Sliders.tv → Sliders Bboard → Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21
Spoilers for Falcon and the Winter Soldier
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
I really hope that John Walker doesn't end up a bad guy. I really like Wyatt Russell as an actor, and I would love if his character stays heroic (even as an antagonist to Sam) and ends up just being US Agent. I know it's probably going to end up where he takes Super Soldier serum and goes crazy, but I hope that's not the case.
I've watched four episodes of it so far and I think it's good. I've seen two somewhat negative reviews complaining that FALCON AND WINTER SOLDIER doesn't have enough to say about what it means to be Black and doesn't have anything to say about jingoism and resistance and fascism, how FALCON AND WINTER SOLDIER somehow fails to be a meaningful political text --
https://slate.com/culture/2021/04/falco … erica.html
https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/the … hat-he-is/
And honestly, I think that these reviewers are asking for too much, expecting a five star meal of oyster appetizers and filet mignon and chocolate truffle cake to come out of the McDonalds takeout window. While I adore superheroes and turn to them for guidance and morality, superheroes are founded in simple action-adventure escapism. It is wonderful when superheroes offer meaningful political and social commentary, but I never expect or ask superheroes to be anything more than pleasant children's stories.
More critically: FALCON AND WINTER does something that AGENTS OF SHIELD did not do, that the Netflix shows didn't do -- this is clearly taking place in the same narrative space as the AVENGERS movies. It features actors and characters continuing storylines from the films; it's carrying on plot points from past movies and moving into future ones. It's not like AGENTS OF SHIELD referring to feature films that flatly ignore AGENTS OF SHIELD; it's not like the Netflix shows never showing the Avengers Tower in the New York City skyline or presenting a dark, street level narrative in a world lacking the sci-fi fantasy elements of IRON MAN and HULK. The Netflix and ABC shows were not maintaining the stylistic elements of the AVENGERS movies; FALCON AND WINTER SOLDIER maintain all of them.
FALCON AND WINTER SOLDIER has the same crisp cinematography of WINTER SOLDIER; it has the snappy banter of AVENGERS and AGE OF ULTRON; it has the political shadings of CIVIL WAR while focusing more on characters than politics; it has the physical intensity of WINTER SOLIDER and CIVIL WAR but more of the humour of ANT MAN. It is a Marvel Cinematic Universe TV show that maintains the same tone of the films from which it emerges -- which was apparently really hard for the original TV department.
Finished THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER -- and while it was pretty enjoyable overall, the Escapist review makes a fair point: Karli is a terrorist, but she's also stealing medical supplies for refugees and trying to defend them and her more murderous behaviour seems more so the story can justify Sam trying to stop her -- rather than actions that actually make sense for furthering her goals.
Sam says that he supports her cause but not her actions, yet Sam's only actions for most of FALCON-WINTER are to try to capture Karli without doing anything to assist the refugees. A lot of the finale has Sam, John Walker and Bucky trying to save a bunch of anonymous, unnamed characters whom we don't really know followed by Sam giving a speech to these fairly undefined non-individuals about the refugees. From there, we get a vague reference to refugee policies being altered to something more humane (and frustratingly unspecific).
It needs a few more notes; perhaps more emphasis on how Sam is drawing attention to Karli's cause (while condemning her methods) using the platform of Captain America, perhaps Captain America seeking volunteers to join him in protecting the refugees until a deal is laid out. It's almost there. Ultimately, I would not have expected Captain America to offer anything more than a speech because, well, he's a fictional character in largely escapist entertainment and the sentiments he offers are ones that the audience has to take into the real world. However, the speech Sam gives does not balance his inaction towards a cause with which he claims to sympathize.
Similar criticisms were made of CIVIL WAR: that no major lead characters died, that the movie boiled down a conflict of security and freedom and power into three people in absurd outfits brawling -- and I just don't expect more (or less) from superheroes in Disney products. This is fast food action adventure. And it's fine.
**
On the subject of getting paid -- in the comics, any Avenger receives a monthly stipend. (Or did until DISASSEMBLED when the United Nations stopped funding the Avengers after the Scarlet Witch lost control of her powers and accidentally attacked New York City and Stark Enterprises nearly went bankrupt repairing the damage.) I got the sense that pre-CIVIL WAR, the Avengers had a line of credit from Tony Stark that, for Sam, would have been shut down after he went rogue. And Stark died almost minutes after the Falcon was unsnapped, so Falcon would have remained unpaid.
Jonathan Hickman continues to take X-men in interesting directions. Will Disney use this as their road map for the movies and tv shows? I think they should.
I think there's a good chance that the Marvel Cinematic Universe will use Hickman's version of X-MEN and I think it's a great idea.
I've only read the opening arcs, HOUSE OF X, POWERS OF X and DAWN OF X and it's brilliant. The X-Men form a new nation on the island of Krakoa, declare that rather than try to integrate with humans, they will leave it behind and offer humanity gifts of cures to all diseases in exchange for being left alone. Professor Xavier has given up on peaceful unification and chosen to build a mutant civilization apart from humans.
This take, if used in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, would be very effective for distinguishing the MCU X-Men from the FOX version of the characters.
In terms of the comic books themselves, however -- I applaud Hickman's vision, but I don't expect it to last. In 2001, Grant Morrison elevated the X-Men to a global operation and a publicly known school openly welcoming mutants as students, casting off the approach since the 60s of the X-Men being a covert operation that only pretended to be a school and was at most offering private tutoring. Morrison changed the civil rights metaphor of mutants as minorities to mutants instead representing revolutionary youth against establishment adults, and revealed that most newborn children in the Marvel Comics universe were mutants. Humans would cease to exist within generations.
In 2005, barely four years later, the HOUSE OF M storyline reduced the mutant population to around 200 after a mass depowering with no new mutants to be born. In 2010, mutant births would be restored in the FIVE LIGHTS storyline but at a low number, restoring the metaphor of mutants as a minority. The X-Men moved out of Westchester to San Francisco and abandoned the school, but three years later, Cyclops and Wolverine had a falling out in San Francisco and Wolverine and some of his friends returned to reopen, going back to the X-Men running a school. Cyclops was killed off in 2016, but in three years' time, he was resurrected and friends with Wolverine again. Invariably, the status quo of these properties will reassert themselves. Inevitably, the X-Men will be back to running a school out of Westchester at some point, much in the same way Clark Kent may drift into TV news but will at some point return to clocking in at the Daily Planet.
It's comforting, in a way, especially if you're a SLIDERS fan longing to believe that Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo will inevitably return.
Loki has been so much fun. I cannot believe it took them this long to make it!
I'm thinking about seeing Black Widow in theaters. I had jury duty not too long ago and that was my first time being inside with people I don't live with for any sort of time. It was nice but it was weird. I'm thinking if I go to a showing in the middle of the day on a weekday (getting time off work to do so), I could get a showing that's fairly empty and thus socially distant. If I wear my mask, plus having my vaccine, I assume I'd be essentially 100% covered, variant or not. I just don't see myself spending $30 on this movie.
Shang-Chi looks super fun and I'm also more excited about the Eternals than I thought I'd be. I cannot wait for the Spider-Man trailer and I'm super excited for What If.
Safe to say I'm still all in on the MCU 
Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney for Breach of Contract Over ‘Black Widow’ Release
Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney for Breach of Contract Over ‘Black Widow’ Release
I can’t blame her, and she probably has a good case. Start looking for pandemic clauses in future contracts; nobody has thought of that before now.
I liked Loki as well, though the story is pretty stupid, as odd as that sounds, ha ha. Hiddleston is just great as that character.
An actress suing the biggest studio on Earth probably means the end of her career, though Scarlett probably couldn't care less. She wants nothing to do with fame.
I thought LOKI was great! THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER was trying to be political but took a vague, wishy-washy non-position of nothing. LOKI is trying to be psychological and humour-oriented and so it can take a very firm position that Loki, for all his flair and charisma and talent and power, is a loser and will always lose: he can't build trust, he's a narcissist who falls in love with himself, and this is beautifully portrayed in the sequence where a small team of Loki-doubles betray each other in turn.
**
My niece banned me from seeing BLACK WIDOW, saying that the Delta variant is way too scary even if I'm double-vaccinated because other audience members might not be. I will see it when I don't have to pay money for it in addition to what I'm already paying for Disney+.
Scarlett Johansson is undoubtedly in the right in her lawsuit and I don't even like Johansson as a person, a privileged, entitled, snotty and cruel person who accepts roles that should go to Japanese and transgendered individuals (although she apologized for the last one). However, Disney has historically treated its workers with contemptuous abusiveness: laying off its theme park staff while its executives pocketed millions even when Disney's pathetic wages were leaving three-quarters of their theme park workforce perpetually on the verge of homelessness and starving even when they could afford a roof over their heads. They reopened Disney World at the height of their pandemic, for God's sake.
There is no doubt in my mind that Disney felt they could stiff Johansson on her fee, not bother to come to an alternate arrangement with her for moving BLACK WIDOW to streaming, and settle any lawsuit for pennies on the dollar. However, I will note that actors seem to constantly have to sue studios for what they're owed. David Boreanaz and Emily Deschanel and David Duchovny have had to sue FOX for underpaid residuals. Creators have had to do the same: Chris Carter had to sue FOX, Alfred Gough and Miles Millar had to sue Warner Bros. It's pretty ridiculous.
I've also read that Kevin Feige is outraged at Johansson's treatment: that he urged Disney to make a new payment arrangement with her before they took BLACK WIDOW to streaming and they declined.
Rewatch Podcast has a movie review series with Cory and Nathan reviewing the Marvel feature films. These are splendid podcasts. At one point, they referred to AGENTS OF SHIELD and said they wouldn't be covering it as it's a TV show of way too many episodes which I think makes sense. They also said it wasn't canon, which I don't believe to be the case. In their WINTER SOLDIER podcast, Nathan remarked that he didn't find the character of Agent Jasper Sitwell interesting and that was probably why AGENTS OF SHIELD "failed."
I remarked that it's odd to say that a TV show "failed" when it had seven seasons with a series finale and a happy ending. It's not exactly SLIDERS. Cory kindly clarified that they just meant the show had "failed" to draw their interest because SHIELD onscreen in the movies didn't compel them to watch the TV show (which is fair). Cory also reiterated that he was under the impression that AGENTS OF SHIELD is no longer canon.
I can see why he thinks that and he's far from the only one who does; there are numerous clickbait articles online claiming that AGENTS OF SHIELD is no longer canon, usually written on a slow news day. These articles seize on how Disney+ has filed AGENTS OF SHIELD under "Marvel Legends" with the animated shows in some regions. Or how WANDAVISION featured a magic book called the Darkholm that didn't match the Darkholm in AGENTS OF SHIELD. Or how LOKI didn't refer to Coulson coming back to life after Loki killed him.
I don't see how these little disconnects are any more significant than, say, Tony Stark pursuing the Avengers initiative in the INCREDIBLE HULK tag scene only for IRON MAN 2 to say he'd been rejected from the Avengers. The Darkholm is a magic book; it may have different forms, it may have been duplicated by time travel, it may be multiple books that have built a contradictory legend with the same name in the same way Robin Hood is alternatively a peasant rebel or a renegade nobleman. Agent Coulson was dead again as of Season 5 of AGENTS OF SHIELD and his return was always a covert event.
And I think any streaming service is going to try to put its new content front and center and its older content in a less prominent place.
As for AGENT OF SHIELD's canonicity -- Kevin Feige's only overt comment about AGENTS OF SHIELD's canonicity has been to say that he wasn't in charge of AGENTS OF SHIELD (or AGENT CARTER or the Netflix and Hulu shows) and that while there were no plans to have the TV agents or Netflix Defenders in a Disney+ show or a Marvel feature, he would never say never. When a journalist said that Disney+ shows were superior to the ABC, Netflix and Hulu shows, Feige protested that the previous TV shows had plenty of fans who would disagree.
https://www.syfy.com/syfy.com/marvel-st … eld-return
https://screenrant.com/marvel-televisio … d-opinion/
The Marvel films and Disney+ shows have never overtly contradicted AGENTS OF SHIELD. I don't believe they ever will simply because Feige generally doesn't seek to alienate people aside from Edward Norton. Most Hollywood producers will seek to maintain a positive or not-negative relationship with people they hope to work with in the future. Feige asked Clark Gregg to return for CAPTAIN MARVEL and for the WHAT IF animated show; Feige enjoys a good friendship and business partnership with Gregg. Feige is not going to tell his comrade and valued employee Clark Gregg that Clark Gregg gave seven years of his life to a TV show that Feige no longer 'counts.'
With Marvel under Feige now moving into Feige-directed TV projects, Feige may be seeking to recruit TV veterans, mid to high level writer-producer-directors. People like Jed Whedon (not Joss), Jeffrey Bell, Maurissa Tancharoen, Monica Owusu-Breen, Drew Greenberg, Nora and Lilla Zuckerman -- and there's no benefit to upsetting even one or two people whom Feige might want to hire in the future by being dismissive of their seven years of hard work on a property that was under his banner even if he wasn't managing it.
I think it is very unlikely that Daisy Johnson or the LMD Coulson or Fitz or Simmons or Mack will show up in a Marvel movie or a Disney+ show because ABC's audience was significantly lower than a Marvel film or a Disney+ show. It's unreasonable to expect familiarity. However, it is likely that Clark Gregg will remain a presence, that someone from the AOS years may be asked to at least develop a Disney+ show (whether greenlit or not), so Feige will likely leave AGENTS OF SHIELD alone, uncontradicted except insignificant ways, unacknowledged but not disrespected.
AGENTS OF SHIELD was presented as canon on its debut and no one working at Marvel today has ever said otherwise. I've said this before: AGENTS OF SHIELD is a show about spies. Throughout history, spies have been honoured and spies have been hanged, but for the most part, spies have been ignored.
Anyway. Rewatch Podcast is doing a great job of covering the Marvel movies with the same wry amusement and charm that Tom and Cory brought to SLIDERS. Check it out. https://therewatchpodcast.libsyn.com/
Are y'all watching What If?
I think it's a fun show, but I actually wish that it was longer episodes. I think they could have a bit more fun if they went a little further. Maybe they'll revisit some of these worlds, but I think Episode 3 (no spoilers) could've benefitted from more story. Episode 2 (no spoilers) could've benefitted from more prologue and more characters.
I do think episodes 1 and 4 were about as long as they needed to be. I just wish some of them didn't feel...incomplete. If they decide to show more in the confirmed season 2, then I'm cool with that as well.
******
As someone who watched all of Agents of SHIELD, I wish that it would be canon. As someone who has watched zero seconds of Inhumans, I'm hoping that it isn't canon.
I assume Agent Carter is canon since it's the only one that has been connected to the movies. I assume if they wanted Agents of SHIELD to be canon, they would've used Coulson. The fact that no one has brought back Coulson (post-Avengers timeline) and that he's been brought back for essentially any other reason, my guess is that Agents of SHIELD isn't canon. Even the stuff that has Fury or Sif in it.
But you know my stance on supplemental materials. Even while enjoying Star Wars comics
I will get to WHAT IF soon.
**
Clark Gregg was apparently so worried about whether or not AGENTS OF SHIELD is canon that he called Kevin Feige to inquire. Feige replied that Gregg should not doubt the power and importance and influences of the fans, especially the fans of the ABC, Hulu and Netflix shows.
https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/clark … canon-mcu/
https://open.spotify.com/episode/03196snR5x4XdhTOsV6rf8
Joss Whedon killed Coulson in AVENGERS and then wrote the pilot episode of AGENTS OF SHIELD in which Coulson is resurrected. When asked why Coulson wasn't in AGE OF ULTRON, Whedon said he found it too difficult to explain to the casual audience why Coulson was alive again; most of the feature film viewers would not have watched an ABC TV series. That has, fairly or unfairly, kept Coulson out of present day Marvel films and Disney+ shows.
Personally, I think it makes sense that AGENTS OF SHIELD won't be directly acknowledged or contradicted. It was a show about a secret organization engaged in covert operations. Very few people on WANDAVISION or THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER or LOKI should be aware of SHIELD's underground existence or that Coulson lived another five years after his supposed death in AVENGERS before dying again for realzies.
Joss Whedon killed Coulson in AVENGERS and then wrote the pilot episode of AGENTS OF SHIELD in which Coulson is resurrected. When asked why Coulson wasn't in AGE OF ULTRON, Whedon said he found it too difficult to explain to the casual audience why Coulson was alive again; most of the feature film viewers would not have watched an ABC TV series. That has, fairly or unfairly, kept Coulson out of present day Marvel films and Disney+ shows.
I don't buy that. It may have been casually true during Age of Ultron (where Phil was alive but we may not have known exactly how or why) but it certainly isn't true now. Coulson is an LMD "canonically" so I think that's all you need. You could write a line about "Stark missed me so he built me a new body based on the old Coulson" which, true or not, would be enough hand-waving for it to be both true to the show and make sense for the fans.
It wouldn't even need to be "Somehow, Palpatine is back" levels of bad. He's a robot so you say he's a robot. Or if you want more spycraft stuff have two characters who know him but wouldn't know the reason (Thor and Banner?) say "I guess he faked his death?" Its an explanation to the audience whether or not it's the explanation, and I think that would satisfy the audience. I think most fans would either get it and move on, or they'd assume that it was explained in a comic book they're never going to read.
I think the real reason is that I think they want death to matter. I think Tony Stark will stay dead. I think Natasha will stay dead. James Gunn has been pretty clear that Yondu will stay dead. I think T'Challa will stay dead. If Coulson comes back, it opens that door open. Why wouldn't the government create an LMD of Captain America instead of using John Walker? Wouldn't Tony have built an LMD of himself? Why couldn't Kree technology save Yondu?
If you never open that door, it can't ever be used.
Coulson is a popular character. He led the first Marvel TV show, and they've literally brought him back every chance they've gotten. They know he's a capable and fun character to use. And I think if there was anything they could do to unwrite his death, they would've. But I think they want him to stay dead, and I think they want his death to matter. And Agents of SHIELD, as much as I liked it, did undermine a key moment in the Avengers. And I think, especially since I was only able to come up with four examples of key deaths, that matters too much to Marvel and/or Feige.
They want death to matter so much that they brought back every character Thanos had killed for the final fight in Endgame.
But those ones did matter. We got back The Wasp, but we lost Tony Stark. We got back Mantis but we lost *Tony Stark*. We got back Maria Hill but we lost Tony Stark.
I know we also got back Spider-Man and Doctor Strange and some other big hitters, but the loss wasn't those guys. It was Tony Stark, the guy that kicked this thing off and spent the most time on screen out of anyone. We also lost Black Widow, who never had her own movie but was still #8 in screen time as of Endgame (per a rando source I found) and technically lost Captain America (#2) in the same swing. That's not nothing, and it's the payment for bringing all those guys back.
So, yeah, they did resurrect a bunch of people, but I think they paid for that. And I think it's a bit different than whatever nonsense they had on SHIELD to explain Coulson coming back three different times (the LMD one made the most sense). They kinda cheated on Loki to bring him back, but it was sorta the same thing. And "main" Loki is still dead. They toyed around with Pietro, but he's still dead. They had Nick Fury and Loki fake outs, but neither of them was even dead by the time that movie ended.
ireactions wrote:Joss Whedon killed Coulson in AVENGERS and then wrote the pilot episode of AGENTS OF SHIELD in which Coulson is resurrected. When asked why Coulson wasn't in AGE OF ULTRON, Whedon said he found it too difficult to explain to the casual audience why Coulson was alive again; most of the feature film viewers would not have watched an ABC TV series. That has, fairly or unfairly, kept Coulson out of present day Marvel films and Disney+ shows.
I don't buy that. It may have been casually true during Age of Ultron (where Phil was alive but we may not have known exactly how or why) but it certainly isn't true now. Coulson is an LMD "canonically" so I think that's all you need. You could write a line about "Stark missed me so he built me a new body based on the old Coulson" which, true or not, would be enough hand-waving for it to be both true to the show and make sense for the fans.
[...]
Coulson is a popular character. He led the first Marvel TV show, and they've literally brought him back every chance they've gotten. They know he's a capable and fun character to use. And I think if there was anything they could do to unwrite his death, they would've. But I think they want him to stay dead, and I think they want his death to matter. And Agents of SHIELD, as much as I liked it, did undermine a key moment in the Avengers. And I think, especially since I was only able to come up with four examples of key deaths, that matters too much to Marvel and/or Feige.
There were also some legal/logistical/licensing issues that kept Coulson out of the present day films. Feige lost control of the Agent Coulson character after AGE OF ULTRON, leaving him with absolutely no say over Coulson's present day stories in Coulson's weekly TV show.
As Slider_Quinn21 pointed out a few years ago, the Marvel TV and film divisions were originally connected through Joss Whedon working on AVENGERS and AGE OF ULTRON alongside AGENTS OF SHIELD. And also Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely working on WINTER SOLDIER and INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME alongside AGENT CARTER.
Marvel film, TV, publishing and merchandising were operated by Ike Perlmutter with Feige running the film division and Jeph Loeb running the TV division with a small number of staff from publishing working with Perlmutter as consultants. Feige was blocked from the TV division and increasingly micromanaged in the film division by Perlmutter.
During this period, AGENTS OF SHIELD was outside Feige's purview; his only influence on AGENTS OF SHIELD was that Feige was overseeing Joss Whedon's work on AGE OF ULTRON and Whedon had a vested interest in having AGE OF ULTRON tie into the TV show that Whedon had developed and for which he'd written the pilot, meaning whatever Feige had Whedon do on the second Avengers film would determine what could or couldn't happen with Coulson on television.
Then Whedon quit with AGE OF ULTRON and Feige's at-most indirect ability to direct the Coulson character was gone. Coulson was now in Jeph Loeb's hands as part of the TV division and if Feige wanted to use him, it would be something Perlmutter could use to further interfere with the films and Feige was enduring outrageous interference from Perlmutter.
Leading up to CIVIL WAR, Feige and Downey Jr. were interested in giving Tony Stark a larger role (and salary) when the original plan had been for Downey Jr. to only work on CIVIL WAR for two weeks of shooting and voice recording and have most of Tony's scenes with him wearing the armour and Tony's face only in insert shots. Perlmutter proceeded to fire Downey Jr. off CIVIL WAR for daring to seek a larger role. Feige was furious and threatened to resign from Marvel.
Disney stepped in, giving Feige total control of the film division. Perlmutter owned too much Disney stock to be fired entirely, so he was demoted to running only Marvel TV and publishing. Perlmutter and Jeph Loeb oversaw the ABC, Hulu and Netflix shows with no further communication between them and Feige's film division.
Feige was free from Perlmutter -- unless he wanted to use Agent Coulson as Coulson's present day adventures remained in the AGENTS OF SHIELD television show. Feige couldn't control it, had no input into it, would have had to defer to Perlmutter to use Coulson in the present day or cede ground back to a former supervisor he couldn't work with any longer -- so he only used Coulson in CAPTAIN MARVEL (set in the past).
This allowed Feige's friend and business partner Clark Gregg to continue to have a clear path on AGENTS OF SHIELD under Perlmutter and Loeb. As Feige said in interviews, he tried to focus on the projects where he had control (the movies) as opposed to the projects where he didn't (ABC, Hulu and Netflix).
In 2020, Feige regained full control of Agent Phil Coulson; Feige is now in charge of Marvel films, television and comic book publishing. Disney removed Perlmutter and Loeb from any creative control of Marvel properties. Loeb has been dismissed. Perlmutter remains the largest single shareholder at Disney but has no authority over film, TV or publishing. https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/kevin … 203377802/
No public statement gave any reasoning, but by 2020, all the Marvel TV division projects had concluded or been cancelled and had never sustained long-term success. AGENTS OF SHIELD was a critical hit with Season 2 onward, but it was a ratings sleeper, surviving only due to internal licensing advantages. AGENT CARTER was a ratings crash in Season 1, and a budget-slashed Season 2 saw its numbers fall so badly that it was unrenewable for Season 3.
DAREDEVIL, JESSICA JONES and LUKE CAGE received acclaim but were highly criticized for Netflix bloat and constant creative reshuffling with showrunners coming and going due to poor professional relationships. Despite the final seasons of the post-DEFENDERS shows getting great reviews, the audience had fallen badly and all the Netflix shows were cancelled.
INHUMANS was a disaster, a low budget TV project that premiered in IMAX theatres, conflating the big budget Marvel feature film brand image with bargain basement TV. IMAX declared that Marvel TV had damaged the IMAX brand with INHUMANS.
In contrast, Feige is the hero of the highly successful Marvel film division, and Disney wanted a clean slate for Feige to bring the same success to Disney+ with Marvel shows. The comic books are viewed as Feige's research and development branch.
Will Coulson return in future films or on Disney+?
Clark Gregg says there are currently no plans, but it would have been impossible to make any plans until near the end of 2020, and any plans being made now -- if any -- would likely manifest towards the end of the Phase 4 movies and shows or some time in Phase 5.
I don't expect Agent Coulson to return for the immediate future simply because AGENTS OF SHIELD lasted an incredible seven years and Feige might want to let the character rest from regular appearances for awhile. Coulson first appeared in 2008 and was on TV from 2013 to 2020. He has had a lot of airtime.
I'm a big fan of Coulson. It's possible that he'll be back. It's also possible that his time has come and gone and if that's the case, 12 years was amazing and nothing can diminish that achievement.
I watched the first episode of WHAT IF. It was wonderful to hear Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter again and the computer generated, cel-shaded animation and character designs look true to the live action versions while having a freedom of movement that is beyond live action (and most lower budgeted animated projects).
It makes me once again long for a third season of AGENT CARTER which ended on a cliffhanger where Peggy apparently had some dark secrets in missions that happened before the first CAPTAIN AMERICA movie that were coming back to haunt her. WINTER SOLDIER established that Peggy would live a great life and retire from SHIELD; AGENTS OF SHIELD revealed that Peggy and Sousa would break up but still be on friendly terms while Sousa would fall in love with Daisy Johnson from the future; ENDGAME showed that Steve and Peggy would be reunited in time. But I'd still like a conclusion to Peggy's adventures. At least a direct to Disney+ feature film.
pilight wrote:Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney for Breach of Contract Over ‘Black Widow’ Release
I can’t blame her, and she probably has a good case. Start looking for pandemic clauses in future contracts; nobody has thought of that before now.
The success of Shang-Chi strengthens her case.
Marvel is at an impasse in negotiations with the Russo Brothers because they're looking for assurances their next film won't get dumped on D+, thus reducing their take.
Disney has screwed over a ton of people. Even if she wins a massive payday, I think they'll continue to do it.
I love the MCU. It's great that Marvel was able to acquire the rights to the X-Men and the Fantastic Four and the characters they got from Fox.
I think Disney is an awful company with terrible practices, and it sucks that they own so much and will continue to do so.
The is an even more painful truth at hand: Disney isn't an awful company as much as it's a corporation and corporations exist to extract wealth and resources with absolutely no regard for those exploited or destroyed in the process. Disney is just like every other corporation.
Disney pays its theme park workers a pittance because the money they withhold goes into bloated executive salaries. Disney reopened its theme parks in the middle of a global pandemic because there was money to be made from the COVID deniers who'd attend. Disney outsources merchandising to sweatshops and slave labour to increase their markup on T-shirts and dolls.
Amazon overworks its warehouse and delivery workers to the point where they're forced to urinate in bottles to meet their packaging and driving quotas. Walmart regularly cuts hours and increases responsibilities while limiting workers to part time status to avoid paying benefits. Uber drivers often live in their cars. These corporations are happy to leave their workforce dependent on the US government providing food stamps and health care.
Disney and its ilk assume that once they've used up their existing workers, turnover will induce the next round of impoverished and desperate people to fill an ever diminishing number of positions until they're all replaced by robots.
I imagine Disney is less than a decade away from licensing actor's faces to graft onto body doubles and to use in perpetuity.
In the BLACK WIDOW case, Disney turned its exploitative attitude on a worker with a high media profile, a popular image, a contract and a legal team.
Disney holds Captain America, Iron Man, Daredevil, the Fantastic Four, the X-Men and heroes who, if they existed in real life, would devote themselves to bringing Disney down.
Oh I know. It would just be nice if a company like Disney, which owns so much and inspires so many, could aspire to be better than that. Amazon and Walmart being cold and heartless makes sense. And, in a twisted way, they're able to help people by driving down costs and providing their goods at lower prices for people that can't afford other outlets.
Disney still charges the same prices as everyone else, and they've priced out a ton of families from going to Disney World / Disneyland. It just seems that if any corporation could afford to take less money so that everyone could visit their parks and enjoy their content, it would be Disney. It's a *very* flawed mindset on my part (especially for someone who has a degree in economics and understands how this stuff works) but it's a nice one to have on a discussion board about parallel worlds
Disney announces the rest of its 2021 movies will debut exclusively in theaters
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/12/business … index.html
"As confidence in moviegoing continues to improve, we look forward to entertaining audiences in theaters, while maintaining the flexibility to give our Disney+ subscribers the gift of Encanto this holiday season," Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution Chairman Kareem Daniel said in a statement.
"Encanto," an animated film about a magical family in Colombia with music by Lin-Manuel Miranda, will be available exclusively in theaters for a month following its November 24 release. It will be on Disney+ on Christmas Eve.
This can't help their case in the Scarlett Johansson case, but I'm assuming they'll make enough money where that won't matter.
I'm still not cool going to the theaters so I guess I'll be waiting. I might risk it for Spider-Man: No Way Home because I can't imagine I'll make it 45 days without spoilers. I'll have to just go on a weekday at noon or something.
Scarlett Johansson and Disney Settle ‘Black Widow’ Pay Lawsuit
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/scar … 235078355/
“I am happy to have resolved our differences with Disney,” Johansson said in a statement on Thursday. “I’m incredibly proud of the work we’ve done together over the years and have greatly enjoyed my creative relationship with the team. I look forward to continuing our collaboration in years to come.”
I'd love to see how many zeroes are on that check. I'm sure she cleaned up.
And it's probably safe to assume Natasha ain't coming back
I'd love to see how many zeroes are on that check. I'm sure she cleaned up.
And it's probably safe to assume Natasha ain't coming back
She's still slated to star in "Tower of Terror" for Disney.
I finally saw Shang Chi. Really fun, and I hope he appears in a bunch of movies. The post-credits was intriguing, and I loved it.
Still planning on seeing Spider-Man in the second week it's out. I don't know when I'll see Eternals - I guess in February or whenever it hits Disney+
Really looking forward to Hawkeye. I've been reading the Fraction Hawkeye series that inspired it. The art is a little weird for my tastes, but I really liked the story so far.
Spider-Man: No Way Home is everything it was supposed to be. Just a wonderfully fun thrill ride of a movie.
Earlier today, I had the chance to book a private movie theatre and watch a single feature film all alone. I had a choice. A choice that would define my future and determine the path forward for the remainder of my existence. I could choose to watch either LICORICE PIZZA or SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME.
I chose to watch LICORICE PIZZA and I now brace myself for your wrath.
Hahah, no wrath. You gotta do what you gotta do.
I feel very vindicated by making my choice to see Spider-Man in theaters since, based on how much comic book videos I watch, YouTube has thrown *tons* of *full clips* of the movie. There's no way I would've made it 90 days.
I liked Hawkeye but feel like they really wasted (SPOILER). I know that they might be saving some material for the Echo series, but Hawkeye was the biggest example (moreso than Iron Man 2) of the MCU sacrificing story for setup if that's the case. I did like the interaction between Kate and Clint, and I thought the street-level action made it the best Disney+ MCU finale so far, but I was disappointed by some of the threads they brushed to the side. I think it'd be really easy to edit Hawkeye into a really great 2-hour movie that ignores some of the other extraneous stuff.
i really enjoyed HAWKEYE.
It was longer than needed, but I liked spending extra time with Kate Bishop and Clint Barton and Yelena because they were hilarious. The stakes of the story were extremely low, but it was hilarious that Clint's only meaningful goal was to get home for Christmas while knowing that they'd just shrug if he didn't make it.
Yelena was never at any point a credible threat to anyone other than the anonymous henchmen, but her relationship with Kate was so hilarious that I didn't mind. The entire storyline of Ronin massacring criminals is played so lightly that it might as well have never been a plot element, but it was terrific catalyst for the plot and Kate stumbling into Clint's life due to the Ronin costume was so hilarious that I enjoyed it.
The Tracksuit Mafia were ineptly unthreatening but so hilarious that I was fine with it. Wilson Fisk was a complete cipher defined more by his Netflix appearances than anything he did onscreen in HAWKEYE, but the sight of Kate fighting this mountain of a man was so hilarious that I was okay with that too.
I can't claim HAWKEYE is good, but it's really funny and I will excuse anything if it makes me laugh.
I agree with all that. I read the Fraction comics before I watched, and I don't know if that gave me any extra understanding. I think everyone played their parts well, but I felt like Kingpin was a bit of a waste. I'm sure he'll pop back up in the Echo show, but I would've liked more for the hype (even if, like Wandavision, the hype was mostly fan-driven).
Clint is a killer, and I don't think he's ever shied away from that (like Natasha hadn't). I do wonder if there needs to be a reconciliation about that. Maybe that's what Hawkeye season 2 can be about - Clint having to deal with the consequences of his actions and trying to steer Kate away from those. So she can be more of a hero and less of a soldier?
***********
Side note - I read the Jeff Lemire run on Moon Knight in preparation for the new show.
I have no idea if I enjoyed it. I have no idea if it was any good. And I don't know if I know any more about Moon Knight than I did before. I feel like I read chapters 114-118 of a 400 chapter book. Maybe I did.
The characters were likeable and the art was good, though.
I'm not a huge fan of Moon Knight which is odd because I've read so much of his comics. The arc you read -- while I liked it, I knew it would make no sense to anyone unfamiliar with the character and pretty much every superhero comic these days feels like chapter 114 - 118 of a 400 chapter book. It's hard to recommend them, but I am going to give you the full lowdown on Moon Knight which you won't get this way anywhere else.
Moon Knight was originally a villain. His first appearance is in WEREWOLF BY NIGHT #32 where the heroic werewolf, Jack Russell, is hunted by a criminal syndicate called the Committee. The Committee hires noted bounty hunter Marc Spector and provides Spector with the Moon Knight outfit to be equipped to fight a werewolf. Spector initially wants the money but switches sides to help Russell escape. While the Moon Knight character was a thinly characterized figure of greed, the white costume and crescent moon design proved memorable.
Moon Knight reappeared in the MARVEL SPOTLIGHT anthology, in HULK MAGAZINE -- and this time, Spector was now characterized as a heroic figure with the suit being his own creation. Marvel tried to keep the costume but change the characterization so that Moon Knight wouldn't be unlikable. Eventually, Moon Knight got his own series and MOON KNIGHT would offer a convoluted explanation that Spector had been a hero who had attempted to infiltrate the committee and had tricked them into hiring him and also tricked them into providing him with the Moon Knight suit of his own design and if we keep thinking about that, our brains will explode.
Spector was revealed to be a former mercenary who'd only take morally acceptable jobs. He was killed in Egypt but resurrected by the Egyptian moon god Khonshu who inspired him to wear a costume reminiscent of Khonshu's visage and to continue Khonshu's purpose: to safeguard night travellers. Khonshu seemed to infuse Spector with the ability to withstand extensive levels of trauma and pain matched with an obsessive gift for creating Moon Knight's weapons and armour. Spector threw himself into a war on crime in New York City, creating two alternate identities: cab driver Jake Lockley and wealthy socialite Steven Grant, living three lives to infiltrate criminal organizations and then attacking them as Moon Knight.
While Moon Knight joined the Defenders and Avengers, over time, he began to display serious mental health issues: savage bursts of violence, self-mutilation, hallucinations and delusions. Initially, this was attributed to stress from maintaining four separate personas. Later, it appeared that Spector was actually suffering from multiple personality disorder that had manifested in his four different roles. Spector's mental health issues and refusal to seek treatment alienated him from his friends and teammates.
He became obsessed with his worship of Khonshu, at times a nurturing and supportive presence, at times a demonic and abusive deity who demanded Spector isolate himself and give up anything but his Moon Knight exploits.
Due to many different writers having written Moon Knight, there is no single version of what Moon Knight's mental health and religious situation actually is. Some writers wrote Moon Knight as a 'normal' person who is under strain from three secret identities and a superhero persona. Some wrote Moon Knight as suffering from multiple personality disorder. Some wrote Moon Knight as a near zealot in his worship of the abusive god Khonshu.
Some wrote Moon Knight as a good-humoured, pleasant hero supported by the loving god Khonshu. Some wrote Moon Knight as being dominated by Khonshu, then overcoming Khonshu. Some writers implied that there is no Khonshu, that Khonshu is merely a hallucination experienced by a deeply troubled superhero.
The 2017 run of MOON KNIGHT by Warren Ellis and Brian Wood (both now disgraced sexual harassers who are unemployable) had Moon Knight change his costume into a white suit and present him as a consulting detective to police on offbeat crimes. It was revealed that Khonshu was no god, but an interdimensonal entity that had 'colonized' Spector's brain and manifested in inconsistent ways that were Spector's interpretation of a pan-dimensional being.
Then came the Jeff Lemire run you read where Moon Knight is in a hallucinatory, unreal, dreamlike prison which he identifies as Khonshu trying to reassert total control of his psyche. This time, Spector finally defeats the Khonshu influence on his brain once and for all, declaring that he is in control of his own future, not Khonshu. "I am Marc Spector. I am Steven Grant. I am Jake Lockley. And we are going to be okay. We are going to live with who we are. We are Moon Knight. And we never needed you," Spector tells Khonshu, casting out this entity / demon / god / whatever from his mind once and for all.
In the next volume by Max Bemis, Moon Knight is once again fighting crime with Khonshu whispering in his ear and writer Bemis tweeted, "Everything in the last arc took place in Marc’s Head or as an abstraction. Reconciling his illness left Marc able to reappropriate Khonsu." And so, we are right back where we were before.
I feel that most people who talk about Moon Knight try to render all of the above as a coherent history and that's simply not the case. Moon Knight is a character where writers have rarely been able to sync up their approach, so there are a lot of inconsistencies.
Ah, comics. Love talking about them, can't ever recommend them.
Personally, I've never entirely understood the complaints about Hawkeye being a killer. He fires arrows from a bow. That's not exactly a non-lethal weapon. He kills terrorists and soldiers of fascism and extraterrestrial invasion forces. And in ENDGAME, he was killing murderous mafia criminals. Captain America in the movies shot Nazis and agents of HYDRA and that's not a moral crisis. It's just that Captain America tends to engage in missions of MacGuffin-retrieval or destruction whereas Hawkeye is dispatched on missions that involve killing practicing practitioners of evil. Hawkeye doesn't like killing. Hawkeye doesn't enjoy killing. He kills to stop killers.
They're leaning heavily into the Mr. Knight aspect of Moon Knight in the promo materials. I don't understand Moon Knight at all and the one big story I've read heavily features Mr. Knight....but don't you need to understand Moon Knight before you understand Mr. Knight?
The "Mr. Knight" era of Moon Knight:
The 2017 run of MOON KNIGHT by Warren Ellis and Brian Wood (both now disgraced sexual harassers who are unemployable) had Moon Knight change his costume into a white suit and present him as a consulting detective to police on offbeat crimes. It was revealed that Khonshu was no god, but an interdimensonal entity that had 'colonized' Spector's brain and manifested in inconsistent ways that were Spector's interpretation of a pan-dimensional being.
Then came the Jeff Lemire run you read where Moon Knight is in a hallucinatory, unreal, dreamlike prison which he identifies as Khonshu trying to reassert total control of his psyche. This time, Spector finally defeats the Khonshu influence on his brain once and for all, declaring that he is in control of his own future, not Khonshu. "I am Marc Spector. I am Steven Grant. I am Jake Lockley. And we are going to be okay. We are going to live with who we are. We are Moon Knight. And we never needed you," Spector tells Khonshu, casting out this entity / demon / god / whatever from his mind once and for all.
After the Lemire run, there was a time gap. In the next issue by Max Bemis, Moon Knight was back in his pre-Mr. Knight costume, Khonshu was now a benign entity whispering in Moon Knight's era, and in Bemis' hands, the Lemire run was largely dismissed as a hallucination.
In a more recent storyline, Khonshu went insane and tried to take over the world and Moon Knight defeated him and had him imprisoned in Asgard. I assume that in some subsequent issue, this too will be dismissed as a hallucination. Haha!
I guess the Mr. Knight suit was popular, though? It's being presented as the suit that people should be excited for.
I actually just started the Ellis run. It became free on Comixology
The Mr. Knight era was extremely popular and arguably the most significant and successful period of Moon Knight's publishing history.
Moon Knight always struggled. His debut in 1975 was as a villain and it wasn't the character who intrigued; it was just the costume, hence the strained retcon to reveal his villainous debut had been a tangled undercover mission.
MOON KNIGHT has always been a fit of very random elements: the costume was designed to reflect a crescent moon to counter the werewolf imagery of a full moon. This was combined with an origin of Marc Spector being resurrected by an Egyptian god Khonshu (?) to fight crime in New York City (?). The character with his gadgets and cape often seemed too close to Batman. Various writers added more elements: Moon Knight had three civilian identities and a superhero persona. The four became four separate personalities in one body. Moon Knight was mentally ill and possibly hallucinating every interaction with the Egyptian god who supposedly gave him his powers.
Disgraced emotional abuser Warren Ellis simplified Moon Knight: Moon Knight became a consulting detective referred to as "Mr. Knight" who helped police solve all the paranormal crimes of a superhero universe. The police referred to him as "Mr. Knight" so that they could indicate who had offered assistance in reports as if Moon Knight were to show up, the police would be obligated to arrest him.
Ellis wrote only six issues, but this redefinition was a critical hit: it distinguished Moon Knight from Batman in that Moon Knight worked with police side by side, it made him a civilian associate, and the costume was now a white business suit with a mask. Marvel then hired disgraced sexual harasser Brian Wood to write the next six issues and maintain largely the same style. Marvel then hired good egg (as far as I know) Cullen Bunn to write another five issues in the Ellis-template.
After that, Marvel hired eccentric and brilliant writer Jeff Lemire to write 14 issues. Lemire kept a lot of the stylings of the Ellis-template but made it even weirder.
Lemire penned a beautiful tale of Moon Knight trapped within his own fractured mind and tormented by Khonshu, eventually revealing that Khonshu had sought to exploit Marc's disassociative personality disorder to fragment and destroy Marc's mind in order to possess his body. Marc defeated Khonshu in the finale, freeing himself from Khonshu forever.
At 31 issues and about two and a half years, however, Marvel apparently felt that they'd played out the whole "Mr. Knight" era. In 2017, as part of the Marvel Legacy relaunch theme, Marvel 'reset' a lot of their characters back to 'basics' and after Lemire, writer Max Bemis featured Marc back in his original Moon Knight costume fighting crime and with his criminal consultant role set aside.
It looks like Disney+ would prefer the Mr. Knight+ approach because that costume is probably easier to create on a prestige TV budget. Superheroes with big capes are very, very, very difficult in live action.
All this info is awesome. You're much more concise and to the point than Wikipedia ever is!
To be fair, I'm far more partisan than Wikipedia would ever allow. The world may not agree that the Mr. Knight era was the height of MOON KNIGHT comics, for example. And some people seem okay with the weird retcon around Moon Knight's initial debut as as a villain, but I think it's ridonk.
I saw SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME. It was really good. I was impressed by how the story folded Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire's versions of Spider-Man into the story without overshadowing each other or Tom Holland. The moment where Andrew Garfield saves MJ the way he couldn't save Gwen was a beautiful moment of closure. The entire arc of Tom Holland's Spider-Man trying to save the villains rather than kill them was perfect.
The ending was an interesting rejection of Spider-Man as a privileged child of wealth and legacy; he has literally been reduced to being absolutely nobody and therefore everybody.
It's interesting to contemplate what this film would have been if it had been made without access to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Foggy wouldn't have been in it. Dr. Strange wouldn't have been in it. It could have alluded to the existence of all the Avengers characters, but it could not have shown them or featured them in any plot developments. There was some hint that the story might have been every bounty hunter on Earth pursuing Spider-Man with Kraven the Hunter being the most successful. But the writers never had to write this version of the story.
It's interesting to contemplate what this film would have been if it had been made without access to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Foggy wouldn't have been in it. Dr. Strange wouldn't have been in it. It could have alluded to the existence of all the Avengers characters, but it could not have shown them or featured them in any plot developments. There was some hint that the story might have been every bounty hunter on Earth pursuing Spider-Man with Kraven the Hunter being the most successful. But the writers never had to write this version of the story.
I wonder if they would've gone the route of Madame Web or something like that. I don't know who has the rights to the Beyonder, but maybe even try to make into a Secret Wars situation?
I'm glad you liked it. It was so much fun, and I thought they hit most of the major character beats. My only real complaints:
1. The Andrew saving MJ scene was perfect, but the CGI when Andrew lands is wonky as hell. I don't know if they fixed it for the home video release, but I hope they did. It looked terrible even the first time I saw it.
2. I get that we are only focused on Holland's Peter, but it would've been nice to see all three Spider-Men swinging back in their home dimensions with their scores. I think it would've made for a perfect ending. So perfect that I honestly can't believe they didn't do it.
3. Since we will almost certainly never see any continuation of their universes, I wish they'd been a bit bolder with what had happened post Spider-Man 3 and the Amazing Spider-Man 2. Andrew talked about stopping pulling his punches and Tobey alluded to things working out for Mary Jane, but I'm curious what all happened to the characters since we last saw them. It would've had to be a re-write of the Spider-Men talking about their adventures, but I would've liked a little more.
I honestly didn't notice anything wrong with the CGI in NO WAY HOME, but that doesn't mean anything at all. Marvel may have fixed any issues for streaming.
Alternatively, I might not notice because I have come to accept painterly, animated-looking effects that aren't photorealistic. It used to really bother me that BABYLON 5's spaceships looked like PS2 graphics and now it seems fine. There was that CG giant that the Flash fought in the Season 7 premiere that you called out as terrible and it didn't even register to me as bad. I am the last person to be asked about CG; the last time I remember disliking a CG effect was the Scorpion King in THE MUMMY RETURNS.
From what I can tell, Tobey Maguire asked that his Peter Parker's home life and whatnot be kept vague for whatever reason and Andrew Garfield said that was fine too. But yes, I'd like more detail. However, Andrew Garfield seems to have recovered from his depression after the catharsis of saving MJ and Tobey Maguire is probably feeling better that despite failing to save Harry Osborn, he was able to save Norman Osborn after all. And to me, these are very significant developments even if we don't know if Andrew Garfield ever got to the bottom of his father's secret research or if Tobey Maguire was able to keep his staff photographer job from SPIDER-MAN III.
I'd still like to know those things too, of course.
They opened some doors and I'm just genuinely curious what it meant. If Andrew stopped pulling his punches, he's a murderer, right? Or at least he's putting guys in the hospital. I read some Superior Spider-Man, and I know Octavius brutalized some people because he didn't realize how strong he was. So it'd be interesting to see a Spider-Man who may be a bit out of control and brutal., And then Tobey is probably in his 40s and still Spider-Man. He has the back issue - I think that might be interesting in an Old Man Peter kind of way.
It opens the door for another movie with Tobey or Andrew. I doubt we'd ever see it, but DC has multiple Batmen. Raimi is back at Marvel. I'd love to see it. I'd even watch a Grindhouse-like double feature with Spider-Man 4 and the Amazing Spider-Man 3 where they do two mini-movies to wrap up their characters.
I would certainly like a Marvel One Shot with the Spider-Mans.
It's strange: when Andrew Garfield's movie series was cancelled, I was both disappointed and relieved. I was disappointed that we wouldn't delve into AMAZING's mysterious backstory for Peter Parker's father, I was also relieved because AMAZING SPIDER-MAN II was such a mess that I didn't want any more from this Sony regime (and clearly, Andrew Garfield didn't want any more either because he deliberately got himself fired from AMAZING SPIDER-MAN III).
The only thing that I really wanted from NO WAY HOME that I wanted them to do and they tried to do but couldn't do: I wanted them to resurrect Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy. There was a clear path to fix this hateful mis-step from ASM2, but it looks like (a) pandemic protocols and scheduling made it difficult to book Emma Stone and (b) the story was already getting a bit cluttered.
Kind of frustrating that Willem Dafoe's Norman Osborn is hale, hearty and healthy while Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy remains dead and buried. There's no justice in this world!
Kind of frustrating that Willem Dafoe's Norman Osborn is hale, hearty and healthy while Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy remains dead and buried. There's no justice in this world!
Well, I think we're supposed to think that, but I'm so confused on the mechanism of how any of that worked.
So Goblin, Electro, and gang were brought to the MCU universe at the time of their deaths. The Peters would've presumably been pulled out later because obviously Tobey couldn't be pulled from three different time periods (unless there were three Tobeys out there and we just met the oldest one). So I guess it's assumed that Tobey/Andrew were pulled out of the 2025/2024/2021 (whatever year it's supposed to be) on their world. So I guess the magic pulled people who knew Peter was Spider-Man from as late as possible.
But are they returned to their own time or returned to 2021/2024/2025? Because if they do, a powerless Norman Osborn still gets impaled by a glider. Octavius still drowns. The Lizard and Electro still die. I guess Sandman is fine.
Maybe it's like the Hulk's snap and they're just safely pulled back into the real world in the "future" - but I thought that was confusing. I just don't understand how removing their powers would save them. If they're all sent back to 2021/2024/2025, how would Andrew have even saved Gwen? Sure, she would've been brought back since she knows Peter is Spider-Man, but how would they have "cured" her? Do you even have to "cure" her to get her back or did everyone that knew Peter was Spider-Man get saved and pulled into the future? Aunt May (MCU) knew Peter was Spider-Man and died...why wasn't she returned alive?
Maybe they get sent back to their own time, and it's up to Peter to stop the glider, rescue Otto from drowning, etc...but would 2002 Spider-Man have 2021/2024/2025 Peter's memories? Did all of them keep their memories or did Strange wipe all that out? Do Andrew and Tobey still remember that Tom is Spider-Man?
I think the spell was the worst part of the movie. I think it doesn't make much sense, and it makes Strange look so incredibly stupid. But at least it looks like he'll pay for it in the next movie.
I'm not sure I understand the question. The villains were pulled out of the timestream either moments before their death or when their timelines ceased to intersect with Spider-Man's and they were returned in the present day to their home universes. Gwen would have been retrieved moments before her neck snapped if she'd been drawn in by the spell.
Maybe she was off camera somewhere and returned to Andrew Garfield's dimension in the present day and they were reunited in time.
I don't think the movie ever states that they'll be returned to the present day. You've obviously seen it more recently than me, but Strange specifically says that they'll be returned home to die since it's their destinies. That's why Peter is trying to save them - what's unclear to me (and from what I've seen from a lot of people) is how removing their powers saves them. If the process itself (being drawn into the MCU) saved people, then what was Peter even doing?
You could easily argue that Osborn and Octavius needed Peter's help because something was causing them to be evil. But Max seemed to like his powers and was being cooperative. Same with Dr. Connors (for the most part). Marko didn't seem to care either way.
If you're right, maybe removing their powers keeps them from dying at *some point* because, with no powers, there's no chance they'' *eventually* put them in a position where they'll die via their Spider-Man. But that doesn't seem to be what Strange is saying - Strange is saying that they need to be put back in their own timelines. So whether or not Peter takes away their powers or rescues them from insanity, Strange is still intent on putting them back in the reality *and timeline* where they belong.
I think there's just a disconnect with the logic of the movie. If Peter is wanting Strange to simply not kill them by putting them back where they left, then the powers part is an unrelated side mission. If Strange is unwilling to alter the timeline of other universes, then Peter succeeding in his mission is irrelevant. And I don't think that conflict is resolved.
I mean, your way is happier. But if Gwen is resurrected (because she's saved from death and put back in the "present" of the Garfieldverse), would Harry be resurrected and returned to the present but just still be powered/maybe crazy? Would Venom? Would Captain Stacy? Would Spider-Verse Peter?
These are all excellent questions and I feel the only answer will come by turning to Deadpool's usual response to questions of this nature.
Hahah, that's fair. I honestly don't really care about the answers. Your head canon is better so let's go with yours.
Hmmm. This is odd, I thought I'd written more underneath the Deadpool image.
I haven't had time to rewatch the movie, but thinking about it: you're right. There is no indication that the villains are sent back to the present day. Peter notes that each villain was transported out of their universe moments before their deaths; Strange says those are their fates. Peter says that if he can cure the villains of the afflictions that made them villains, maybe they don't have to die when sent back.
Why did I think they would be sent to the present? I guess, because Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield were pulled from the present, I assumed that the villains would return to the same point as the Spider-Mans, but there's nothing in the movie that actually establishes that. There could have been some technobabble about conservation of whatnot blah blah to justify the latter or former. There isn't. It's ambiguous.
As for whether or not these are plotholes -- I defer to Deadpool.
I stopped reading comics awhile ago because spending $4 - 9 on a single 20 page comic book was economically unsound and superheroes were all over Netflix. However, I bought subscriptions to Marvel Unlimited and the new DC Universe Infinite apps because two $60 annual fees to Marvel and DC each is effectively $10 a month. Marvel Unlimited has a lot of gaps in its older material and new titles are added three months after they've gone on sale, but if you're working your way through their library from 2000 onward, it's a good deal.
Just make sure to read at least 15 individual DC issues and 15 individual Marvel issues and you'll have read the number of comics you could have bought individually in print for the same cost and you'll have gotten your money's worth.
I am not sure if DC Universe Infinite is as good a deal. They only add new titles six months after initial release -- which is fine for me since I'm still reading 2016 DC comic books. I don't know how complete their library is. However, Scott Snyder's entire run of BATMAN would cost me a lot more than $60 and it's all here, so that alone has justified at least a one year subscription for me.
I wrote up a post about Kamala Khan, but it wouldn't post. In case, it doesn't again, I'll give an abridged version.
Kamala Khan is an important character, but I struggled a bit with parts of her 2014 series. I understand that a large portion of Marvel readers are probably Islamophobic on some level, and they might be less willing to accept Kamala. And to work around that, they have people vouch for her that those readers would respect.
However, what the 2014 series ends up doing is repeating the same thing over and over again: Kamala meets a fan favorite (Wolverine, Captain Marvel, Spider-Man, etc). They work together, Kamala saves the day, and the hero remarks that they've been keeping an eye on her and she's going to be great.
The problem is that, when Kamala meets Wolverine, she hasn't been doing it very long. And she's only done a couple low-profile missions as Ms Marvel. I doubt Wolverine heard anything. It makes more sense for SHIELD to know, and the comic versions of Phil Coulson and Gemma Simmons both claim to be fans of hers. Or for Carol Danvers to hear about her since she's wearing her old costume. But it's a bit odd for Carol to take a couple of hours to do a side mission with Kamala.
I get why they did it. I think it's probably good that they did it. But as someone who already accepted Kamala, I just found it annoying and somewhat unrealistic to have that reinforced over and over again.
I liked MS. MARVEL and because I liked Kamala, I liked that everyone else liked her too. But it's a fair criticism.
I'm not sure why some posts don't get posted and I'm looking into it. I've had one issue where I was editing a really, really long post from years ago but I couldn't save the edits. I got an Internal Server Error. I wonder if the server or software has a data limit for individual post entries that I can raise.
Spoilers from Multiverse of Madness and No Way Home
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
I read an interesting note. As you might know, MoM and NWH were supposed to come out in a different order. Instead of No Way Home leading into MoM, it was going to be the other way around. We'd learn about the multiverse first, and then Strange would help Peter. America Chavez was originally supposed to appear in No Way Home, fresh off her Dr Strange appearance.
However, that's not the only planned difference. Apparently, Multiverse of Madness was going to end of a different cliffhanger - our Dr Strange was going to be stranded and the "Sinister Strange" was going to be in the main MCU universe in his place.
And suddenly it all makes sense.
- Strange acting so out of character in No Way Home - well, he's an evil "double"
- The out of nowhere ending of Multiverse of Madness - it wasn't supposed to end there and would've had to be quickly rewritten.
- The Sinister Six - there's only five in No Way Home because Strange himself would've been the sixth.
It fixes so many errors and makes things so much more complete. I liked the movies as is, but this would've been much better for both movies. The only negative is that we wouldn't trust Strange from the beginning. I wonder if that reveal could've been held for No Way Home. Where we think Strange is the same guy, but we only find out after the spell was botched that it wasn't our Strange.
Of course, I don't know how you end MoM without the twist. So maybe it's better to leave it as is.
I swear I will read this soon. I just finished SHANG CHI and the ETERNALS, so I am ready to get into the MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
Spoilers
I don't have the best or strongest connection to the Dr. Strange character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Was he out of character in NO WAY HOME?
I am a fan of Benedict Cumberbatch's performance in SHERLOCK. But I confess, I'm not a huge fan of him in general. I find that he has a tendency to offer extremely lazy performances. James McAvoy (young Xavier) once referred to a certain class of actor/performance where the focus is on maintaining an accent and behaving as though affecting a voice that isn't the actor's natural speaking is the only effort needed in a performance.
I find that Cumberbatch, when using an American accent, is so focused on tweaking and adjusting his accent that there is little characterization in his body language, expressions, movements, reactions, etc.. Dr. Strange, at least for me, is one of those roles for Cumberbatch where he's too accent-focused and not character-focused. Cumberbatch's limitations/laziness as an actor weren't an issue for Sherlock Holmes, a character who is extremely mannered and theatrical; the lack of characterization comes off as Holmes' relentless focus on deductive reasoning. But when Cumberbatch is playing a more vulnerable character, it's awkward.
Anyway. Most people don't seem to mind or enjoy Cumberbatch's work, and that's personal taste. But for me, I don't have a good handle on the character because the actor throws me off.
**
MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS seems really hated by WANDAVISION fans who say Wanda being evil is out of step with the WANDAVISION TV show where she kidnapped / imprisoned / brainwashed an entire town and became physically violently and dangerous when peacekeeping forces attempted to free her prisoners and when her captives demanded an explanation and their freedom and ultimately gave the townspeople their freedom because the illusion became unsustainable due to an interloper's interference (as opposed to any moral realization on Wanda's own part).
I don't have the best or strongest connection to the Dr. Strange character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Was he out of character in NO WAY HOME?
I would say so. If you look at the way he's acting, particularly in the trailers, people immediately noticed that he seemed, for lack of a better word, sinister. People thought that maybe he was possessed by Mephisto or corrupted in some other way before the movie was released.
Maybe Strange feels like the spell is elementary and doesn't see any chance it causes any issues, but I feel like this is out of character. Strange's movements always feel pretty deliberate. He was a surgeon, after all. So I feel like doing a spell that will alter reality without properly explaining it to Peter beforehand (where Peter would've been able to work through his questions about how it works). And when the spell goes wrong, Strange doesn't take any responsibility for it.
You could argue that Strange feels bad for Peter, but there's probably a bunch of more reasonable spells that he could've done for Peter. Strange is acting impulsive and lazy and then lashes out at Peter and his friends.
I think his characterization works better for "Sinister Strange" but I agree that it's hard to really explain many characteristics about Strange outside of what happened in his original movie. In Ragnarok and the Avengers movies, there isn't much to his character besides "does magic" and "believes he's always right"
I really enjoyed MS. MARVEL up to the Partition of India episode, an episode that was really good -- but it threw me off that Ms. Marvel wasn't in it at which point I got busy with some other stuff and didn't get back to MS. MARVEL for about a month. Then I rewatched the MS. MARVEL episode but in that month, I'd lost track of who all these people were and I ended up finishing the show having lost my connection to the characters. Hmm.
**
I watched SHE-HULK and really liked it except I didn't realize that it was 10 episodes and watched the currently eight episodes available across two nights. Hopefully, I won't find myself watching the show a month from now to finish it and wonder who the hell these people are.
Spoilers for DAREDEVIL:
There is an odd strain of news articles saying that they still aren't sure if DAREDEVIL is canon because SHE-HULK didn't directly acknowledge the Netflix show with Matt Murdock's appearance -- which I find bizarre. I mean, the Netflix actor appeared and the Netflix musical character theme is used and there's a charming callback to the famous Season 1 hallway fight in Matt's appearance -- what more is really needed?
The whole "are the non-D+ shows canon" route strikes me as meaningless clickbait; the only real contradiction between D+ and TV has been WANDAVISION and DR. STRANGE II using a different Darkhold book from what was seen on AGENTS OF SHIELD, but even then, DR. STRANGE II patched it by revealing that the Darkhold book in the movie is "a copy" of stone-etched spells meaning there can be more than one book.
Sliders.tv → Sliders Bboard → Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.