. It's about looking at the future and asking where we might be going next and what could have happened to have turned tomorrow into today.

When TF first outlined this story, we were living in a world of newspapers in street distribution boxes, phone booths on the street and the internet was an alternative to mailing letters. The next stage -- which we are at now -- is to have technology on our faces, in our ears, on our wrists and in our pockets. TF looked past that and imagined technology inside us. He saw the future.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-3-andrew … ten-dunst/

The third MCU SPIDER-MAN film will apparently feature Tom Holland as Peter Parker, Zendaya Stoermer Coleman as MJ, Alfred Molina as Dr. Octopus (reprising the role from Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN II), Jamie Foxx as Electro (reprising his role from THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN II) and Andrew Garfield (!) also as Peter Parker and Kirsten Dunst (!) as Mary Jane Watson (!?!!).

CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS on the CW seems to have emboldened a certain devil may care craziness. It's ridiculous. As ridiculous as, I dunno, a SLIDERS story where Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo have a rematch against the Season 3 monsters. But here we are.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Every time I doubt a Marvel movie, I end up being wrong; but this really seems like too much to cram into one movie.  Brings back bad memories of the Clooney Batman movie which tried to cram in Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy, Bane and Batgirl.

I see what Sony is doing, though; and it’s the same mistake made with Garfield’s Amazing 2.  Sony wants a Sinister Six spin-off, and they’re rushing it.  Looking at the pieces in play, they’ll now have the potential for Doc Ock, Electro, Vulture, Shocker and some version of Mysterio along with set up for Scorpion.  Of course, Venom is hanging out there too, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see him the “hero” that the Six is after (kind of like a Suicide Squad flavor).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well they want a live-action Spider-Verse movie.  Sony probably pushed for it, and it actually works with Phase Four and Peter's arc.  We know that something is happening to the universe in WandaVision.  We know that Wanda will be in Dr. Strange 2 subtitled The Multiverse of Madness.  And we know that Peter's world was thrown into chaos when his identity was revealed.  My guess is that Dr Strange is going to end up bringing Peter to other multiverses, either to escape the chaos in his own life or to teach him some sort of lesson about his own circumstances and how they could be worse.

If I had to guess, the guest characters will be more "Tom Welling in Crisis" than key parts.  Relevant and significant scenes but just scenes - not "Tom Holland and other Spider-Men team up to fight the Sinister Six"

Although do we know how many Sony/Disney Spider-Man movies they've agreed to make?  If this is the last one, maybe they will just throw everything against the wall and see what sticks (pun intended)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

There are rumours (but I can't find full confirmation yet) that Tobey Maguire will reprise his role as Peter Parker in DR. STRANGE II: MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS which will lead into AMAZING SPIDER-MAN III featuring Maguire as Spider-Man as well as Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey -- so it's possible that the massive number of cameos and multiple versions of the same characters in AMAZING III will have all the groundwork laid out in the DR. STRANGE sequel first.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

First two episodes of WANDAVISION.

WTF?!?!!?!?!?!?

Okay, back to work. :-)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:

First two episodes of WANDAVISION.

WTF?!?!!?!?!?!?

Okay, back to work. :-)

Really loved the second episode. 

Just speculation, but Wanda is likely the villain here; she’s holding all of these people prisoner (but probably didn’t start it on purpose).  That’s why, in the first episode, the woman kept saying “stop it” with increasing anger as she looked at Wanda.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I really like all of WANDAVISION. It expresses something I think a lot of people are going through right now as viewing figures for streaming services skyrocket due to long term isolation. People are escaping into TV and film and often, that escape is into nostalgia for days past. The Vision is dead. We saw him die twice. But here he is, alive and well, enjoying domestic bliss with Wanda. Something is wrong. Something must be wrong. WANDAVISION does a great job of presenting the cheeriness of a sitcom from a previous century but with hints of a sinister reality concealed by pastiche and homage.

It's interesting. I wrote a story where Rembrandt came out of the vortex to find Quinn, Wade and Arturo waiting for him. He said this couldn't be happening. The Professor reminded him that they were all sliders and that nothing is impossible. The next script was set 15 years later with the sliders living normal, happy lives, not addressing how they all came back to life and returned to a home untouched by Kromaggs until the fourth installment. The details aren't important, SLIDERS REBORN declared. What matters is what's true: that in our darkest hour, Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo will always come back to save us. SLIDERS REBORN asks you to believe that what was lost will return.

WANDAVISION doesn't believe in that. The Marvel Cinematic Universe doesn't believe in that. In the comic book 616 universe, all the Avengers die and come back to life three or four times a decade and never seem to age. In the MCU, Tony Stark died, Steve Rogers grew old and retired, the Red Skull regretted being a Nazi and sought redemption, Banner embraced the Hulk and found a happy medium, Black Widow died and so did Vision. WANDAVISION expresses understanding for how comforting it can be to remember how things might have been.

WANDAVISION sympathizes with what appears to be Wanda's grief for the Vision leading to her living in the comforting low stakes existence of a false television reality -- much as many of us are taking comfort by binge watching media content. But WANDAVISION is also absolutely clear: to obsess and drown one's self in past memories that never were and to long for what is gone and never was and never will be is suffocating and in some ways dangerous, preventing Wanda from addressing and resolving a very real loss in her life.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

WANDAVISION: Episode 5: The ending.

WTF?!?!?!!?!?!?

**

Oooh, Wanda's accent is back!

**

Temporal Flux is as prescient as ever.

**

Something that came to mind as I was watching it -- a lot of us have grieved for Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo. And a lot of us have created our own worlds where we bring them back and live the lives we wanted to live with them. But -- I don't believe that Tracy Torme, Nigel Mitchell, Mike Truman, Slider_Quinn21 or myself were trying to ensnare hostages or hold people prisoner in our preferred world or deprive our fictional friends of their free will in our post-"Seer" stories. I think we all did what we did because we wanted to save the sliders and then set them all free.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

.
.
.

I’m really impressed by all the groundwork being laid for Fantastic Four.  The SWORD uniform resembling the original FF costume.  The cosmic background radiation (cosmic rays) that is integral to the FF origin.  The glimpse of the “rocket” being built by SWORD.  The unstable molecule fabric.  The brilliant aerospace engineer that Monica calls (likely Reed Richards).

Feige is really good at surprises (often carried out by fake trailers).  I wouldn’t be surprised to see Reed actually appear before this is over (introducing us to the actor they’ve cast).  It could be a scene that hasn’t even been filmed yet; something they’re waiting until the last minute to insert before the episode is live.

Also, many probably picked up that Monica now has her Photon powers.  This is why the medical scan was a bright light and the reading showed Monica’s body wasn’t there.  Monica is made of light now - you know, like a projection on a tv screen.  That’s a genius way of explaining her power set and why she got it.  It also again lends itself to the FF origin as Monica has been transformed into an elemental aspect of the universe - light.   The FF, of course, embodies the four traditional elements.



With episode 5, I think we’ve only been given part of the story of how Wanda found Vision at that SWORD facility.  She was obviously very angry on the footage we did see.  And she likely found something like the John Byrne story where Vision had been disassembled for study and possible replication (which the episode just mentioned was specifically against Vision’s wishes).

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/JohnHarris/2005-05-03_230750_wca044-02.jpg

Lastly, we have Agnes.  Much speculation that she is the witch Agatha Harkness (Ag-ness); and I think that’s pretty obvious at this point.  The interesting thing was near the start of episode 5 where Agnes breaks character and asks if Wanda wants to take the scene from the top.  It’s easy to see that as a tv production trope, but I see something a little different.  Was Agnes actually acting as a customer service rep?  Troubleshooting Wanda’s “purchase”?

If Wanda has indeed made a deal with the Devil (Mephisto), then that puts all of this squarely in Doctor Strange’s job description; and we already know this series is leading into Strange’s next movie.

In any case, Feige and Marvel deliver again.  They have my complete trust at this point; and they pack an incredible amount of story in what they do.  They “get it”.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Wow! John Byrne used to do some amazing stuff! (Although I love his more recent ANGEL comics in black and white and red.)

I never cease to be amazed at how well TF knows DC and Marvel. I've never read any pre-Kurt Busiek AVENGERS issues. Admittedly, I've been so busy lately I haven't been able to open the Marvel Unlimited app and I really need to soon to get my money's worth.

I'm really glad TF is so happy with Marvel, too. Feige, after years of labouring around Perlmutter, was finally granted full control of everything: comics, film and television. Feige is basically to Marvel Comics what Temporal Flux is to SLIDERS.

**

SPOILERS for the end of Episode 5:








On a more pedestrian note of conventionality: what was going on with that ending? Wanda's grief over Vision's death and her long-simmering sadness for Quicksilver's death back in AGE OF ULTRON is the driving force of her situation. Then a restored Quicksilver appears on her doorstep except it's not Aaron Taylor Johnson's Pietro from AGE OF ULTRON. It's Peter Maximoff, the version of Quicksilver who appeared in the FOX series of X-Men movies played by the brilliant Evan Peters.

Kat Dennings' Darcy Lewis identifies Peter as "Pietro" because both have white hair and a connection of some sort to Wanda. Peter greets Wanda as his sister. Wanda regards Peter as her brother. What the hell is going on here!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

We've seen in CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS that speedsters can transcend the dimensional barriers. Can something similar happen in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the multidimensional axis that contains the (by my count) four parallel timelines of FOX's series of X-MEN movies? (X-MEN - X2 - THE LAST STAND - WOLVERINE: ORIGIN - THE WOLVERINE | FIRST CLASS - DAYS OF FUTURE PAST - APOCALYPSE - DARK PHOENIX | LOGAN | DEADPOOL.) Did Peter Maximoff, in his adventures, find the gateway to parallel worlds, enter the Marvel Cinematic Universe and get drawn into Wanda's pocket reality? In DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, Peter had a little sister whose name was not given; have his memories of his sister been modified to match the Hex scenario to acknowledge Wanda as his sibling? Is Peter's presence accidental or by someone else's design?

Here's another question: is this even Peter Maximoff from DAYS OF FUTURE PAST? Or is it a new character, a Westfield resident whose memories have been suppressed and altered to fit Wanda's scenario, an innocent man who merely has the (mis?)fortune to be played by the brilliant actor Evan Peters?

(Sorry these ponderings aren't as cool as TF's, but whose are?)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

That comics image is from a storyline called Vision Quest in the West Coast Avengers title.  They did a great deal with Wanda during the Byrne run that started about mid-series (which included some foreshadowing of House of M).

Thinking further on Wandavision - if this is indeed Mephisto behind this, then what is he getting out of it?  Mephisto isn’t a genie; he always has a stake.  What if Monica isn’t the only person that’s been transformed into light?  What if everyone in Westview has been transformed?  That could be why the people change with the time periods just as easily as the clothes - matter is being rearranged on everything.

But why light?  Well, what is Mephisto’s usual motivation?  He wants souls.  Transforming people to energy would make them much easier to absorb.  The transformation of these people could also explain the pain they feel.  They’re being eaten.  The constant changing of time periods may be necessary to continue changing the people.  We are watching the digestion process; and Monica may turn out to be the only everyday person to survive Westview.

What about Agnes?  I notice she isn’t the old hag she’s supposed to be.  Is her role in Westview the price for her new youth?

With Pietro, I think he suddenly appeared because Mephisto was afraid Wanda was about to leave.  Wanda walked outside of the town to talk with SWORD; and it was only after she walked back in that Pietro appeared.  Mephisto needs Wanda.  She is likely the engine making his soul taking scheme possible.

But the explanation for the actor change?  Hard to say.  The episode did mention the difficulty in bringing back the dead (except for re-animating a machine). Perhaps Mephisto’s only choice was to pull another Pietro from the multiverse. Why the Fox version?  I still wonder what damage Deadpool did with his time travel fun at the end of Deadpool 2.  Everything takes the path of least resistance; and if the Fox reality was badly damaged and stretched thin by Deadpool, then maybe the Fox Pietro was the easiest to grab.

I would expect we won’t get our answer to all of that until the Loki series and it’s introduction of the Time Variance Authority (the Marvel Comics version of Continuity Cops who police reality to keep things making sense).

Anyway, some fun speculation.  We’ll see what happens!

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Speculating on the motive for Wanda's situation and who's controlling it and what they have to gain from it -- it's very interesting. It reminds me of "Slide Effects" by Tracy Torme. Torme's idea: Quinn Mallory wakes up to find himself home, time rewound to the Pilot, all his friends alive and well, no one remembering sliding except for Quinn. The situation is revealed to be a Kromagg trick -- a dramatic device for Torme's return to undo any damage after his departure.

But... why would the Kromaggs do this to the sliders? What could they possibly have to gain from putting the sliders in a telepathic simulation of their home Earth? What would they get out of it?

I don't know and Torme's 673 word memo for "Slide Effects" provides no explanation either. The Kromaggs' reasons are a plotting necessity but an emotional irrelevancy, and I can see that being the case in an aired version of "Slide Effects" as well.

WANDAVISION, however, is extremely concerned with why Wanda is in this situation. Despite the lavishly detailed pastiches of sitcoms from decades past, the show takes pains to show how much control Wanda actually exerts over Westfield. She can 'edit' episodes by rewinding time and replaying scenarios. She can use her telekinetic and transmutational powers.

However, she isn't controlling the hostages' minds and Westfield's events. TF citing Agnes asking Wanda if she wants a retake of the scene is, as he notes, a sign that other force is tailoring them to Wanda's wants and wishes. There's been a lot of careful though and detail applied.

SPOILERS







DEADPOOL II indeed provided the only real explanation for why the X-MEN film continuity has been so fractured from film to film after X-MEN ORIGINS WOLVERINE (actual title). But I wonder --most people view interdimensional travel as damaging the universe, ripping open the fabric of reality. But could sliding instead cause two trees of reality to develop intertwined roots and become stronger for it? Creating strong bridges of regular passage?

That said, WANDAVISION is probably not going to bring all the FOX versions of the X-MEN into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Also, Peter Maximoff doesn't correct Wanda addressing him as "Pietro." He may not even be the Quicksilver of DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, he may be a double. Admittedly, since the story involves suppressing and altering personalities, that might be trivial.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Another Thought on Temporal Flux's theory that all of the hostages in Westfield are being converted to light to have their souls consumed by Mephisto, the Marvel Universe's version of the devil --

There is a certain thematic sense to this. The Hex-controlled environ of Westfield is being converted into television -- a medium that is essentially composed of pure light. Pure light that is distributed and sold as a mass market product. As sustenance to be consumed for the soul.

... oh my goodness.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think the SLIDERS equivalent of WANDAVISION might be a story written by "ThomasMalthus," called "Gilded Mirror." Set during Season 4, Quinn, Rembrandt, Colin and Maggie encounter some sort of simulated environment where Quinn and Rembrandt are reunited with Wade and Arturo. The joy gives way to suspicion, danger and horror, however ,as this happy reunion turns out to be nothing of the kind and gives way to the sheer bleakness and grief of Season 4 with home destroyed, two friends lost and the entire purpose of SLIDERS shattered on every level. What's lost is gone forever. What was destroyed will not be rebuilt.

http://slidersweb.net/otherworlds/fics/gilded.htm

It's a good story, but... I ultimately don't subscribe to it. This is SLIDERS, for heaven's sake. To me, thinking Wade and the Professor are dead is like taking Marvel Comics seriously whenever they kill off Peter Parker (by my count, he's died nine times). And I think WANDAVISION is asking if the Marvel Cinematic Universe subscribes to the Marvel Comics view that superheroes always come back. In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, superheroes can die (or retire) because actors age and contracts end. But can the Vision really die? Even if Paul Bettany didn't want to do the makeup and prosthetics anymore, wouldn't they just find someone to wear them and ask Bettany to do the voice?

In Episode 5, when Wanda is reunited with someone she thought lost in a new form that remains recognizable -- Elizabeth Olsen's performance really moved me and I've seen that expression on her face before. I've seen it in the mirror. I saw it in 2011 when I wrote and uploaded "Slide Effects" where Quinn wakes up to find that time has been rewound to the Pilot, Wade and Rembrandt and Arturo are alive and well and things will be alright. I saw it in the mirror again in 2015 in the bathroom after I'd just uploaded "Reprise" to EarthPrime.com where Rembrandt comes out of the vortex in "The Seer" and finds Quinn, Wade and Arturo waiting for him, miraculously restored and impossibly alive, telling a doubting Rembrandt that they are sliders and that nothing is impossible.

It wasn't Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo as I knew them, of course -- it wasn't Jerry O'Connell, Sabrina Lloyd, Cleavant Derricks and John Rhys-Davies. It was pixel-formed text in a PDF (and later Google Docs) presentation. It was an approximation of the actors' performances converted into the format of the novel and presented as a screenplay to offer a reformatted but recognizable version of Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo -- just like Wanda's visitor.

Spoilers


















Interesting. Evan Peters doesn't appear to be playing Peter Maximoff from the X-MEN movies.

He declares that he is indeed Pietro Maximoff from AGE OF ULTRON, and he isn't sure why he looks different, but he clearly has Pietro's memories (or has access to Wanda's memories to answer any of her questions) and he is aware that the reality of Westfield has been rewritten to Wanda's desires and considers it benign and even generous to the hostages.

In addition, despite his alternate appearance, Wanda believes that Evan Peters is her brother; she accepts him, she relates to him as her children's uncle, she didn't bring him but wanted him to be present.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Leaving in his spoiler tag to talk about his spoiler talk

ireactions wrote:

Spoilers


















Interesting. Evan Peters doesn't appear to be playing Peter Maximoff from the X-MEN movies.

He declares that he is indeed Pietro Maximoff from AGE OF ULTRON, and he isn't sure why he looks different, but he clearly has Pietro's memories (or has access to Wanda's memories to answer any of her questions) and he is aware that the reality of Westfield has been rewritten to Wanda's desires and considers it benign and even generous to the hostages.

In addition, despite his alternate appearance, Wanda believes that Evan Peters is her brother; she accepts him, she relates to him as her children's uncle, she didn't bring him but wanted him to be present.

Is that how you read that?  I think Evan Peters is at least pretending to be Age of Ultron Pietro, but I'm still not convinced that he's anything other than some sort of trick.  A podcast I listen to speculated that it may be X-Men Peter and some combination of multiverse travel and Wanda may have messed with his memories, which is an interesting take on multiversal travel.

I think Wanda is suspicious, and I think Pietro is at least acting suspicious.  What's interesting is that Pietro briefly flashes with bulletholes - which is weird because we know that Vision's body looks the way it's supposed to (animated by Wanda), but if Pietro is truly Peter, why the bulletholes?

The bigger question for me is who is the scientist that Monica keeps referencing.  Is it the obvious choice of seeing in Reed Richards?  Would Disney introduce a character like that in a Disney+ show?  Is it Jane Foster now that Natalie Portman is back in the fray?  But, if then, why isn't Darcy the one bringing her in?  Same with Selvig.  It could be Riri Williams in a tie-in to a future Disney+ show, but the ages would be wildly off, especially if Riri wasn't snapped.  Could be a parent but that seems weak.

All signs point to Reed, but that would be quite the twist.  Maybe that's what Elizabeth Olsen was referencing when she mentioned a Luke-level cameo.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I suppose it could certainly be a trick, but it's curious. If Pietro is an impostor, why wouldn't the impostor make sure to use Pietro's actual face to make it more convincing? Why would the impostor deliberately undermine his own disguise? An explanation may come, but for now, I believe that Evan Peters is Pietro because Wanda believes that he is Pietro and Elizabeth Olsen is playing Wanda with that confidence. She has questions and suspicions -- his accent, his face -- but she feels his familiarity, their shared history, their bond, their trust -- and she accepts him as her brother, so I'm going along with that too. The show may reveal that Wanda (and I) are wrong.

No idea who the scientist is. But I am inclined to think that it is Ben Reilly. Hahaha! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Reilly

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

They dropped the Agatha Harkness twist finally.  Most people, I think, saw that coming if they knew the comics, but I thought they did a great job with it.  The "Agatha All Along" song was great, and there's still two weeks to build on that.

The engineer was either very disappointing (someone no one has heard of) or they're still stretching out the surprise.  At this point, I think it's gotta be Reed Richards.  I think it'd be pretty shocking to introduce someone like that in something like this, but the way they're talking about it in interviews and the way the show is treating it, I think it's gotta be something big.

Potential spoilers on the ending (nothing confirmed but speculation I've read)

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So everyone is thinking Mephisto because of how the story went in the comics, but that might be too much to introduce to audiences in less than two episodes.  So who's someone that fits all of the qualifications that have been both on the show and talked about in interviews and feeds into Dr Strange....?

What if Baron Mordo is behind everything?  Acclaimed actor.  Big name.  Leads directly into Multiverse of Madness.  Already established in the universe.  Magic related.  I think this could be a cool way to end it and may fit better than Mephisto/Nightmare/etc.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Also, who is Pietro? We saw the telltale purple energy on his back as he stood at the Maximoff front door, so he's a pawn, but who is he?