Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21
I agree. And I'm sure that it will eventually make over a billion. I'm just curious!
I agree. And I'm sure that it will eventually make over a billion. I'm just curious!
Comparing the earnings of Civil War and Batman v Superman seems foolish considering that BvS deliberately ignored a huge segment of its audience (kids) and by its nature, isn't the type of movie that people want to see multiple times in theaters.
Accordingly, BvS' marketing budget shouldn't have been anywhere near as much as Civil War's was.
Agreed. But what was their budget?
When BvS came out the media counted every penny. I had never seen that before. I'm curious to see if they do it with every big movie, but I haven't seen it with Civil War.
I think it's fair to say that the media has been unfair to Batman/Superman, but I don't see any reason why they would. I don't think it's nefarious. And, honestly, I don't think it hurt the movie. I think, more than anything, the movie didn't perform as well because of the media. I still maintain that if the movie was better, that it wouldn't have mattered. For it to have mattered, the bad press would've had to have scared people away from the theater. And I don't think that really happened. The opening of the movie was huge, but the dropoff shows that people either didn't go back to the theater (where movies make a ton of money) and people that missed week one just never saw it.
And, yeah, the media might've impacted that second group, but word of mouth makes a bigger impact on people than the media. If the media hated Civil War, I'd still tell my friends to see it. And I think they'd listen to me. When people asked me what I thought of BvS, I told them the truth - I liked it better than I thought I would, but there were fundamental issues I had with it.
Getting back to Civil War, I think the huge cast made things easier for certain people. Like I've said, my roommate hadn't seen a single phase 2 movie. But he saw Iron Man and Iron Man 2. He saw Avengers. He saw the first Cap movie. He's seen the Spider-Man films. So it's an Iron Man and Captain America movie with Spider-Man. And I'm sure that could've applied to a lot of people. Even if you didn't like Iron Man or his movies, maybe you liked the Captain America movies. Maybe you liked Ant-Man. Maybe you just wanted to see what happened with Spider-Man.
So there were a lot of reasons to go see Civil War, even if you're not a Marvel diehard.
I'm just fascinated by the media's handling of BvS. I don't understand it, unless they had some sort of payment for being that negative. But it's fascinating, because it was so oddly extreme. I think BvS did fine. I am not comparing the movie or its success to Civil War. I don't think you could possibly do that. I'm just looking at the media now. There are movies that, for whatever reason, they want to fail. When that happens, it seems to be a unified anti-publicity campaign. It seems almost political.
But yeah, I'm not comparing the two movies.
Agent Carter has been cancelled. That is a shame. I'd prefer to see it stick around and have AoS cancelled.
This is painful, especially when there were reports of ABC being keen to find some way to renew it in the way FRINGE got renewed every year. But the truth is that even the Season 2 renewal was a miracle. The series was CRAZY expensive due to the period setting, even with the short episode orders. ABC stuck with the show and received a ratings bomb for AGENT CARTER's second season. However, given the mighty Marvel machine, I don't really think this is the end for AGENT CARTER; there'll probably be a series of view on demand episodes at some point in some form and format, if only to wrap the series up properly.
Looks like the Most Wanted series was also passed on. Which means that AoS wrote off two characters for no reason. Not that they can't come back, because their reason for leaving was lame anyway.
I think they'll both be back on Agents of Shield at some point. Sounds like their story was just gonna be them as fugitives, and that can just-as-easily be done on SHIELD.
What's interesting is that Marvel seemingly cancelled the Inhumans movie. Considering how much the Inhumans have played in the last couple seasons of SHIELD, I wonder if the Inhumans they haven't been able to use (primarily Black Bolt) become game for AoS.
So the CinemaSins guy didn't like Civil War, and a lot of his comments echo stuff that Informant said before the movie was released. I'm gonna put a spoiler tag just in case:
So the issues he came up with are that a) no one died and b) there were no consequences.
Regarding point B first, I agree that there wasn't a ton resolved regarding the central question of the film. Is government oversight good or bad? It really isn't answered. And, in fact, there's not even really a situation in the film (nor a place for it) where government oversight is shown at all. Cap is worried about bureaucracy interfering with saving people, and Tony is terrified of all the mistakes they've made and wants something done. Tony wins the argument in the sense that the Avengers are now government-sanctioned, but we still don't know if that was the right call or not.
But no consequences? I know no one died and Rhodey's injury was basically overridden (although I think that's also a bit trite since he's still paralyzed), but look at all the lives that were affected.
Cap is a fugitive from the law. He wants to do good, but now he's going to have to do it from the shadows. Bucky has to go back in cryostasis, and he's hated by just about everyone. Black Panther's father is dead, and he's been thrust into the leadership of Wakanda. And he's now risking his country's privacy by harboring a fugitive. Falcon is a fugitive. Hawkeye is a fugitive, and while I'm sure he can grab his family and disappear, that's going to be a huge change. Ant-Man spent his whole movie trying to get back with his family, and now that's blown to Hell.
On Tony's side, after trying to get passed Iron Man and failing, he's now lost everything. And now he's in charge of a broken group of Avengers. Vision is going to be questioning why he failed when he shot Rhodey. Rhodey is paralyzed. Scarlet Witch still doesn't know her place. Black Widow broke ranks, and she might be out of the trust tree.
So the story moved a distance, and these characters are all changed. So it's not like there wasn't any consequences.
Now regarding deaths, I still maintain that these guys didn't want to kill each other. As is mentioned in the movie, they're pulling punches. Yeah they're dropping cars on people and using guns and explosives, but these are superheroes. There's not any real anger because it's just a disagreement. Even in the big fight, it's all about getting Cap and Bucky away. When that's achieved, the rest of Team Cap surrenders.
If someone died, it wouldl've had more emotional impact. If Vision had killed Rhodes instead of just paralyzing him, it would've had a lot of impact. But let's say this was a Batman/Superman bloodbath - killing the other side doesn't win anything for either side. Tony doesn't want to kill Cap - he just wants him brought in. If he does kill Cap, it could actually make things worse for his cause - because there's a martyr to keep fighting for (which is what happened in the comic story).
And Cap definitely doesn't want to kill Tony because that accomplishes nothing. He'd still be a fugitive, and he'd basically be confirming the government's concerns that he's dangerous and needs to be brought in. And the same applies for every member of both sides.
Yes, it's a disagreement that boils over into a fight. But no one seems eager to do it. And I think the movie shows that every character is pretty disappointed with him/herself for letting it get that far.
Just got back from seeing CIVIL WAR. I liked it! It wasn't the cinematic event of the century and it wasn't as significant as I would have liked, but it was very character oriented and very focused on the personal conflicts that become physical ones. It was a very enjoyable piece of fantasy escapism with a lot of strong emotional points. The humour throughout kept the film lighthearted and fun and actually made the more serious moments stand out when the jokes disappear.
I also liked how CIVIL WAR worked in a lot of references to the previous films in a respectful way, like Steve saying "I could do this all day" or the fact that Tony blames himself more than anyone else specifically because he insisted on creating Ultron. The film did a great job of giving every character a significant visual moment and there were really tender moments like the Falcon abandoning Steve and Bucky because he saw War Machine go down.
In terms of consequences, I think killing any one of the heroes off would have pushed the film too far into the bloody vengeance that the Black Panther specifically rebukes and refuses to engage in to the point of refusing to let his father's killer die.
In terms of the criticisms -- anyone looking for a specific political statement in a Marvel Cinematic Film might as well complain that a car sucks because it can't serve as a boat. This is hardly meant to be Serious Cinema. It's a children's fantasy presented for a family audience. Those seeking superhero films of infinite grimness and misery have already had their turn this year.
The INHUMANS movie was a pet project for ousted Marvel Film executive Ike Perlmutter whose anger over FOX hanging onto the X-MEN rights had him declare that Marvel's film and publishing would use the Inhumans as a replacement for mutants -- hence their increased presence in AGENTS OF SHIELD and the plan to lead to an INHUMANS film -- except Perlmutter was removed from the film side, so while he's still doing the TV and Netflix material, the films are no longer pursuing Perlmutter's interests. In fact, the CIVIL WAR writers were told they needn't even watch AGENTS OF SHIELD.
Well, it's weird. I don't necessarily think the movies need to be beholden to Agents of SHIELD. I think it's bizarre that they haven't gotten Coulson involved in the movies, but he's the only part I think even fits in the cinematic parts (and I think the fact that he hasn't is an indication that bringing him back was a bit of a blunder). Because the movies drive the MCU. I see the Netflix series' and the ABC series' as the children of the movies. They're important and exist in the same house, but the parents are really doing all the important stuff
And that's coming from someone who's watched literally everything the MCU has produced, including Agent Carter and all the One Shot Films. I think the show(s) exist to supplement the movies, and I don't think the movies owe it to them to make any references. I would like to see Daredevil or some of the Defenders make the jump to the films, and but if the Inhumans don't have any place in the feature films, most of the AoS stuff is just background stuff.
I don't know. As much as I like the shared universe ambition, I'll be the first to declare that shared universes are often a contradictory mess of opposing genres existing in the same space. Even the Marvel Comics universe is kind of a mess with the X-Men hated and feared while the Fantastic Four are loved and adored. AGENTS OF SHIELD, in its first season, seemed like an awkward student fan film rather than being set in the MCU proper while the Netflix material has convinced me that it's the life on the street perspective of the big movies. I agree that a crossover isn't necessary, but AGENTS OF SHIELD really stepped up with WINTER SOLDIER and AGE OF ULTRON, creating the illusion of both fitting into each other well with Coulson's near-season-long secret built into the climax of AGE OF ULTRON -- the terrifying, super-secret weapon was a means of evacuating civilians.
It's probably not as big a deal as it seems, but the CAP3 screenwriters confessing they were totally ignorant of AGENTS OF SHIELD was a huge blow to the sense that it all matters. AGENTS OF SHIELD treated CAP3's registration accords as a minor side detail at best; the tie-in was perfunctory.
Tony shouting that Steve didn't deserve the shield and Steve leaving it on the ground next to Tony was a really bittersweet moment as Steve tried to show some measure of grace towards Tony's anger.
An interesting recurring line in CIVIL WAR was, "You move." It's from the AMAZING SPIDER-MAN issues that tied into CIVIL WAR which show the event from Peter Parker's perspective. In the stories leading up to CIVIL WAR, Peter had joined the Avengers and taken a job as Tony Stark's protege and second in command. Tony, choosing to help the US Government with the Registration Act, tells Peter that he must reveal his identity to the authorities or become a criminal. Spider-Man unmasks at a massive press conference and joins the Avengers (Iron Man, Captain Marvel, the Fantastic Four, Giant Man, Wonder Man) against the Anti-Registration heroes (Captain America, the Young Avengers, etc.).
However, Spider-Man experiences a crisis of conscience when Tony threatens Peter with imprisonment if he doesn't remain loyal to the Registration heroes, imprisons captured Anti-Registration without trial, accepts billions in no-bid security contracts with numerous countries to enforce Registration, drafts supervillains into hunting down Cap's forces -- and Spider-Man decides to switch sides. Iron Man attacks him and Spider-Man defeats Tony, then meets Captain America.
Spidey says he's not sure what to do -- he cannot stomach the Registration's measures, but the whole world seems sure that Registration is right and that the Anti-Registration heroes are turncoat criminals. Cap tells Spider-Man that a real patriot aligns one's self with what's right and true and that when the rest of the world is insisting on moving away from the river of truth, a true patriot says, "No. You move."
Interestingly, these issues, written by J. Michael Straczynski, were largely undone by continuity and the rest of the CIVIL WAR event. The hostile, threatening Tony Stark of the AMAZING SPIDER-MAN issues was well-meaning and earnest in the main CIVIL WAR series; the supervillains were shown to be totally controlled by mental implants, all the profits from the no-bid contracts were shown to be going into funds for victims of superhuman battles, Stark was looking for ways to help his friends get out of prison, etc..
These issues are also an odd fit with the CIVIL WAR mini-series where Cap surrenders to the Pro-Registration heroes after seeing the fear that normal people have towards the heroes fighting.
Tony would later declare that he'd done wrong with Peter -- and helped Dr. Strange and Mr. Fantastic erase the world's memory of Spidey's secret identity, allowing Peter to resume a normal life again. The CIVIL WAR editor, Tom Brevoort, noted that he'd not edited the AMAZING SPIDER-MAN issues as he wasn't the SPIDER-MAN editor, and that Tony's villainous characterization should not have been scripted that way.
The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN issues were an anomaly, and writer J. Michael Straczynski would confess he couldn't wrap his head around Tony being Pro-Registration and he saw Registration as fascist and morally unacceptable -- as opposed to the CIVIL WAR mini-series presenting Registration in a highly ambiguous fashion. Straczynski quit SPIDER-MAN shortly after this, saying he wasn't good at crossovers and he wished he hadn't gotten involved. The Marvel Universe moved on.
But it's cool that they used his dialogue. (Sorry, Informant.)
Yeah, I think it's a bit odd that Tony Stark would side with registration, but I think it sorta makes sense in the context of these movies. I think they probably could've done it a little better, but I think it's sorta the natural progression of the character.
A lot of people point to the fact that Tony stands in front of the government in Iron Man 2 and tells them that they can't have his property. That he's a private citizen and that the government is infringing on his rights. And, yes, that's a huge turn from where he is in Civil War, but people forget that Iron Man 2 is the third movie in the MCU. In the mean time:
- Tony learns that there are aliens (Chitauri) and that Norse gods are real (Thor/Loki).
- He fights an army of these creatures, almost dying in the process.
- Almost dying gives him panic attacks/PTSD, and it causes him to build tons and tons of suits to feel safe.
- When this doesn't work, he decides to build Ultron and the Iron Legion. He decides that he might not be smart/strong enough to defend the Earth, but he's smart/strong enough to build something that can.
- Once again, this blows up in his face.
The man who faces the government in Iron Man 2 has built this kickass suit of armor, has dominated every foe he's faced, has "privatized world peace," and has his dream girl. And while he wins in the end in Iron Man 3 and both Avengers movies, it comes at a great cost. He almost dies, Pepper almost dies, his arrogance has turned against him (literally) in all three movies (the Stark Tower becomes the conduit for the Chitauri, the Mandarin is borne from his arrogant past, and Ultron his literally his baby).
So I saw him agreeing with the Sokovia Accords as finally admitting that he can't do everything on his own. But it's still the same guy because he still thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and every fight in this movie is basically him trying to convince Cap that he's right about whatever decision he's made.
And I think one of the key ideas is that he's lost Pepper. In Age of Ultron, they explain away Gweneth Paltrow's absence by saying that Pepper is away or something (same with Natalie Portman's Jane Foster). The truth is that there was no place for Pepper in an already-bloated movie. And the same was true of a very-long Civil War movie. And, again, they could've explained her away with a throw-away line. But the fact is that Pepper is gone - and Tony's lost something else. It's more doubt to throw in Tony's face and more reason why he might be willing to accept oversight.
(And what's funny is that Tony still basically works alone, with no oversight, the entire movie. So it's still basically in character).
And Steve's stuff make's sense too. He wants to be a good little soldier, but in every movie, the government has been evil. SHIELD was secretly run by HYDRA. Nick Fury was spying on him. Then SHIELD disbands, and he starts working for the Avengers. But then Tony builds an evil robot that they all have to fight. So he can't really trust the Avengers either.
Because, at the core of things, Steve is a soldier. It was easy in World War II because Germany and HYDRA were obviously evil. There was a clear indication of who was good and who was bad. And in each movie, Steve has to question who to trust. Who's the good guys and who's the bad guys.
And, yet, Steve is still a trusting guy. He forms a quick bond and instantly trusts Falcon after knowing him for a very short time in Winter Soldier. He instantly trusts Ant-Man right before one of the biggest battles of his life without knowing anything about him. And, of course, he's firmly loyal to Bucky despite everyone else turning on him.
That's what I like about the MCU. Yeah, they're kids movies without a whole lot of deep thought or character development., But after movie after movie, I really do think they're allowing these characters to evolve and change. I think Civil War the movie might be more earned than Civil War the comic. And even if a lot of the stuff I wrote wasn't explicitly stated (or even intended), the pieces fit together well enough that it does feel earned.
Alternative headline: "Civil War loses $106 million in second weekend."
The studio must be freaking out! They are probably overhauling the entire slate! Any directing or casting news that comes after this must be a sign of panic. This movie was unquestionably a disappointment and a flop.
I'm kidding, of course. But you know what I'm saying.
Haha I was actually going to say there was still a sizeable drop in box office results. #FairAndBalanced
CIVIL WAR has been out for two weeks and earned 950 million dollars globally. BATMAN VS SUPERMAN has been out for eight weeks and earned 870 million dollars globally.
I don't think it's hard to see that CIVIL WAR's box office drop is dropping from much higher earnings than BVS. CIVIL WAR probably cost as much as BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN to make and market. There is no way that CIVIL WAR could be reasonably portrayed as anything but a financial success. I also don't think it's hard to see that Warner Bros. would have hoped for CIVIL WAR level success with BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN.
Globally a success, like David Hasselhoff's singing career. But in the US, I think it is a horrible flop. Disney will probably reconsider all Marvel movies going forward. They've been humiliated on their home field. The movie will probably be vaulted, next to Song of the South or From Justin to Kelly.
Sarcasm aside, I don't know what you're arguing for at this point that isn't increasingly detached from anything resembling objective reality. You want to say that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN is just as successful as CIVIL WAR but CIVIL WAR is receiving preferential treatment lauding its success when CIVIL WAR has earned more in two weeks than BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN has earned in eight.
You want to argue that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN is actually doing better from an American standpoint when these giant budgeted blockbusters are designed for both domestic and foreign markets. You insist that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN is a much loved film when the reaction from critics and the audience has ranged from middling to negative. You declare that the production and marketing budgets should not be a concern in measuring success even though CIVIL WAR likely spent just as much as Warner Bros. did on BVS.
Also, you insisted earlier that JUNGLE BOOK can't be considered to be doing that much better than BVS when it has a similar budget and earnings when JUNGLE BOOK has earned in four weeks about as much as BVS earned in eight.
You liked BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN. That's up to you and I am glad you enjoyed it (a sentiment to which you previously responded with 519 words of rage). You feel the Marvel Cinematic Universe "doesn't work" creatively, but you also want to argue that it doesn't work monetarily with claims that Netflix overspends on New York filming (based on your estimates on cost) while declaring that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN's theorized marketing budget shouldn't be considered (as there are no estimates you feel you trust).
This petulance matched with your meltdown in the DC thread is looking increasingly like tantrums over reality not matching your personal preferences. It would suggest you've just decided that you'll insist upon the supremacy of DC cinema in every area regardless of facts and figures when the only area in which you can reasonably argue their superiority right now is that you personally prefer one to the other. Which, quite frankly, is the only argument you ever need to make when it comes to film and TV.
The problem with the CIVIL WAR crossover in comics, in my view -- the Registration Act should have been played consistently as something ambiguous; some heroes are for it, some are against it and the audience is free to choose which side they support. The core CIVIL WAR series by Mark Millar was cautiously non-committal. However, Marvel editorial encouraged every writer writing the tie-ins to use their own opinions. The writers scripting NEW AVENGERS, SPIDER-MAN were largely against Registration and proceeded to portray the Pro-Registration side as the villains. As a result, the readers got the impression that Captain America's team of Secret Avengers were supposed to be the heroes, full stop.
The tie-ins that were Pro-Registration (IRON MAN, FANTASTIC FOUR, SHE-HULK, MS. MARVEL), due to scheduling, came out much later than the Anti-Registration tie-ins and contained the Pro-Registration heroes' justifications -- but the impression that the Pro-Registration side was wrong had become impossible to overturn for the readers who thought the message was that these were the (reluctant) bad guys. As a result, Captain America surrendering to the Pro-Registration side in the CIVIL WAR mini-series came off very awkwardly.
Straczynski seemed to have some sort of breakdown while scripting the CIVIL WAR tie-ins. His work on AMAZING SPIDER-MAN was completely out of sync with the CIVIL WAR mini-series. The reason for that was partially due to Straczynski's style and politics; his view is that all governments are inherently untrustworthy and self-serving, so his version of CIVIL WAR wasn't going to be ambiguous over which side was right. The other part of it -- there were some strange miscommunications throughout; Straczynski was given script pages that mistakenly gave him the impression that Anti-Registration heroes would be imprisoned without trial permanently when Millar's pages were meant to present it as a temporary option. Straczynski was told that Iron Man and the Fantastic Four would profit hugely from the government contracts with Registration; he wasn't informed that all those profits were going to relief funds for survivors of superman battles. As a result, he thought the Proi-Registration side was evil.
Straczynski also scripted FANTASTIC FOUR and he visibly failed to explain why Mr. Fantastic would support the Registration Act, having Mr. Fantastic declare that the law was the law and had to be obeyed. Straczynski, after completing this issue, quit FANTASTIC FOUR in mid-storyline, again confessing that he just couldn't figure out why this character would behave in this way. The subsequent writer who completed the story had Mr. Fantastic reveal that he was mathematically predicting future events, and he believed a terrible superhuman disaster would result without the Registration Act. Later tie-ins would also reveal that Tony Stark felt that superheroes may explore and save people, but ultimately, they fight and would eventually fight each other and terrify the populace and that Registration was inevitable, but with Tony's involvement, it could be humane and empowering instead of fascistic and horrific.
Nah. At this point, I'm just trying to annoy people.
But seriously, I'm not arguing about the success or quality of either movie. I'm talking about the media coverage and obvious bias. That is what I'm mostly fascinated by. I don't care who likes what, or even how much either made. As far as I'm concerned, the movies themselves aren't in competition against each other.
I hate the X-Men movies. I really enjoyed Deadpool. I have fun with the Captain America movies, bit find Thor boring and The Avengers movies are pretty horrible. Ant-Man and Guardians are good. Fantastic Four (the new one) sucked. The Spider-Man movies are fun. Daredevil is great. Jessica Jones had weak writing, but not as bad as Agents of SHIELD. Agent Carter was fun.
Basically, when it comes to the Marvel movies, my opinions vary from movie to movie and show to show.
With DC, Man of Steel is really the only Superman movie that I've liked. I liked the Nolan Batman movies. BvS was good, but not my favorite comic book movie by far. Arrow was good, but now sucks. Legends is silly fun with pretty bad writing. The Flash is good. Supergirl sucks. Basically, as with Marvel, my opinion varies from mo is to movie and show to show.
I have been arguing in favor of BvS on the certain points that I see differently than you guys, but I've also expressed opinions on its weak spots. There is just less to talk about when we agree on something.
But I am fascinated by media coverage, in terms of these movies and just in general. That is the argument here. All the stuff about Civil War being a flop is just me joking around.
Well the thing about moral question in both versions of Civil War is a good one. And I think it's a good one because I could honestly see myself arguing both sides. I mean you have these living superweapons fighting other living superweapons, 90% of the time near civilians. The governments responsible for keeping those people safe (and fixing any damage caused by the superweapons) would honestly want some say in how they interact.
It's a fair point, and I agree with Tony that it would be inevitable in a realistic situation. And it makes sense that Marvel, being the more realistic comics, would tackle it. The only problem I had with the scenario is that it took so damn long to do in a Marvel universe that prides itself on not rebooting. It'd honestly be something I would've expected to see in the Ultimate universe or one of the many recent DC reboots, just because it's something that the governments would probably be quick to try.
And I think the moral question is severe enough that, as ireactions said, the writers' opinions seemed to matter more than the heroes themselves. Because I could take most heroes and find a way to argue either side. And I don't know if Civil War is honestly that different of a story if Cap is pro-registration and Tony is anti-registration.
The real big problem re Registration is that even if Individual Heroes could go either way the Marvel US Govt is pretty Morally Bankrupt and is involved in really Shady, Illegal and Unethical stuff on a regular basis.
SHIELD itself even Minus Hydra is a Bad Guy/Antagonist more often than not too.
Rampant speculation on my part; but now that Nathan Fillion is freed up, I could see him as Mar-vell in a Carol Danvers Captain Marvel movie.
If Mar-vell's powers got transferred to Carol, he could play the powerless sidekick role (kind of like Rick Jones).
There were thoughts that he'd show up as Wonder Man somewhere.
I thought the Agents of Shield finale was pretty good. Sorta like the flashforward on Arrow, it was kinda distracting to wait for the moment we'd been shown. And the whole moving around of the cross from team member to team member to amplify the mystery was sorta dumb.
I thought the death of Ward was pretty great, actually. Too many times the villain is dehumanized so much at the end that you don't feel too bad that they died. And while I thought it was stupid to keep Ward on the show after his "death" - I thought that Brett Dalton did a pretty great job with Hive. And at the end, there was no big battle. No fight. Just a good guy and a bad guy, sitting together for a minute, waiting for death. Hive trying to explain to Lincoln why he thought he was the good guy, and the argument just not mattering that much.
There was something sorta beautiful in that moment and oddly unique for TV these days.
I liked it up to a point. My problem was with Hive's plan to turn the vast majority of humans into mindless drones. I ultimately found that so fanciful that I didn't believe it would actually happen, given that AGENTS OF SHIELD needs to exist in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. And I also didn't feel the show sold us on the dehumanizing horror of that -- all those SHIELD agents get turned and while the team are angry about it, they were all extras.
So I would have shifted Hive's plan -- where his ability to sway Daisy and others would have become global over anyone with Inhuman potential, and he'd be able to turn people against their families and friends the way he turned Daisy. Then, the show would be threatening a horror we'd already experienced and could fear -- and also, if Hive is swaying people covertly, then this could be conceivably playing out even while the next THOR movie is taking place.
That said, I definitely felt all the character moments and I really liked how, as you said, Lincoln and Hive ended up having a quite, civil conversation as they awaited their fates. The end teaser with Daisy using her powers to super-jump was also stunning.
Yeah I never really worry about any of these plots any more. I know that Agents is never going to have an impact on the bigger Marvel universe, so I'm okay with that. I'd obviously prefer if it mattered (and, honestly, last season it did - they were able to work in an Agents of Shield plotline into Age of Ultron, even if that wasn't really stated in the movie).
What's sad about the whole "the Russo Brothers were told they didn't have to watch AoS" is that the Inhumans actually could've made Civil War a bigger scaled movie. Civil War was so epic in the comics because it affected everyone. In the movie, it seemingly only affects a dozen people. Agents of Shield retroactively makes it affect the Inhumans and the secret SHIELD, but a line about registering all the new Inhumans could've made the whole thing feel more epic.
If I were them, next season would be a smaller scale. Now that Ward is out of the picture for good (hopefully), I'd like to see no more Hydra stuff. Not necessarily season one - like missions of the week but something more intimate and less "end of the world." Especially since a) they aren't going to have to work around any big Marvel movies (I doubt they'll have a crossover with Dr. Strange or Guardians 2).
Do we know that Lincoln is leaving the show? There is usually a press release about actors leaving a show, right? Has there been one for Lincoln? His last words were "They're just human" or something like that, which made me wonder. He controls energy. Could he become energy?
It doesn't really matter, I suppose. There is something about the show that just fails to connect. Nothing feels natural or honest in the story. Even character interactions, which is weird after three seasons. Skye's (sorry... Daisy... it is stupid to change her be, no matter who she is from the comics) breakdown was acted well, but each character in that scene felt like they were in their own bubble. Like they filmed separately and edited it all together . But that's how it feels all the time. It's strange.
Okay, new topic...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/leth … 39996.html
RDJ wants Mel Gibson to direct an Iron Man movie, if another one ever happens. But apparently, Mel Gibson is black listed... which is pretty obvious at this point.
Personally, I would love to see him get back on top. RDJ did it. And Mel has helped others get back up after they've fallen hard. I like seeing RDJ stand by him. Gibson is a great director. I'm just not sure that he is a Marvel director. I think he would actually fit better with DC.
As for why he is black listed, I disagree with the opinion that it is about what he said to the police. Crap like that happens every five minutes in Hollywood and nobody cares. Roman Polanski drugged and raped a kid, fled the country, and still gets standing ovations when he wins an Oscar. Hollywood doesn't care about anyone's morals or character. I think that Gibson was black listed because he broke etiquette when he made The Passion, and the fact that it was a huge success made that sin unforgivable. They needed to kill his career in order to protect their system.
They would sooner allow Polanski to direct a Frozen sequel than allow Gibson to direct an Iron Man movie.
Well, I have two questions before I comment. First, did RDJ ever really apologize for his behavior? I know he's spoken candidly about it, but I also know he's dodged questions about it too. Secondly, has Gibson apologized?
I think if RDJ apologized and Gibson apologized, then they should be allowed to walk the same road back to Hollywood. I know their "crimes" were different, and because of that, their apologies would need to be different.
I have to think that Gibson's blacklist has to do with the fact that he was highly antisemitic, and Hollywood is, statistically, more Jewish than most of the country (whether or not the highly popular "Jews run Hollywood" is true).
But I do think people should get a second chance if they truly ask for it. I don't think people should get a second chance just because, though.
Gibson did a lot of apologising. He met with Jewish leaders and seemed to really work hard at making things right. And he appears to have cleaned up his act since then. But racists and bigots in Hollywood are a dime a dozen. There is no reason why that event should destroy him after so many years of making tons of money for them.
RDJ, I think k has been open about his past and has tried to make good. I don't know of any specific apology, but I'm sure it is out there.
Hollywood is a twisted, corrupt industry. And despite the revised history, the efforts to take down Gibson's career started before the slurs to the cops. That actually came after years of horrible things being said about him in the press, all surrounding his making The Passion. The slurs are just the easiest way to get the job done now. You suddenly have people saying that alcohol is like truth serum, revealing a person's true self. Anyone who knows an alcoholic knows that isn't true at all, and the concept would be taking down a lot more Hollywood personalities if it were.
So for the next movie, should Captain America be given a boyfriend, or should he be a Hydra agent? The headlines and hashtags are all over the place this week!
Serious question though... for something like Agents of SHIELD or Daredevil, is there a reason why we can't see Avengers fighting in the distance? A lot of them are CG anyway, so the computer models exist. I can understand not being able to afford actors, but why not use the CG versions in creative ways, just to tie things together?
I can't believe anyone is taking this Cap has been a HYDRA agent all along plot seriously. It is so obviously a sting operation.
... well. I kind of like it as a story? I guess I've been reading comics so long that this sort of thing doesn't startle me at all anymore and I continue to enjoy seeing it anyway.
It is stupid in the sense that it essentially means that they're marketing him as a Nazi now. But yeah, it will be undone. It is kinda annoying how comic book writers will throw random stories out there with no intention of making them stick, just for the sake of grabbing headlines. But that is the business they're in.
That comment strikes me, rather alarmingly, as someone reviewing the news coverage of the story rather than the story. As for the fact that this isn't a permanent change -- why would anyone want it to be? Ultimately, characters in comics loop back to where they started; it's a cycle of mythology/marketability.
It's just a question of whether this is a SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN type long-term story where Dr. Octopus controlled Peter's body for 20 months or if it's a SHADOWLAND type story where Daredevil was a cackling supervillain for all of 120 days before it turned out he'd been possessed by a demon.
It's a perfectly acceptable narrative technique to present a radically altered backstory and mission of the character that reveals them to be a traitor to everything they ever represented -- only to reveal that it's part of a ruse. Or that the Red Skull has used the Cosmic Cube to alter Cap's history to transform him from an enemy into an ally. And to follow up with a Captain America from the original timeline entering the story or Cap to reveal his secret plan, etc..
With SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN, fans rioted over Peter Parker being killed off as though Marvel would permanently remove such a popular character from publishing. A year and eight months without Peter Parker was a way to examine his morality and purpose through the absence of both; Marvel's doing something similar with Cap and of course they're not going to give away the full story through interviews.
I see this as an interesting exercise: what if Cap's most positive characteristics were applied to villainy?
Yeah, I think its an interesting development, although I know virtually nothing about Captain America comics.
It's strange that people freak out if they do something crazy, and they freak out when things are boring. Captain America won't stay evil, and no one that ever dies will stay dead.
It wasn't a harsh comment to make. Comic books are always publishing stories that will draw attention, only to reset them later. Sometimes it works, but it is usually just frustrating. I do like it when stories progress in surprising ways that stick... but even those are usually undone eventually. Barry Allen eventually came back. So did Hal Jordan. Barbara Gordon is walking again, right?
At some point you have to wonder why they undo things. By the time they brought back Barry Allen, the audience probably had no connection to him. I know that when I was reading comics, Wally was my Flash. Bringing Barry back was more jarring than it was exciting.
Or were you referring toy comment about marketing him as a Nazi? Because that part was about marketing, not story. It seems like a bad idea to have all of the "Captain America is a Nazi" headlines. Just like it was a bad idea to have headlines about Superman renouncing his American citizenship, whatever the actual story was.
There have been hundreds of stories where Superman murders Lois or Spider-Man is killed stone dead or Daredevil goes insane or where Captain America is turned into a werewolf or a robot or dead -- well, maybe 10 or 20.
This fakeout of Captain America being evil and having been all along merely got published during a slow newsweek. Marvel consistently refused to refute the media presenting Cap and Spidey's deaths as permanent; Joe Quesada even went on Colbert to mourn Steve Rogers' death and present Colbert with Cap's shield.
The DAREDEVIL storyline, SHADOWLAND, had posters where a deranged Matt Murdock grinned murderously at the reader while the text read: THE BIRTH OF THE GREATEST VILLAIN OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE (without any fine print to say that this would all be wrapped up inside four months with Matt back to normal right away). The hype is not the story. The hype should not be reviewed as the equivalent of the story. Of course things will go back to normal; the fun is in seeing how that can happen. Given that the characters can't change permanently, there's nothing wrong with making a meal out of changing them temporarily.
I think my trauma over SLIDERS is part of why I like how all these insane things can happen to superheroes in comics -- the idea that all these mutilating, destructive things can happen to these characters, and they can still come back.
As for Barry Allen, I already wrote about the necessity of bringing him back (and you responded to it!). To copy paste what I wrote:
DC has given no official statements on why they got rid of Wally West and brought back Barry Allen, but the reasoning seems self-evident to me. Wally West was too complicated a character for film and TV.
Wally's origin: Barry Allen is a police scientist who was doused in chemicals struck by lightning that gave him superspeed and then Barry's nephew was struck in a similar accident and became Kid Flash and then Barry died and Wally became the successor to Barry as the third Flash because there was actually a first Flash and who the hell would bother with any of this crap for a TV show or a movie?
All adaptations either used Barry's origin with Wally West's name or just used Barry. DC, realizing that it was only a matter of time before the Flash became a TV show or film, decided to get in line with what would be the most widely seen version of the Flash -- a Flash who is Barry Allen, police scientist. CSI with superpowers. Barry was brought back to life. His absence since 1986 was compressed to a year or two and explained with a cover story of him having been in witness protection.
I understand why they brought back Barry, but it was awkward for me to have the "real" Flash come back when the only Flash I'd really ever known was Wally. And the secondary Flashes were Jay or Bart. Barry was a legendary figure that I knew about but had no real connection with, so on some level, I probably resented him pushing Wally out of the way to come back.
And I agree that this is what comic books are. It always has been. I do like it when something big changes and doesn't just snap back to normal. Dick Grayson stopped being Robin and it only made things more interesting. At the same time, they can't constantly be changing things for keeps, because after 80 years, none of these characters would even still be around. Superman would be making out with Lois' niece while Lois died in an old folks home. To a certain extent, they do always have to snap back. So yeah, Captain America isn't really a Nazi and it's all a fake-out. We know that, just like we knew that the death of Superman wouldn't last forever. I agree that the worth of that story is in how they play it.
But it still doesn't make for a good headline. No matter how you cut it, it would be a huge PR nightmare to have Superman pretend to be a pedophile for a few months. We have some distance from the whole Nazi situation these days, but it is still not a good image. Putting the story itself aside and discussing this on a purely superficial marketing level, the image isn't a great one, probably for the same reason that people hate the idea of Superman killing Zod or Batman marking people for death. It might be perfectly solid storytelling, but the image doesn't sit well with some people.
Well. Comics aren't really subject to conventional narrative or marketing rules for a variety of reasons. Crazy stuff like this is often necessary to keep the characters in the public view, even within the confines of publishing. When Captain America, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Superman, the X-Men, the Fantastic Four and Batman were created, their creators had no idea that they were starting a decade-spanning, serially ongoing, continuity based narrative with a floating timeline and a shared universe.
Eventually, the creators had to choose what they could change and what had to stay the same as they couldn't keep writing 60s era stories when in the 70s and 80s. Sometimes, the choices were effective. Sometimes they were a mistake. Sometimes, creators and companies stuck to their guns and carried forward, other times, they decided to use the flexibility of the medium to roll things backwards.
Spider-Man, for example, graduated from high school and went to university. With the X-Men, sales were low and Marvel cancelled the book, later reviving it with a largely overhauled cast that proved to be more popular than the first generation. Things changed for both Spidey and the X-Men: Peter Parker married Mary Jane and she got pregnant. With the X-Men, Jean Grey died, Magneto became a hero, Cyclops got married and retired, Professor Xavier left the X-Men in the hands of Magneto while he went off to space. Barry Allen died and Wally West replaced him. The feeling was that these characters would only ever exist in comic books, so comics were free to evolve and change and rework constantly, often making what would theoretically be irreversible changes.
In the 90s, however, Marvel started selling their TV and movie rights and suddenly, there became an urgent need to start rolling back all the changes; to make the comics reflect the default version that a TV show, cartoon or film would use. For the X-Men, all the changes were undone. Magneto reverted to villainy, Jean Grey was resurrected, Cyclops' wife was revealed to be some sort of demon queen and the clock rewound. The fact that previous comics had shown the X-Men to have outgrown this 'classic' situation was discounted.
With Spider-Man, Marvel attempted to retire Peter Parker and bring in a new Spider-Man, a clone named Ben Reilly. The sales crash made it clear that fans' loyalty was not to the costume and the name, but to the specific character, and Peter was reinstated with a time travel plot later undoing his marriage to Mary Jane.
With Wally West, DC saw which way the wind was blowing and decided to make their FLASH comics reflect any future TV show rather than see a TV show force their hand. When Wally became the Flash, the creators had no way of knowing that TV adaptations would be made, that superheroes could become filmable, that their third gen Flash would have a story too complicated to render onscreen.
All this experimentation, some incompetent and some brilliant, eventually made it clear: the comics would inevitably revert to the default status quo that a TV show or film would use. But in the 2000s, Marvel and DC began experimenting with making the kinds of massive changes they'd always had to roll back -- except this time, they would plan out in advance how the rollback would take place and make the experience a strong journey with some lasting effects here.
For example, Captain America was killed off and there was a multi-year story where we saw how the Marvel Universe coped without Steve Rogers and Bucky had to step up and grow a lot. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn took over the Marvel Universe. Eventually, Steve returned, toppled Osborn, but Bucky remained Captain America until his Winter Soldier past was exposed and he stepped down. Things went back to how they started, but the circle was a fun ride.
Just an addendum -- I think comic writers from the 60s to 2000s didn't know what they could change and what they couldn't. They understood that when you write Superman, X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman, Green Lantern, etc., you are writing mythic characters, but what are the essential aspects of that myth that everyone associates with the character that a faithful film or TV adaptation would use? When these characters were created and when these characters were at the height of their publishing popularity, it was difficult to imagine them in any other medium -- or that adaptations would be the most visible, most prominent versions of these characters.
For example, the shift from Barry to Wally -- this was DC Comics growing its universe, meeting the passage of time, and telling the next chapter in the legacy of The Flash. The Flash had started out as Jay Garrick, who was popular for a time but faded away. Then the Flash was revised into a new character with the same name and a similar costume and powers, Barry Allen. There was also the sense that Barry's character was a bit played out and dull.
With Green Lantern, sales had fallen on the title dramatically and DC sought to create a controversial, attention-grabbing storyline, so they had Hal Jordan become an insane mass murdering villain who destroyed the GL Corps and replaced him with a new Green Lantern named Kyle Rayner. This was DC attempting to progress into the 90s and create a GL who reflected young adult culture of the era -- soap opera with a 20something GL hanging out at his coffee shop angsting over girls.
However, the end result was that these updated for the 90s/next gen characters were too complicated in origin and backstory to bring to TV and film. It became necessary to roll back these changes and make Barry the star once more. With The Flash, all the next gen characters were unfortunately deleted. With GREEN LANTERN, the GL Corps allowed for all the next gen characters to stick around as supporting cast and in spin-offs while the core GL title focused on Hal Jordan once again. These were two instances where the changes were meant to be permanent, but over the course of several decades, it became clear that they had to be undone.
Grant Morrison, a very popular and inventive writer, attempted to do next-gen changes to BATMAN and X-MEN. With BATMAN, he introduced Batman Incorporated and created a global army of Batman and gave Batman a homicidal 10-year-old son. This was the evolution of Batman's storytelling engine. Unfortunately, it was an evolution based specifically on this particular writer's quirks and obsessions and without him, Batman Inc. faded away -- although the 10-year-old son remained.
With X-MEN, he attempted to replace the X-Men as a metaphor for the civil rights movement with a metaphor for youth culture. He replaced all the costumes with black leather, he had the X-Men revealed to the public instead of being an underground operation. While he did a great job, other writers couldn't quite capture the same tone and after he left X-MEN, the titles returned to the old civil rights approach -- although the X-Men remained publicly known and Cyclops and Emma Frost remained a couple with Jean Grey killed off and kept dead (but time travel brought a young version of her to the present day). In terms of evolving BATMAN and X-MEN to the next chapter, the changes were largely rolled back anyway for the next writer to come in with the default status.
It's only over decades that the essentials -- the defaults, the aspects the public associates with the character -- become clear. Superman will always be a reporter at the Daily Planet and his being a TV newsanchor was eventually undone. The Flash is Barry Allen, Green Lantern is Hal Jordan, the X-Men protect a world that hates and fears them, Batman fights crime in Gotham and not globally and Captain America fights Nazis. The writers can't be blamed for not being psychic or not realizing until the last decade that any changes to those essentials are only temporary. These temporary changes are generally to reinforce that those are the essential elements, sometimes through their absence.
So, right now, the style seems to be to execute GL/FLASH type changes by killing off Captain America and replacing him with Bucky or having Cap go evil, much like the Flash and Green Lantern -- but with the knowledge that this will be undone and to plan for that well in advance and making sure there's a decent story to be found there.
All true. It's just sad when you love a character for a long time, only to have them brushed aside when the norm is reinstated. At some point, I think that the comic books and the tie-in movies or TV shows will have to find another way to co-exist. The shows and movies are usually telling stories from years ago, with characters at the beginning of the story. Comic books should be allowed to evolve. Maybe the solution would be to have versions of the books that tie into the movies/shows and versions that don't even try.
Part of the fun for me with BvS was that the two characters had reached a point where the movie could explore different angles, the way comic books do. They could throw in the Robin suit without necessarily explaining it, for example. Most of the other characters wouldn't be able to do that. We need origin stories and a chance to get familiar with the characters at their core, before we can get to some of the more interesting stuff that happens later. This is why I hope that the Batman movie will bring in Nightwing or Oracle. Everyone knows Robin and Batgirl, so they finally have a chance to tell the stories that they couldn't do before.
This conversation reminds me of Supernatural (the finale for which I will be watching tomorrow night). The show has it's baseline story structure, right? After season five, things were shaken up. Dean was given a new lifestyle (meaning domestic, not that he turned gay or something) and Sam was without a soul.
Obviously, Sam needed to be restored to normal at some point. However, I was really, really hoping that they would allow Dean's life to progress and keep Lisa and Ben around for good. Dean matured into someone who wasn't into casual sex, and just seemed to become the next logical version of what that character should be. The same guy, but older, wiser and with his battle scars. I liked it. It was progress. It was good. It was a chance to really move the story structure into a new area and draw a line between the past and the future.
But at the end of the season, it was completely undone. Lisa and Ben had their memories wiped, so they have no clue that it ever happened (a huge violation, by the way) and Dean never wanted to speak about it again. Over time, he went back to being the more reckless, boozing, sexing guy that he was before. I still like the character, but it's a shame that they chose to undo that progress.
I always thought Dean should have been split in half; one version stays with Ben and Lisa and the other one goes off with Dean. Like on FARSCAPE!
I thought the finale was okay and they introduced a new situation for the next season. It felt a little (deliberately) anti-climactic, but that's okay. I enjoyed the ride. There were lots of nice, quiet character moments. I did think that Amara desperately needed more characterization in order to make her decision at the end more convincing, though.
I will post about Supernatural in a bit (typing with my thumbs now) but I wanted to point out an example of the bad publicity surrounding the Cap/Hydra decision.
Today is Memorial Day. People are honoring those who gave their lives for our country and our freedom . I saw a post from Dallas Comic Con using an image of Captain America at a grave, to serve as their way of remembering... and the replies were "Hail Hydra".
We all know that it will be reset and the story may end up being great, but they needed to weigh it against the image that they want to put out there. Especially around Memorial Day, because so many people use him as their way for geeks to honor those who have fallen.
At the very least, it's release was timed poorly.
I dunno. I'm currently writing an action sequence where the sliders are investigating a series of peculiar suicides. It could come out in September near Suicide Awareness Day. Should any story that inspires negative emotions be barred from release because a story element designed to create conflict and evoke concern might come when somebody is conceivably having a bad day?
That said, comics, more than any medium, seem a little overfond of one particular narrative device -- the fakeout. I think of HEROES as a TV show that reflected comics' worst traits and the fakeout was one of the most overused devices on the show. Sylar is Peter's brother! Hal Jordan is a mass murderer! Daredevil has become a supervillain with an army of bloodthirsty ninjas! Spider-Man has been killed and replaced with Dr. Octopus! Professor X is dead! Cyclops is dead! Wolverine is dead! Peter has become a Sylar-esque serial killer! Nathan is dead! Mohinder is dead! Sylar is dead! Claire is dead! Peter is dead! Captain America is dead! Captain America has lost the super soldier serum and aged into an old man! Captain America is an agent of HYDRA! No, not really, just kidding.
The thing is -- even if Captain America were really turned into a HYDRA agent and this is how the writer is going to keep the character going forward -- some future writer would someday undo it. Marv Wolfman was pretty sure Barry was dead forever, Ron Marz declared that Hal Jordan should rest in peace, Marvel was certain Peter Parker's days as Spider-Man were done -- but the truth is that these characters carry on indefinitely and some nostalgic writer will hit the reset button eventually. It's so inevitable that writers have decided to set up and trigger their own reset buttons.
I just mean, Captain America has always been used as a symbol. That is how they have always wanted him to be seen, from the moment he punched Hitler in the face. He was the embodiment of what every American wished they could be. That's why people use him as the image they post on Memorial Day.
For that reason, I think it was bad timing. By this time next year, I'm sure everything will be fine. But right now, it sparked a lot of comments and I think it added to the negative feeling toward the story.
You know I'm not someone who thinks that every story should be safe an happy, or that every story should even make the audience feel good in the end (you've read my work!). I just think that the character needs to live up to their purpose. Cap's purpose for being is to be a symbol. I think that's why there has been so many negative reactions to this.
The fact that Cap has always been used as a symbol is actually a bit of a handicap with a character whose adventures have been running since 1941. It's a description of every Cap story for seven decades. Which would suggest that surely there's space for the one story where Cap's symbolism is corrupted and twisted and broken -- if only to see what would happen. And maybe it won't work, but the truth is that Cap has endured many, many bad stories over the year because he's a very difficult character to write. One more won't do him any harm, and there'll be another 70 years of stories of Cap as a symbol afterwards. You could suck out Steve's brain (which has actually happened a few times), shoot him dead (which happened in the same story), blow him up (happens every other month), send him to a rape camp (well, he's been in concentration camps), turn him into a computer (it happened!), leave him unstuck in time (happened), merge his consciousness with another person (in Cap's case it was the Red Skull) and cancel his comic (it happened twice) -- and it happens over and over and over again and he just keeps coming back.
You know, there was a long period -- a very long period -- when Oliver Queen was dead as a doornail. GREEN ARROW comics featured Ollie's son, Connor Hawke. From 1996 - 2001, Oliver Queen was gone. Now that era is just a footnote. Can you even imagine it? I was there and I can barely believe it ever happened at all.
It's kind of comforting. It's what SLIDERS couldn't give me.
All true. However, Captain America only recently achieved a level of pop culture status, outside of the comic book fan community. It's still a relatively new relationship that he has with those people who came on board with the movies.
The story may be valid. We all know that it will eventually be undone (though some out there may not be aware of such things). But it is a risky move, to violate the character's core purpose in such a way. It has made for some bad press already.
I did know about Connor... which could lead me on a rant about the Arrow writers once again showing their lack of appreciation for the source material. But I won't do that.
At any rate, there is something that we might both finally agree on when it comes to comic book movies. X-Men Apocalypse.
Looks horrible. Didn't perform too well. I am not a fan of the X-Men movies in general, unless you count Deadpool.
SHOCKING NAZI CAPTAIN AMERICA REVELATION!
CAP #2 reveals that the Red Skull used the Cosmic Cube to alter Steve Rogers' memories to make him think he's an agent of HYDRA. SHOCK! GASP! ASTONISHMENT!
(Except that this was clearly set up in #1 with the presence of the Cube and its reality and memory altering powers being established -- meaning that the majority of those who torched Marvel, the writer and the story for #1's tale obviously hadn't read it and were lashing out with zero context and no meaningful information on which to build an opinion.)
And now follow the dumbass reactions from people claiming Marvel have reversed course in response to backlash -- except that comics tend to be written and drawn at least a COUPLE MONTHS IN ADVANCE AND THIS ISSUE SHIPPED ON TIME FOR GOD'S SAKE.
SHOCK! GASP! ASTONISHMENT!
But then again, I've seen people say that they're still pissed and won't be returning to their subscriptions. So yeah, they should have known better. But that doesn't change the fact that this was a pretty bad publicity stunt. They went out of their way to make it seem like this was for real and not any form of mind control, which was pretty much a lie. I don't think that did them any good.
I don't think either side wins this argument.
I really don't know why this has shocked so many people; Marvel has been doing the "villain in disguise" routine with all of its heroes. Superior Spider-man; Superior Ironman; Superior Hulk (Mr. Green) - now Cap is getting his turn.
My issue with Captain America continuity right now is that they had Red Skull steal the brain from Charles Xavier's dead body and transplant part of it into his head so that Skull can have mind control powers. Besides being outlandish, it's just sad to think that's how Xavier has ended up.
My issue with Captain America continuity right now is that they had Red Skull steal the brain from Charles Xavier's dead body and transplant part of it into his head so that Skull can have mind control powers. Besides being outlandish, it's just sad to think that's how Xavier has ended up.
This is a strange opinion coming from the man who wrote the (brilliant) story where Quinn becomes his own timer, a story that was clearly inspired by the loose rules of superhero comic books. As for Xavier, I doubt he'll stay dead forever. I imagine his situation will be something like taking over the Red Skull's body and remaking it into his own appearance, assuming he isn't revived via time travel or an alternate universe version whose memories get merged with the 616 Xavier (not that we use 616 anymore) or revealing that the Xavier who died during AVENGERS VS. X-MEN was an impostor or revealing that Xavier faked his own death and has been hiding in the X-Mansion basement to prepare for an alien invasion (again).
They went out of their way to make it seem like this was for real and not any form of mind control, which was pretty much a lie. I don't think that did them any good.
I don't understand how you could possibly ask a writer and a publishing company to work in the fashion you suggest. Cap's behaviour in CAP #1 was a mystery. This is god-damn serial fiction. Mysteries tend to be sustained over a period of time. The fact that they revealed all by #2 is already very fast.
Should CSI start putting all the answers to their mysteries in popup text at the start of every episode just in case the viewers find it too stressful to wonder who the murderer is? Should THE FLASH have had a post-credits segment after the Season 2 premiere to explain all of Jay's secrets rather than letting them come out in the story?
There's also the fact that CAP #1 was completely upfront and clear about what was going on. The issue explains that the Cosmic Cube has the power to alter reality and change people's memories. The issue shows us a version of Steve Rogers' backstory and childhood that has been altered and changed. The story could not have been any clearer THAT CAP'S MEMORIES ARE BEING ALTERED even if it only made it explicitly clear in dialogue in #2.
Again, your complaints are giving me the strong, strong indication that you have not read the comic book you're criticizing. The writers and editors were completely up front that CAP IS NOT BEING MIND CONTROLLED AND THIS IS REALLY STEVE ROGERS. His memories are being altered, which is a very different approach.
Cap's memories have been rewritten to make him think he's something he's not while leaving his free will and personality intact, so he's carrying out what he thinks is his lifelong mission (Hail HYDRA) while acting on his personal values and beliefs (teamwork, sacrifice, responsibility, freedom and protecting the innocent) -- but his tampered memories now make him think that fighting for HYDRA is the way he's always tried to fight for truth and justice.
That is what is so interesting about this story: what if Cap's heroic and admirable qualities were suddenly put on the other side of the war against Marvel's supervillains? HYDRA doesn't think of themselves as evil; they think of themselves as liberating humanity from their failings and weaknesses through technology and accepting the deaths of some innocents to save even more from themselves; what if Cap were manipulated to buy into that? Holy crap! How the hell can you critique marketing of a story properly if you don't read the story?!?!?
How can people claim it's unclear if AXANAR profits from their unlicensed STAR TREK films when the profit is shown on the AXANAR website??!!??
How can RussianCabbieLotteryFan declare that Laurel Hills should be removed from SLIDERS REBORN and isn't important to the plot when he read only 50 pages?!?!? (Spoiler alert: LAUREL IS QUINN'S DAUGHTER.)
How can ireactions claim to be paying tribute to Robert Floyd by writing a screenplay for Rob that Rob has no hope in hell of understanding!?!?!?!?
How can this bread claim to have one gram of net carbohydrates when it uses white flour!?!?!?!?
(Sorry. Sorry. Got a touch over the top here. Nothing but love for you Informant. Albeit with a touch of exasperation now and then. So it's exasperated love. I'm sure it's mutual. I'm going to go for a walk.)
I've been having the debate over whether or not altering someone's memories is a form of mind control since Willow altered Tara's memories and had sex with her. To me, that is rape. To others, it isn't.
I'm not criticizing the story. I'm talking about the interviews where writers swore that this wasn't a trick, or mind control or brainwashing. That is a lie. Altering someone's memories so that they will behave a certain way is clearly a form of mind control and brainwashing.
Writers and tv producers to this all the time, to sell the intrigue. But typically, fans don't react well to lies. Writers are better off being vague and evasive. Their interviews can hurt the way people read the actual story.
(The following RAGE is strictly for comedic purposes and should not be taken seriously.)
I see no lies. Nick Spencer said: "This is not a clone, not an imposter, not mind control, not someone else acting through Steve. This really is Steve Rogers, Captain America himself." http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/25/ca … m-brevoort
And what he said is correct. it isn't mind control. It's memory alteration. Mind control would be someone giving Steve instructions as to what to say and how to act and turning him into a drone. That is not what's happened here; Steve has been given a different history even though his personality has been left intact. His mind is not being controlled -- his memories have been revised. Why is the story so focused on the fact that this isn't mind control? Because that way, it's still possible to explore the Steve Rogers character in this sitaution. That is key to this story. He's been rewritten -- and turned loose in an act of spite by the Red Skull.
And also: at no point -- ever -- did the writers or editors say that Cap was now a full out villain and had been all along. Instead, what Spencer said on Cap being evil was, "That question will be answered, at least for the most part, in the next issue. That wasn’t something that we wanted to drag out." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … llain.html
Editor Tom Brevoort also added, "No, Captain America is not a Nazi. I’m gonna say the same thing I’ve been saying. Captain America: Steve Rogers #2 will explain exactly why and exactly how we are where we are." http://www.newsarama.com/29507-marvel-o … eader.html
I take no pleasure in saying this, but it seems to me that the only people lying would be the ones who refer to non-existent quotes like those morons on Twitter who think that CAP #2 was pulped, rewritten, redrawn and reprinted inside a month.
At no points did Spencer and Brevoort say that it wasn't "a trick" or that it wasn't "brainwashing" -- those are your words. Don't put your words in their mouths!
OMG, what a crime against literature to decline to spill the outcome of a story in interviews and instead let it emerge in the course of the next issue!
Greg Berlanti should also be deeply ashamed for killing off Jay Garrick and not immediately revealing in interviews that Jay isn't really dead or really even Jay. Agatha Christie should be executed for not putting the answers to all her mysteries in the introduction. JK Rowling should be shunned for waiting until the seventh HARRY POTTER to lay out Professor Snape's secret when she had an obligation to divulge all her twists and turns in the press! ireactions should kill himself because Laurel being Quinn's daughter isn't revealed until SLIDERS REBORN: PART 3 and maybe if he'd put that on the title page of PART 1, jackass supreme RussianCabbie would have held off on saying Laurel should but cut from the story based on the first 50 pages!
Kyle Andrews should be banished to a desert island with nothing but J. Michael Straczynski comics to read because FREEDOM/HATE didn't contain a bullet-point list at the end to tell me where the story's going!
... I need to lie down.
(Just being spirited, not really angry at Informant -- well, no angrier than my general state of anger at the human race. Sorry.)
Wait... didn't you ding Freedom/Hate (book one of six) for not providing adequate closure? So... there.
I still say that altering memories is a form of mind control. You're removing a person's experiences and decisions, and replacing them with stories and lies, so they will be what you want them to be. If I developed mental powers that allowed me to project thoughts into someone's head and I made them think that their friend is an enemy, or made a democrat believe they were republican, would that not be a form of mind control?
If you found out that someone had altered your memories of your life in order to make you what they wanted you to be, wouldn't you consider that mind control? It isn't just a matter of jumping when they say jump. It is about removing free will and what you've chosen up to that point.
My criticism was that it wasn't a strong cliffhanger, not that it didn't provide closure.
I think mind control is a completely inadequate and imprecise term to describe Steve's situation, especially in a superhero comic book context where that term is used to describe turning someone into a drone, a puppet of another consciousness. Brainwashing would be closer (and was not ruled out), but even then, it's not entirely sufficient to capture the true horror of what the Red Skull has done.
I'd call it contextual behavioural modification where all of Steve's memories now have a purely additive but horrifically insidious and violating new element: he now thinks everything he ever did in over five decades of comics was part of a HYDRA operation. I'd call it a corruption of Steve's values, purpose, identity and twisting his life and mission into the reverse of everything he ever fought for -- while leaving his personality completely intact within this new life story in order to deepen the Red Skull's sadistic satisfaction in taking everything good about Steve -- his strategic brilliance, his self-sacrificing nature, his compassion for all, his belief in the power of ideas -- and make him think that the best way to use them is and always has been to work for HYDRA.
Again, there is a lot of nuance and subtlety in the writing. The Red Skull doesn't want Steve to be a puppet on a string. The Red Skull doesn't want Steve to be a robot. The Red Skull wants to corrupt Steve's essence and everything that gives him meaning by reversing his purpose while maintaining his nature -- in order to further make him suffer. It's a nuance, that, to be quite frank, is (a) completely in line with what Spencer and Brevoort said in the interviews and (b) invisible to people who DON'T READ THE GOD DAMN STORY WHILE HAVING NO ISSUE TEARING INTO IT!!!!!!
Uh. Is your new book out yet? I think I'll need to buy it and give it a glowing review just to balance things out a bit.
Temporal Flux wrote:
My issue with Captain America continuity right now is that they had Red Skull steal the brain from Charles Xavier's dead body and transplant part of it into his head so that Skull can have mind control powers. Besides being outlandish, it's just sad to think that's how Xavier has ended up.
This is a strange opinion coming from the man who wrote the (brilliant) story where Quinn becomes his own timer, a story that was clearly inspired by the loose rules of superhero comic books.
lol Well, there's fantasy science, and then there's the Nic Cage movie "Face Off".
With this Cap story, I can tell you where I think it's going to go. The heroes find a way to save Cap by undoing every wish a cosmic cube has ever granted, but there is a cost. Sam Wilson had his life changed by a cosmic cube; and if that's undone, who will he be? I think Sam will end up being the one who has to make the decision; does he sacrifice himself to save Cap? Changing Sam would leave only one Captain America in the Marvel Universe and give Steve his shield back; but Sam's noble decision will leave him as a new person who needs redemption. It won't be a sacrifice of death; it will instead be a sacrifice that leaves a chance for Sam to find the heroes path again, and Cap will be there trying to help him find it.
Of course, the above scenario opens up some unknown possibilities. If you reverse every wish, then what about the other wishes that we may not even know about. Marvel could see some reality shifting with other things changing too. Maybe not big things, but stuff just around the edges.
My new book comes out Monday! And before anyone claims that I went back and rewrote this one because of what you said about the first one... I didn't.
Feel free to post reviews on all of the major book reviewing sites! I'm hoping to promote Freedom/Hate through BookBub when book 3 comes out in November. But it is hard to get accepted to BookBub and I'm not sure that I will have enough reviews by then.
I still say that it is a form of mind control. I don't think that a person would have to become a zombie to qualify. Robbing someone of their life experience and their beliefs, and implanting new ones is definitely a form of mind control.