Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Dude, James Marsters is 56 years old. I just found that out. I always knew that he was older than the others when he was on Buffy, but wow.

He's on The Runaways though, if you really want to see him on a Marvel series.

I never read a Punisher comic book, but I'm not sure that a version of that character could headline a TV series without some humanization. Not because of the violence and all of that, but because it would be pretty dull to see a character with no real dimension to him. He kinda came across that way in some of the Daredevil episodes, but even then, he had more depth to him as his story progressed.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Wolverine really isn't supposed to be male model youthful. He's old and grizzled and I can see both Hartley and Marsters playing different sides of the icon and creating a great character.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

They released a teaser for the new season of Agents of Shield. … er-is-here

All I'll say is....SMH.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm excited for it. All I ask is that we not make Informant watch it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I just watched Episode 9 of THE PUNISHER's second season. Spoilers:

The ending has Frank accidentally gunning down some innocent women when pursuing the villain. This is pretty much the same event in the MAX series that drove Frank to his death. And for the TV adaptation of this event, I'm calling BS on it. THE PUNISHER is determined to avoid controversy and moral ambiguity and any serious indictment of the TV Frank Castle, so I'm expecting this to be reversed with some less-than-shocking reveal that any corpses in that room were dead long before Frank fired on them.

However, it's a knee-jerk reaction and they're not always right. :-)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Watching Episode 10 and [spoilers]

Karen shows up in Frank's darkest hour and demands to know why he wasn't there for her in Season 3 of DAREDEVIL and shrieks at Frank that she was nearly impaled and repeatedly stared down gun after gun and people died right in front of her and WHERE WAS HE? Frank apologizes and says he wasn't on the call sheet for those shooting days and had his own show to star in.

No, I'm just messing with you, she doesn't even bring it up. Which has me assuming then that Frank was there, off camera. :-)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:


But....again?  We already did this.  I guess he's Loki now?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I have total trust in the AGENTS OF SHIELD showrunners. I rewatched the entire show a few months ago and saw them struggle through the restrictions of Season 1, create their own mythology in Season 2, rebuild their own version of SHIELD in Season 3, delve into the magic and reality-bending plots of Season 4 and leap into the future with brilliance and aplomb for Season 5 and with a drastically reduced budget. I think they are splendid and I have complete faith in their creativity and commitment.

So, Marvel-Netflix. I finished THE PUNISHER's second (and probably final) season and... it's fine, I guess. It's a Marvel-Netflix show and I've come to the reluctant conclusion that Marvel and Netflix have the completely wrong approach to superhero stories.

Like all Marvel-Netflix shows, THE PUNISHER has an excellent cast, thoughtfully scripted dialogue, gripping action sequences, expensive location filming and in-depth characterization. It also has entire episodes of characters standing around talking with no progress made.

THE PUNISHER has enough plot for maybe six episodes (Frank wandering and getting involved with Amy who is hunted by John Pilgrim; Frank returning to New York City to face Billy Russo; Frank and Amy confronting John Pilgrim). It's padded out to 13 through having the characters sit around having solemn conversations. However, the conversations are about the characters as opposed to THE DEFENDERS where the conversations were about "the substance" and "the city."

Frank, Amy, Madani, Pilgrim and Curtis have strong arcs that are unfortunately slow. Russo's arc with his therapist is awkward; Floriana Lima is a great actress who doesn't convey why Dr. Krista Dumont would shelter and bed a murderous psycho and upend her life as a successful health care professional.

The script indicates that Dr. Dumont has sadomasochistic tendencies, but Lima either by decision or direction, plays her role as very rigidly in control with only brief glimpses of madness, so brief it's forgettable. As a performer, Lima seems best when she plays active characters like Maggie Sawyer on SUPERGIRL. She's a great actress; she's just the wrong actress to play reactive passivity in the Marvel-Netflix house style of standing around talking solemnly.

DAREDEVIL's third season showed greater concern for episodic progression than previous Marvel-Netflix shows. By the end of each episode of DAREDEVIL S3, we'd learned something new, gotten somewhere different. With THE PUNISHER, the episodic endpoints are arbitrary. Aside from the first two and the last two episodes, there is no real thought given to giving each episode specific developments.

THE PUNISHER has many of what Darren Mooney on The M0vie Blog calls "narrative cul-de-sacs" with Frank and Amy and Madani waiting on or pursuing a plot point that doesn't advance the story but fills out the length. And unlike the other shows, THE PUNISHER's plot doesn't allow standalone stories.

The other four shows could have given the heroes a few one-off villains or cases to add bulk. THE PUNISHER, however, features Frank being drawn back into a war he's trying to leave behind; neither Season 1 nor 2 lend themselves to one-off situations. THE PUNISHER would have worked better by telling its Season 2 story in six episodes -- and then coming up with a new story for the subsequent seven, perhaps with a brief hiatus between the two segments.

I think we've only got 13 Marvel-Netflix episodes left: JESSICA JONES, Season 3. We're near the end (unless I'm wrong!). And, looking back, the Marvel-Netflix deal was a mixed bag. DAREDEVIL's first season was excellent, JESSICA JONES was terrific but the cracks showed with Kilgrave repeatedly entering and leaving and entering to stretch the story to a 13 episode size.

LUKE CAGE did well for six episodes and then fell into disarray in the second half. DAREDEVIL's second season was incoherent with three movie length plots (Elektra, the Punisher, the Hand) stretched across 13 episodes. IRON FIST was a disaster. THE PUNISHER S1 was adequate. THE DEFENDERS featured all of the Marvel-Netflix characters but also all the problems. DEFENDERS' vivid characters were muted by the dull tedium of the series. Overall, the Marvel-Netflix aesthetic is that of people standing around having solemn conversations. If that's the sort of story that Marvel and Netflix want to tell, then superheroes are the wrong characters to feature in these stories.

Audiences watch superhero shows to see them using their powers and dealing with the results; audiences want to see superheroes investigating plots, fighting villains, saving civilians, protecting their secrets, cracking wise, training their abilities, solving problems and engaged in action. Even the worst episodes of SMALLVILLE had Clark using his superpowers to save somebody and SMALLVILLE is one of the stupidest superhero shows ever made.

I don't know what Marvel TV and Netflix were thinking. Audiences who want to see characters standing around talking are unlikely to watch superhero shows; they would find a different genre where characters aren't so defined by their physical actions and abilities. The Marvel-Netflix aesthetic is a creative death sentence for superheroes.

Shockingly, the aesthetic of a Marvel-Netflix show is the same as a Season 5 episode of SLIDERS -- episodes where showrunner Bill Dial rewrote scripts for the budget by cutting anything expensive and then filling the massive content gap with scenes where characters re-state previously established information until the timeslot is filled. His rewrites on "The Great Work," "Please Press One," "Map of the Mind," "The Java Jive" and other episodes where characters meander aimlessly while repeating information is precisely the Marvel-Netflix model.

Which leads to my guess that despite the high production value of location filming on New York City, the budgets weren't sufficient and that's why action on these shows was constantly isolated and restricted to individual episodes with the bulk of the content featuring overstretched, elongated scenes.

JESSICA JONES and LUKE CAGE had solid second years with CAGE's showrunner even apologizing for the last six episodes of Season 1. (Informant disagrees with that.) IRON FIST's second season was good and DAREDEVIL's third season was masterful. Overall, these four showrunners had either found their feet with their budgets and episode counts or learned from their predecessors. And THE PUNISHER's second season was absolutely fine, at times great and often very slow with long conversations to stall the plot. It was a Marvel-Netflix show.

I would like for this era to receive a proper conclusion with a short second season for THE DEFENDERS. But to be honest, I'm not really broken up about Netflix ending their partnership with Marvel. All the shows found reasonable(ish) points of conclusion. And the Marvel-Netflix shows were very inconsistent, often overstretched, shockingly short on superhero action and frequently dull.

These shows were constantly boring. Season 3 of DAREDEVIL defied this reputation, but in totality, there were just too many episodes of Matt, Jessica, Luke, Danny, Frank and Sigourney Weaver having slow and solemn discussions. All too often, it was like watching Season 5 of SLIDERS, specifically "Map of the Mind" in which the sliders perform a procedure to heal Diana's brain damage -- then perform the procedure again -- and then describe what they just did to Diana as though the viewers needed a third iteration of the same action.

It's repetitive, it's tedious, and it's been an interesting experiment and I'm sorry it's ending, but I'm not sorry to move on. Anyway. I might copy-paste some of the above after JESSICA JONES airs its third (and probably final) season.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Overall, I'm fine with the tone of the Netflix shows. I think that some of the writers/producers struggled to work with that style though. Luke Cage was just horrible. It was one of the worst shows I've seen in a while. It was so bad that they actually needed to use slow jazz elevator music as the inspiration for the series. Oof.

I'll agree that the downfall for many of these shows was their lack of stand-alone episodes or short mini-arcs to fill out the season, and this caused them to repeat a lot of things. Jessica Jones was very guilty of this. However, I'm fine with the "stand around and talk" element, because it's an interesting corner of the Marvel world to explore. I don't necessarily need incredible action in every episode, as long as the episodes are still compelling in some way. It's tricky to accomplish, and these shows certainly didn't always succeed. But I prefer this style to, say, Agents of SHIELD, or even the Marvel movies.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

I think the Loki and Scarlet Witch shows are definitely Disney streaming service material, but the company also owns a large chunk of Hulu. That is where the more mature shows would go. … y#/slide/1

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

As much as I'd like to see Hulu offer continuation and/or closure to the Netflix era, there are serious financial and logistical impediments. At this point, the contracts on the casts of DAREDEVIL, LUKE CAGE and IRON FIST would have expired. Netflix has a two year contractual hold on the DEFENDERS and PUNISHER characters, so Hulu would have to buy out Netflix's interest. Would any network want to pay for that and still pay for making the show? Could they get any of the actors back after buying the license?

Well, it happened (sort of) with SLIDERS, so it's not impossible.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah, you might end up in a Sliders situation where you get back Charlie Cox but most of his supporting characters are missing and story threads (like Bullseye) could get completely dropped.

I don't think it will happen, mostly because of the delay.  But if the people making the show really enjoyed it, I'd tune back in.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:



I’m trying to find some way to describe the Netflix style that isn’t as insulting as calling it the style of “people standing around talking.” Conversational conflict is a valid style so long as it’s a tool applied for specific purpose and leads to achieving a worthwhile end. We’ve all loved shows that used this style well: HEROES spent its first season with entire episodes where characters would be paired up to wander a single location and engage in an intense conversation. Most of DAREDEVIL’s first season unfolded like this.

When used correctly, this style from masters like Bryan Fuller, Drew Goddard and Steven S. DeKnight feels like it’s taking full advantage of how TV is episodic; they’re having us spend time being close to the characters, getting to know their internal conflicts and giving voice to their inner lives. TV allows us to spend so many hours with people we like. There is an intricate craft to making these conversations significant and an intimate beauty to knowing Peter Petrelli and Matt Murdock and Karen Page so closely.

But the second seasons of HEROES and DAREDEVIL maintained this approach and when we have already gotten to know the characters, conversational conflict starts to look less like a stylistic flourish taking full advantage of TV’s extended length and it looks instead like a limitation. A limitation from low budgets that need to confine superpowers and fight scenes to a small number of episodes. A restriction on plot progression to fill an episode count.

DEFENDERS really stood out in this choice; the episode where all the Defenders gather in a Chinese restaurant for an episode to do nothing but talk should, in theory, be a stylistic standout for the season. But in reality, the majority of DEFENDERS featured the characters wandering around having intense conversations, so this episode in the Chinese restaurant didn’t stand out from the rest at all.

DAREDEVIL’s 2018 season did a great job of making sure that each episode had some meaningful development. THE PUNISHER’s 2018 season, in contrast, featured scene after scene of the Punisher sitting around having a philosophical conversation about war and it was almost always the same conversation.

564 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2019-02-16 09:53:11)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm four episodes into The Punisher season two.  It's fine.  One thing is bothering me, and it's bothering me to an annoying point.

Ben Barnes plays Billy Russo.  In season one, everyone kept saying how pretty Billy was.  That he's such a good-looking dude that he had this vanity to him.  By the end of season one, Frank busts up Billy's face.  It was clear what they were doing - Billy has always used his looks as a weapon, and Frank is taking that weapon away.  Billy, if he survives, ain't pretty no more.  Billy Russo is now the Punisher villain Jigsaw.

Flash forward to season two.  Billy is in the hospital, and he wears a mask with a jigsaw-like face drawn on it.  He's presumably wearing it to hide all the hideous scars on his face.  When he finally escapes the hospital and removes the mask, he's on a bus when a man teases him about his hideous scars.  How he's a freak.  The fact that Billy is essentially in a comotose state as he's talking doesn't matter - it's all about his freakish face.

Later, he visits a man that used to run his foster home.  The man keeps bringing up the fact that Billy used to be so good looking and look at him now.  Scars all over his face.  He's not pretty anymore.


Except that's how it's written.  In reality, Barnes has a couple minor scars on his face.  He's still very-much Hollywood handsome.  The scars are sometimes not even noticable - not enough to be mentioned over and over again. Definitely not enough for some punk to notice from across a bus.

I read that Barnes pushed for more scarring, but the producers convinced him to go with a more subtle approach because it was more powerful if he thought his outer scars were bad but it was really his *inner* scars that were the worst.  His face isn't terrible, but *inside* he's Jigsaw.

Which I think is just an excuse not to put Barnes in makeup for an entire season, but it also doesn't work.  Because if Barnes is fine on the outside but wrecked on the inside, why are 100% of the people Russo has interacted with speaking to him like he's got Jigsaw-like scars on his face?

It's like the decided later to change it but forgot to change the script, even when they were shooting.

(if either of you guys brought this up, I'm sorry.  I don't read your reviews until I'm done watching).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Worst kept secret in the world is out - the Punisher and Jessica Jones have both been cancelled.  Even though Jessica Jones still has a season to air, they went ahead and got it out of the way.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, it's good that they freed up the cast and crew to find other work.


Recently, my niece and I were walking out of a movie theatre and I spotted a poster for CAPTAIN MARVEL.

IB: "It'll be so good to see Agent Coulson back on the big screen again!"

LAUREN: "Who?"

IB: "Loki stabbed him to death in AVENGERS and he got better on AGENTS OF SHIELD?"

LAUREN: "Right, right."

IB: "I once tweeted Clark Gregg and told him that Coulson was my favourite superhero and he said thanks."

LAUREN: "Big of him. Do you have any thoughts on INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE, the movie THAT WE JUST SAW?"

IB: "Yeah! I wish Agent Coulson were in it. I miss him."

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

About 9 episodes into the Punisher.

What's really odd about this season is the way it's structured.  I think they're trying to do one of those "blur the lines between hero and villain" things, but it's coming off sorta awkward to me.  Billy doesn't even know who the Punisher is until the very end of episode 7, and even then, Billy doesn't even know what's going on.  As of right now (with four episodes to go), it's clear that Billy wasn't faking it.  He was plotting to get his revenge.  He's still a killer and a monster, but he's essentially a new character.

And our hero, Frank, is the same guy, and his only goal is to find this guy and kill him.

It's a weird situation.  I find myself, at times, wondering how this narrative would work in reverse.  If Frank were beaten up at the end of season one and left for dead.  He wakes up from a coma and doesn't know that his wife and kids are dead.  And he's terrified by nightmares of this man with a jigsaw face.  And he's trying to find out who he is while this pyschopath keeps attacking him for reasons Frank can't possibly understand.

It just feels sorta disconnected because the hero and villain have this history that only the hero really remembers.  It makes for a complicated villain but a complicated story structure.  Then you have Pilgrim thrown in, and I don't have any idea where he's supposed to fit in.  Frank barely knows who he is at all, and I don't think anyone on the hero side knows his name.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think a lot of this aggravating disconnection is because the material just isn’t there for 13 episodes. There was about six episodes of story here and giving Billy memory issues and dragging in John Pilgrim isn’t bringing in more story, just stretching out what little there is.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah.  I can't argue there.

The problem with the Marvel Netflix shows is consistently a refusal to write any sort of "case of the week" stories.  And I just don't understand why none of the shows ever did this.  Daredevil is a lawyer.  Luke Cage and Iron Fist are heroes for hire.  Jessica Jones is a friggin' PI.  There are built-in ways to tell a story that doesn't involve one guy fighting one guy for 13 episodes.  I know "freak of the week" stories got old on Smallville, but I think television has evolved since then.  The Arrowverse regularly pads seasons that are twice as long with stories like that.

They wouldn't have to forget about their primary villains.  While Frank was trying to bust up a gang of human traffickers, Russo could still be in therapy.  Pilgrim could be chasing down the girl.  They don't have to ignore their character building to busy up Frank in an engaging story for an episode.  We could see Kingpin's rise to power while Matt Murdock is trying to get a falsely-accused guy out of prison.  Kilgrave could be abusing his power while Jessica Jones tries to find a missing child.

Give the characters a season-long arc, but it doesn't have to be *only that*.  I mean, Hell, in the X-Files, they did so many case of the week episodes that people actually prefer them to the mythology episodes. smile

I feel like it almost has to be something from the higher ups at Marvel TV or Netflix.  Because there's no way that we'd have 12 seasons of this stuff and none of the writing rooms thought "Hmmm...what if we had Frank do something in this episode instead of having him hang out on a rooftop casing a joint for 40 minutes so we can do the 10 minute fight sequence that is the only reason we're doing this episode."

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The Netflix shows have been designed to be watched 2 - 4 episodes at a time if not all 13 in one day. I can sort of understand why Marvel TV wouldn't want to do standalones as they would seem like a distraction when the Netflix app automatically loads and plays the next episode. However, I binge-watched 10 seasons of SUPERNATURAL in about a year and I can't say the standalones were in any way disruptive, so the problem is that Marvel TV chose a format for their Netflix shows and have refused to break from it even when it only works for some shows.

DAREDEVIL's third season was great at this extended format because all the characters' separate arcs were a direct reaction to Wilson Fisk rebuilding his empire. Whether the story was about Agent Ray Nadeem, Foggy, Matt, Karen or Dex, it forwarded the season-long arc of Fisk's second rise to power. In contrast, there is no central event or situation for THE PUNISHER's second season. John Pilgrim's pursuit of Amy has nothing to do with Dinah Madani's obsession with Billy which has nothing to do with Frank guarding Amy which has nothing to do with Dr. Dumont's infatuation with Billy which has nothing to do with the Shultzes trying to hide their son's homosexuality which has nothing to do with Curtis' whatever. None of it's there to further explore the themes of THE PUNISHER. It's just filler and it drags.

And it really doesn't help that Frank spends 40 minutes of screentime on stakeouts in a single episode, as you've noted, and the budget is also clearly a problem. Just as SLIDERS blew the bulk of two seasons' budget on that stupid hotel set, THE PUNISHER has clearly expended most of its funds on location filming in New York City. There is a cultural relevance and urban texture to NYC that was essential to LUKE CAGE's Harlem and DARDEVIL's Hell's Kitchen, but with THE PUNISHER (and JESSICA JONES and IRON FIST and DEFENDERS), the show might as well be shot on the sets and locations of AGENTS OF SHIELD or SUPERGIRL or GIRL MEETS WORLD and they'd probably get a tax credit for their trouble. New York City is not a meaningful character in THE PUNISHER and the cost of location filming has not been worth it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think Captain Marvel is going to be Marvel’s first misstep in awhile now.  I thought the problem might be that they’ve emphasized the “first woman” aspect too much - playing with fade-ins on titles to read “HERo”; releasing the movie on International Women’s Day; etc. The effort felt like a gimmick and it was off-putting to me.  But when you look at it, Black Panther did the same things - Black in the title, released during Black History Month; etc - and yet I always felt excited to see Black Panther and thought it would be a hit.  So what’s the difference?

The trailers and likely by extension the movie.

For the months preceding Black Panther, we had a commercial with a dramatic leap from above onto a moving car where Panther stops some bad guys.  For Captain Marvel, we have had a stoic Brie Larson riding in a car with Nick Fury.  We also have Brie fighting constipation on top of a train.  Oh!  And Brie punching an old lady.

To add more fuel to the fire are the reviews for Captain Marvel.  A recurring mention?  The cat steals the show.  The best thing about the cat.  I see Marvel trying to damage control too - mentioning that the first Iron Man movie wasn’t a billion dollar movie and these things can take time to build up.  Not exactly comparing apples to apples.  The first Iron Man movie had little studio support behind it.

If you have a good movie to promote, the advertising gimmicks fall to the background and you don’t notice them. They become almost subliminal.  If it’s a weak movie, all you see is the gimmick.  I’ve become increasingly repulsed every time I see them pushing the movie as “it’s a woman!”; and I’ve come to realize my repulsion is because I think that’s all the movie has going for it.  It’s a shame too, because there’s nothing wrong with Captain Marvel or Carol Danvers - it could easily be great with the right writers, directors and actors.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

So I finished the Punisher and read your reviews.  I generally agree - it was just fine.  I was actually really disappointed in the whole Jigsaw piece.  I thought that ended up being wholly unnecessary to the plot - so much so that the Punisher and Russo's only interaction in the finale is for Frank to execute a Billy that's already given up and dying.

I thought there were so many places they could've gone with the character, and like the way they did the makeup, I felt like they didn't really understand what they wanted to do with him.  It feels almost like what happened with Spider-Man 3, where the people in charge wanted John Pilgrim to be the bad guy, and the studio demanded that they tack on Jigsaw. 

At the end of the day, ireactions is right - the storylines are just too disjointed to really work.  There's really no connection between the villains and Frank.  Pilgrim wants the girl, and the only issue he has with Frank is that he won't let him get to her.  Frank knows that someone is after the girl and wants to protect her, but who that person is never really matters.  Frank learns his name in the final episode just as an afterthought.  Frank and Russo have history, but even at the end, Russo doesn't seem to fully understand their issues.  Frank kills him, but Russo's big fight was with Madani.

There was a way to pull this off.  Maybe Pilgrim was another former military buddy of Frank's who has been warped by his newfound religion.  Maybe Russo is faking everything and gets everyone over to his side.  And as the walls close in on Frank, he has to fight two of his old buddies while trying to keep this girl safe.

I don't know.  I feel like they sacrificed a lot of what makes the Punisher fun to focus on character, but most of the character work didn't really have anything to do with Frank.  Yes, he bonds with Amy as a surrogate daughter....but that's essentially all that happens.  He never learns or grows because of his problems with Pilgrim, and he doesn't really learn or grow because of his interactions with Russo.

I simply refuse to believe that it's too many episodes.  I'll fully acknowledge that it was "not enough story" for 13 episodes, but the simple part of that is simply to add more story.  Create more villains for Frank to kill.  Add another subplot.  There's decades of stories you can pull from - the material is there.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Marvel has decided that the only director who can replace James Gunn for GUARDIANS 3 is James Gunn. … 202576444/

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's a really weird story.  If it was just a "let's wait for this to blow over and we'll rehire you" then why did Gunn jump to DC to direct Suicide Squad?  It sounds like someone at Disney made the call unilaterally and everyone was able to wear that person down until they just relented.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think Marvel genuinely fired him. But, over time and with investigations and further soul-searching, it became clear: Gunn is not a pedophile. Gunn is a rape victim who was making 'jokes' about a childhood trauma. Furthermore, Gunn made no excuses and cast no blame for his behaviour, declaring that he understood Disney's decision to fire him and all of that made it easier to rehire him, especially when Taika Waititi declined the job of directing GUARDIANS 3 before he'd even been offered the job.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Oh I agree that I don't think he's not a pedophile, and it was weird that he lost the job on Guardians 3 for comments that he apologized for during the production of Guardians 1.  But it seemed like things had been done, and he'd moved on to a rival company.

I think he's mentioned that Guardians was supposed to be 3 movies and then he'd move on.  So I imagine this is just to finish his job at Marvel before moving on to whatever's next, whether it be more Suicide Squad or something else entirely.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

So I saw Captain Marvel.

It was fine.  I thought Brie Larson was good in the role - she was fun and lively and sarcastic.  I found her to be an odd combination of Tony and Steve - funny and focused like Tony and duty-bound and honorable like Steve.

I also thought it told a relatively complicated story efficiently.  I thought they had such a big story to tell that we sorta lost Carol's character growth for a lot of it.  Since her character is sorta distant, Nick Fury becomes the emotional core of the movie for a bit of it.  And I'm not sure I buy Carol's motivations for almost anything she does in the movie.  But I feel like these are things that could be shown in a sequel (or even in Endgame) and not really be a big problem.

All in all, I thought it was fine.  Better than Dr. Strange, not as good as Spider-Man: Homecoming as far as first movies go.  I also thought they did some weird gymnastics to tie certain things in (the SPOILER is what powers the lightspeed engine), and they didn't do enough to tie in other stuff (Ronan maybe should've been on the team instead of just a fringe villain, Coulson has virtually nothing to do).

And after all the hype about feminism, I didn't really think they did much in the actual movie.  There's way less feminist stuff compared to the racial stuff in Black Panther (which I also didn't think was too much).  Carol is strong, and no one really doubts her because of her gender.  There's some stuff about her emotions getting the best of her, but it's more tied to her memories than her gender.

It was fine.  Very ready for Endgame to be here.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Just got home from CAPTAIN MARVEL. Every time this 1995 set film referred to the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division as SHIELD, I could hear SliderQuinn21 yelping in pain.

There's a lot in this movie that's beautiful and a lot that doesn't quite work. The sight of Captain Marvel declining to engage in a fistfight with her combat trainer because she has nothing to prove to him is lovely. The imagery of Captain Marvel as a protector of refugees is magnificent. The sight of Phil Coulson back on screen is charming if a bit blurry due to the CG facelift. The effects work on Nick Fury to make him Samuel L. Jackson's age in 1995 is clearly where the money went. The discovery that the ultimate weapon is housed aboard a ship of refugees is perfect.

And then there's the plot and the directing. The story is extremely dense and convoluted with the Kree/Skrull war, the Lawson project on Earth, the Skrull refugees, the Carol Danvers/Vers project, the plot to control the Tesseract energies -- and the exposition scenes are paced in the slowest fashion possible while laying out key revelations so far in advance that they have no punch when they arrive.

There's no magic or mystery to Hala or myth to the Supreme Intelligence or grandeur to the Kree army, just plot points in dialogue. It's entirely too obvious too early that Vers is not a Kree because Carol's demeanor is so human and her flashbacks come in too soon. Despite Brie Larson's excellent performance as a militaristic alien soldier on a primitve world, the film is too desperate to get to her smiles and charm. And the action! The action is functional but an oddly ineffective mix of rushed cuts, hurried choreography and visual spectacle that's oddly cold.

I kept longing for the skillsets of different directors. I have always admired how in SERENITY, Joss Whedon compressed the complex mythos of FIREFLY's Alliance and the crew and Simon and River Tam into a tight sequence of three scenes showing a dream, a rescue and a spaceship touching down to a planet. CAPTAIN MARVEL needed that deftness to establish Hala, show the Kree military force and how Vers has no memory but is a loyal and commited soldier whose lack of history is irrelevant to the army which expects to see her perform her function and has no concern for dreams and identities.

In the movie, the Carol/Vers split is nearly non-existent aside from Vers' coldness to civilians as she tracks down Lawson. I can't help but think that the Wachowskis would have done an amazing job with this plot element given that THE MATRIX in retrospect is a reflection on gender dysphoria. Neo feels there's something wrong with the way he experiences the world, with his very identity itself, like it's been co-opted and suppressed. Agent Smith insists on calling him "Mr. Anderson" and Keanu Reeves intoning, "My name is Neo" is a cultural touchstone and now clearly two transgender individuals speaking their own truth.

I think the Wachowskis would have kept Vers cold and aloof, militaristic and savage -- until she lands on Earth and is confused when Nick Fury makes her laugh. I think they would have shown Vers somewhat disdainful of Earth and humanity -- and then discovering that she is Carol Danvers would have been a shocking trauma that gives way to self-realization and self-reconciliation.

A TV show I really like is BLINDSPOT, featuring Jaime Alexander (Sif) as an amnesiac woman named Jane who discovers she has spy-girl combat skills akin to Jason Bourne. A major part of BLINDSPOT is the amnesiac Jane confronting her original identity, Remi, with the two conversing, fighting and trying to find some way to reconcile their differences and forge a unified identity and I think CAPTAIN MARVEL might have needed something similar to really sell how Carol unifies both her identity and Lawson's legacy.

And finally, I kept longing for the sure hand of James Cameron for the action sequences. It's funny that CAPTAIN MARVEL has Vers shooting down a TRUE LIES poster when Cameron has what this movie lacks for action -- a sense of spacing and geography. When Carol and Fury are running around the SHIELD base, the film doesn't convey the scale of the facility or the distance between the library and the hangar and how close behind the SHIELD agents have gotten. In the final spaceship action sequence, there is no sense of where the refugees are as they flee in relation to Carol stalling the Kree soldiers.

When the the Accusers fire missiles at Earth, there is no clarity as to which part of Earth they're attacking or how Carol can, on a planet with an diameter of over 150 million kilometres, meet the missiles on an intercepting course and send them back. Cameron would have made all this clear enough to create suspense; Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck are clearly not action directors.

There's a lot of good stuff here, I just think Marvel went with the wrong directors. I think it should have been the Wachowskis.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I saw Endgame last night.  It was a wonderful culmination of 20+ films and 10+ years.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Sucked. What a godawful experience. It's astonishing that something built over the course of decades can completely fail to launch and serve its function. I refer, of course, to the cineplex web system for the theatre near my apartment which seems to have crashed and isn't allowing me to book my ticket to a screening of ENDGAME. I'll try again tomorrow.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21


I thought INFINITY WAR was a good film, just not for me. I thought ENDGAME was good and I enjoyed it a lot. In comics, Iron Man and Captain America don't ever come to endings, so it was lovely to see them come to conclusions here. The battle sequences did a great job of showing all these heroes from different movies sharing the screen together. Scott Lang's reunion with Cassie was very touching. Nebula is a delight onscreen. Thor is hilarious. However, INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME have perhaps unwittingly raised a moral, sociological and scientific question that it doesn't seem able to address. Should Thanos cutting the population in half be undone?

Natasha notes that the world governments have managed to keep things running. Carol says the universe remains filled with life and planets in need of her care. Steve sees humpback whales closer to cities because fewer ships have meant less pollution. Thanos should have been stopped. The heroes failed. Should they try to change what he did when he's left them with a world that is beginning to heal from environmental damage and overpopulation? Does having the power to repopulate and overpopulate this planet give them the right to do so without further consideration?

It's a conundrum that ENDGAME can't handle because the Avengers are the wrong superheroes to address it. The Avengers are, in reality, fighting for the Marvel copyrights to continue existing to produce content in films, TV and streaming services.

Few superheroes are suited to confront such dilemmas; there are only four who could possibly confront this question and they are Quinn Mallory, Wade Welles, Rembrandt Brown and Professor Arturo. And even they hesitated to come to a definitive answer: in "Luck of the Draw," the Professor conceded the philosophy of limiting population while abhorring the methods to do so.

ENDGAME can't go there and instead fills the screen with superheroes and assures you that it's good. They might have side-stepped further it with a line from Carol declaring that most planets and spacefaring civilizations can handle population just fine and it's just Earth that seems to be singularly inept, and yes, more people means more conflicts, but they all had the right to exist and Earth is just going to have to manage.

The time travel was handled a bit strangely at points. The film does a good job of explaining why taking the stones and Thanos and his army and Gamora and Nebula out of their timeframes doesn't alter the past of this movie, it only brings the pieces to the present day gameboard while creating an alternate timeline that our main characters don't experience.

However, then the Ancient One declares that all the stones must be returned to the moment from which they were taken so that she can resume her job, but it wouldn't make any difference to the modern day Avengers. It's simply a measure to prevent death and destruction in other timelines. That's fine too and explains how Loki can appear in a future Disney show while still having died in INFINITY WAR.

Except, but by that logic -- why is Steve Rogers back in the prime timeline at the end? It's wonderful that he was reunited with Peggy at some point in what I assume is the 1950s. It adds a kind coda to the unfinished arcs of the AGENT CARTER television show, declaring that regardless of what did or didn't happen in the never-filmed Season 3, Peggy and Steve found each other again -- except that would be an alternate timeline that wouldn't connect with our own. The same way there's now an alternate timeline where Thanos and his army disappeared nine years ago. And an alternate timeline where Loki stole the Tesseract and escaped after the first AVENGERS.

Steve should have simply disappeared, never to return -- unless the Steve at the end of ENDGAME actually travelled from his timeline to this one to assure Bucky and Sam and Bruce that he was alright?

It was strange that Gamora wasn't present at Tony's funeral and that she isn't aboard the ship as Thor joins the Guardians; one would think she'd stick with Nebula.

Is Chris Hemsworth contracted to be part of the cast of GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY III?

Is AGENTS OF SHIELD's sixth season going to be set five years after the events of Season 5 the way ENDGAME is set five years after INFINITY WAR? If Netflix hadn't cancelled the Marvel shows, how would they have integrated the five year disappearances into their stories?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

In interviews, Jeph Loeb and Jed Whedon said Season 6 would be set a year after Season 5 and allow ENDGAME to resolve the INFINITY WAR situation. But ENDGAME takes place over the course of five years and concludes in 2023 while AGENTS OF SHIELD will still be set in 2019, four years away from ENDGAME's resolution. Loeb and Whedon said there would be no references to ENDGAME -- but how can the series be set in a world where half of all life was removed from existence and never make mention of it? How can none of the regular cast have been affected by the snap?

There were rumours that Marvel TV had become so detached from Marvel Film that the TV writers would scour the Marvel movie trailers for clues because they were getting no information from the film productions. It makes me wonder if the AOS writers thought giving themselves a one-year time gap would give them distance from ENDGAME, but now it turns out that they're four years short of what they needed...

But would Disney really be so crazy as to fund, produce and air a TV show that contradicts their biggest major motion picture release of 2019 while claiming to tie into it? Do the AOS writers have something to coordinate? Or are there some details to the ENDGAME restoration that AOS will present unintrusively?

We don't know how the people who disappeared experienced their being removed and being restored. What if, when being restored, they reappeared in the exact place in which they had disappeared with no memory of the five years that passed? And I assume that Tony considered when restoring people to also restore whatever vehicles they might have occupied.

If the SHIELD team were in a bunker or a ship or some isolated situation or conveyance, then they wouldn't have noticed having ever been absent, and they would have immediately resumed whatever they were doing -- May caring for Coulson as he enjoyed his retirement, the others searching for Fitz.

Maybe the idea is that for the team, they had no sense that time had passed. Their perception is that it's still 2018/2019 even if the calendar isn't, and Season 6 is set one year after their disappearances/reappearances of which they have no recollection. Would that work?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Regarding Endgame (SPOILERS if you haven't already stopped reading this thread).

You're right - because of the way they left it, that world might have huge legal and existential problems.  Peter's going to go back to school with all his friends that were snapped, but he's going to have a lot of friends who are emotionally scarred (and now 5 years older).  They'll probably be in college now, and those friendships are almost-certainly never going to come back.  Those scars weren't unsnapped.

What about people like the man at the therapy session who was dating again?  If someone lost their spouse and then remarried, what would happen to the second marriage?  What would be the legal ramifications of the first one? 

What if the president was snapped?  Would he have a legal claim to the remainder of his presidency, or would he lose it since he was technically incapacitated?  What about Wakanda?  Someone was king while T'Challa was gone, and it seems like he's just king again when he gets back.  But what if Wakanda thrived under the other king?  Even if the king was okay giving it back to T'Challa, would Wakanda?  Would other countries in other situations?

And it doesn't even have to be at huge levels of power?  If the sales manager at Marvel Paper got snapped, they'd have replaced him in 5 years.  Does he have a legal claim to his old job?  Technology would've improved in 5 years, if not at a slightly slower rate.  Some people might be (slightly) less qualified than people that weren't snapped.  Would there be a protected class for people who were snapped to catch them up or to find them work?

Then there's weird entertainment stuff.  I assume TV and movies still happened (they talk about missing the Mets and show an abandoned (?) stadium, but I assume entertainment would go on).  How many shows would've had to write in character deaths and then would have to awkwardly write back in resurrections?  How many shows would write the snap into them?  Would something like Blackish or AP Bio have a snap-related arc?  Or would they just pretend it never happened?  Would there be a new Bond film where 007 flies into space to take on Thanos?

The people are all back, but the world wasn't restored.  And, honestly, just because of Morgan Stark, you could argue that the world is much more complicated and possibly damaged.

Some of this could be dealt with in a future movie, but Spider-Man: Far From Home doesn't look like an existential piece.  And since most of his classmates look like they're on a class trip with him, you gotta thing *all of them* got snapped.


I'm sure we've talked about this, but while it would be an insane tragedy to have 3.5 billion people disappear...I don't think it would've accomplished what Thanos was going for.  We'd still have 3.5 billion people on the planet...and that would've simply put us back to the late 1960s in terms of world population.  Unless there was some sort of pushback to keep the population down (either out of fear of another snap or because of worldwide sadness), the world would be back to its pre-snap population in 50 years.  Thanos' plan would need to be much more aggressive to have the impact that he's looking for.  It took us over 200 years to get from 1 billion to 7 billion so if he snapped everyone but 1 billion, that might actually save the planet.  Taking half might only delay the inevitable.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

There are alot of questions for Endgame, but I would note two things.


For one, they left it wide open for Steve Rogers to reappear if Chris Evans wants to.  Now no matter the age of the actor, he could just reappear from that point in his timeline, and hop back to his other life when his mission is done.  It’s not something they would want to do more than once or twice, but the option is there in a big way.

The idea harkens back to the mini-series Avengers Forever where the characters were pulled from various different points of their history to fight Kang.  And Kang’s domed city of Chronopolis has already  been introduced in the MCU.  For a brief second during the quantum realm scenes in Ant-man and the Wasp we see something that looks nearly identical to Chronopolis (the home of Kang located in Limbo which the MCU seems to be replacing with the quantum realm).

The Russos have said they’ll come back for one thing - a Secret Wars movie.  They could easily use the Avengers Forever formula to pull people in from various time periods, and Kang has a part in Secret Wars too.   I think it’s a safe bet too that Marvel would want the Russos back if they can do it.

The other big question for Endgame - Black Widow.  She has a solo movie coming up, so will they really do a prequel?  I don’t think so; at least not entirely.  They’ve already covered a death of Black Widow in the comics during the Secret Empire story a couple of years ago.  I imagine this is the direction they’ll be going: … Earth-616)

Anyway, Endgame really left a lot to chew on.  It was a finale in its way, but it opened so many doors to the future of the MCU.  They definitely won’t be running out of storylines with the original actors - even for decades yet.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Two thoughts on the Black Widow movie:

1. My first thought is that it'll be about the Budapest incident that's been referenced so many times.  It'd be cool to get a period piece that goes over what happened there.

2. Was the Black Widow movie fake?  Will it actually come out?  Or was it put on the schedule to throw fans off, and it'll be some sort of "gotcha" by Marvel?  Considering the scene that happened in Endgame, they could even avoid criticism from people wanting another female-led solo movie by replacing it with an A-Force movie.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:



The writers of the film have come out and said that there's one timeline in the film.  Steve goes back and lives in his timeline, and an older Steve is somewhere, staying out of view, from the 40s/50s onward.  And considering Steve's understanding of time travel, I assume he would've stayed out of things.  It probably would've been difficult to not tell Peggy about Hydra or her future, but he knows how things turned out and I'm sure he's at peace with that.

I don't necessarily know if I buy that, but it does leave the opportunity to have Chris Evans return for some sort of period piece.


BTW, I don't disagree with Falcon over Bucky for the shield, but I thought it was weird that Steve and Bucky didn't get one last scene together.  I actually hope the Falcon/Winter Soldier show is a sort of battle for the shield, though.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:


And, curiously, the directors Joe and Anthony Russo take the view that Steve lived in an alternate timeline, but made a return trip to the original timeline to hand Sam his shield. This is the view supported by the film as Bruce declares that you cannot change the past to alter the present; travelling to the past makes it your present. If you leave the past and return to your point of departure, you return to the original timeline which has none of the alterations made during your trip.

This is supported entirely throughout the film: Gamora's past self travelling to the present does not undo her actions in previous films. Thanos travelling to the future does not undo the events of INFINITY WAR. Loki escaping custody does not undo the events of DARK WORLD or RAGNAROK. The only reason the Avengers need to return the Stones is to avoid creating destruction in a parallel timeline even if they'd never experience that themselves.

My guess is that the writers scripted a scene that declared that only removing the stones creates an alternate timeline and that time travellers cannot alter the past, but they can make supplementary additions. This view of time travel is present in DOCTOR WHO with "fixed points" in history where the Doctor must follow how history is recorded but can add details to pay off later.

I imagine that this scene was then cut by the Russos, resulting in two contradictory opinions between the writers and directors.

In the movie, when Steve and Bucky say goodbye, Bucky is clearly aware before the younger Steve time travels away that they are making their farewells. It indicates that the older Steve made an earlier visit to Bucky to explain the situation  before his return to greet Sam. This is reinforced when Bucky directs Sam to speak with the older Steve and in fact seems to know where the older Steve will be before he even appears.

As for choosing Bucky or Sam as the new Captain America -- all I can say is that there's a certain value to a black man wielding the shield, but Bucky in the comics was extremely popular as the replacement Captain America. Maybe they could alternate every other week.

One thing I'd like to see -- I'd like a three hour movie, CAPTAIN AMERICA: STONE UNTURNED, where Steve returns the stone to be guarded by the Red Skull. In the first hour, Steve lands on the planet and finds the humble, repentant Skull. Refusing to hand the stone over to a man Steve knows as a Nazi mass murderer, Steve turns away, but when attempting to leave, the Skull attacks him, demonstrating Tesseract powers.

Steve is beaten half -to-death but is then saved -- by the Red Skull -- another one. The hostile Red Skull attacks them both and Steve and the Skull who saved him are trapped in a sealed cave.

In the second hour, we see the Skull and Steve with nothing to do but talk. The Skull apologizes for his misdeeds, but Steve won't hear it, saying the Skull isn't sorry. He just lost his power and whatever's outside the cave may be a time traveller or from another dimension. The Skull says he was made by deranged fascists and Steve was made by kindess and sacrifice that the Skull mistook for weakness. The Skull has changed. Steve replies that if the Skull could get his power back and return to Earth, he would instantly resume his campaign of terror. The Skull confesses that is true and asks Steve to share his exploits since WWII.

In the third hour, to pass the time, Steve describes some of his adventures and the Skull tells Steve that the Skull finds solace in knowing that the evil of the Nazis has, in a very small way, contributed to the good of Captain America. Steve replies those are easy words when trapped on a cave and also on a planet from which the Skull has no escape.

In response, the Skull leads Steve into the caverns of the cave which reveal numerous dimensional portals, some of which lead back to Earth. The Skull found them after the first several centuries of his imprisonment. He could have left at any time since then but chose not to, wishing to pay for his crimes with his isolation and fearing he would resume his old ways if he left.

At this point, the Tesseract powered Skull outside the cave finally catches up to the imprisoned Skull and Steve. Steve fights the Tesseract-powered Skull but eventually realizes: this isn't the Skull, it's a manifestation of his hatred for the Skull brought into being by the stone. So long as Steve does not forgive the Skull, he cannot give up the Stone.

Steve chooses to let his hate go. He forgives the Skull. The hostile Skull disappears. The stone leaves Steve and is returned to the Skull once more. The Skull shows Steve the portals once again and says that while the Skull will remain, Steve might make use of them now or in the future. The Skull wishes he could tell his mother good-bye, the Skull wishes he could visit each of his victims and apologize. But he can never allow himself to leave.

Steve looks at all the portals, seeing the 616 universe, the Ultimate Universe, the Spider-Verse, CAPTAIN AMERICA TV movies, the direct-to-video feature, the 90s Captain America who guest-starred on the SPIDER-MAN TV series, the HEROES REBORN Cap and others.

Steve also sees a portal leading back to Peggy Carter and one leading to the time machine in his original timeline. Steve says he doesn't know which one to choose. The Skull suggests that he choose both.

Three hours is too much? Oh. Well, maybe this could be one of those MARVEL ONE-SHOT short films. I guess a 15 minute length might make more sense.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I agree with what some have said, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Disney+ is going to have an animated What If? series that features the question “What if Peggy Carter took the super soldier serum?”.  This could easily be the series that fills in the gap of what Cap was doing and why he made his choices - the format of the series chosen because Chris Evans didn’t want to act in a live action series.

So I think we’ll get our answers, and I think there’s more to it than just Cap deciding on a whim he wants to settle down.  I like where ireactions is going with the Red Skull becoming a Watcher type figure; and I think Endgame left a set up too perfect to ignore a Cap / Red Skull confrontation.

As for Cap Falcon, I’ve never really liked the idea because it just doesn’t fit mechanically in my opinion.  The Falcons wings are his thing, and the shield combined with that seems awkward and kind of like clutter.  To give a clumsy example, it’s like giving Superman the grappling hook that Batman uses.  Does Superman even need that?

It’s about identity.  Falcon has a clear identity.  Bucky really doesn’t.  But taking on the mask of Captain America (yet another facade) might just help Bucky find his own identity.  It would make an actual character arc instead of just a statement (which is what I feel the Cap Falcon idea is - just a statement with no more meat to it than that).

590 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2019-05-07 08:57:53)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I do think a lot of was cut out for Steve and Bucky.  I thought the scene, the way they did it, worked.  But if Bucky and Steve didn't talk, it would be highly disingenuous to the characters.

My guess is that Cap did talk to Bucky first.  My guess is that Steve offered the shield to Bucky first.  My guess is that Bucky turned it down.  He's a character who's working hard on redemption, but I don't think he's a character who will ever truly forgive himself for what he was forced to do.  I think a part of him is afraid that he'll always be the Winter Soldier, and it'd do more harm than good for Steve's legacy if he was ever activated again while donning the Captain America suit.

If I had to guess (again), my theory would be that the Bucky/Falcon show will be about this on some level.  That Sam is the new Captain America, but that he wasn't the first choice.  And it'd be somewhat about that and somewhat about Sam proving that he was the right choice - which I think Bucky would actually agree with.

It's just weird that they didn't go with Bucky since they'd alluded to him having the shield so many times.  I agree that a black Captain America is a good thing for many fans, but I'd like the Sam/Bucky show to make us believe that it actually makes sense in-universe.

Because it feels a little like the end of the Dark Knight Rises.  Sure, John Blake is a good man.  Yes, he has proven himself to be a hero.  Yes, he has access to all of Bruce's toys.  But John Blake is not Bruce Wayne, and I have real fears that he'd get killed in his first night as Batman.  Sam is a hero.  But while he'd have Cap's shield, he doesn't have Cap's strength or his years of experience.  Bucky does.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Here’s a new interview with the Russos giving a ton of elaboration on things we’ve been talking about along with some other stuff that hasn’t been mentioned: … re-a168216

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

TemporalFlux wrote:


Yeah, that's fair. In the comics, it made sense when Sam became Captain America. Temporal Flux knows his stuff, so this post is more for others, but in the comic book CIVIL WAR, Steve died on the courthouse steps on his way to trial for going rogue. The Red Skull brainwashed Sharon Carter (Peggy's descendant) into shooting him to death. Bucky became the new Captain America, continuing Steve's battle against the Superhuman Registration Act and other evils including Norman Osborn (the Green Goblin) taking over government oversight of superheroes and the Red Skull infiltrating American economics.

In CAPTAIN AMERICA REBORN, Bucky discovers that Steve isn't dead, but unstick in time due to the gun that shot him being a temporal bullet that ripped him out of time. Bucky and Sharon save Steve. Steve visits President Obama who grants him a pardon, but Steve says he is out of touch with America and cannot be who he was. Steve then tells Bucky to keep the shield and remain Captain America. After Osborn is defeated and removed from power and the Registration Act is overturned, Steve assumes Osborn's position, wearing the WINTER SOLDIER version of his costume with no mask and using an energy-based shield. However, Bucky's exploits as a Russian assassin are revealed and Bucky is prosecuted and can no longer be Captain America. Later, Bucky is seemingly killed during the FEAR ITSELF event, but it turns out he faked his death and will continue to do good but as the Winter Soldier and Steve becomes Captain America again.

In another later storyline, Steve is aged into his senior years due to a sci-fi contrivance and is physically incapable of being Captain America. This time, he gives the shield to Sam. Sam assumes the role until Steve is restored to youth by a reality warping device. However, it's later revealed that this device altered Steve's history to make him an agent of HYDRA. At first, Steve's work is covert, but when he reveals himself and has HYDRA overthrow the US Government and take over America, Sam has to resume his once-temporary role as Captain America. Later, it's revealed that the HYDRA version of Steve was created by splitting Steve's timelines in two; the original Steve remains in limbo but is able to return, defeat and imprison his doppleganger and redeem the name of Captain America.

I think Falcon being Captain America made more sense when Bucky had been Cap for a time but eventually found the position untenable due to his past as a Russian assassin coming to light.

I get the sense you're all agreeing that there isn't a market for a three hour film of Steve and the Red Skull sitting in a cave and talking.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:


I have a feeling it'd be easier to convince me than to convince Marvel smile

Before, I really thought Chris Evans was just talking when he said he was done.  Now...I don't know.  I sorta don't want to bring Steve back.  I sorta want to let him be happy.  I don't want him magically de-aged for one last fight.  I'm not sure I even want him plucked out of time for Secret Wars.  I'd love to see him show back up, but I felt like there was a finality in Endgame and don't want to cheapen it.

One idea I think might be kinda cool would be to put an older Cap (post going back in Endgame) in a prequel movie.  Maybe even a Black Widow "Budapest" movie.  Where he's helping where he can.

I also wonder whether he and Peggy had any kids.  If so, would there be any reason to have a kid or grandkid in a movie?


Random question.  The Russo Brothers were quoted that they'd come back for movies about certain characters.  One they mentioned was Dr. Doom.  Keep in mind that I've never read a Fantastic Four comic or seen any of the animated shows.  My exposure to Dr. Doom is almost exclusively from the subpar movies. 

I've read a lot of articles about him, and I know he's consistently listed as one of the best villains in comics.

But I don't get him at all.  What are his powers?  Why is he such a compelling villain?  What makes him special?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I've only really read Mark Waid's run on FANTASTIC FOUR, but Doom is intriguing because he presents himself with regality and proclaims himself to possess nobility and honour -- but in reality, he's a petty, delusional lunatic who insists to no end that Dr. Reed Richards MUST have somehow sabotaged the science experiment that blew up in his face and scarred him. Doom is perpetually insisting on his generosity and grandeur of spirit only to do something sociopathic and insane and he's fascinating because he's completely convinced of his own excellence and doesn't realize how small-minded he is. His brilliance as a scientist and sorcerer exists alongside his pitiful behaviour and the contradiction is perpetually intriguing.

His powers are that his suit of armour is full of endless technology that could either manifest as telekinesis, super strength, energy projection and really anything Iron Man can do but unlike Tony Stark, Doom's mind is fuelled by a twisted and cruel psychosis that takes outer form in a seemingly suave and elegant form. In his main Mark Waid story, Doom approaches a woman he once dated and asks her to forgive him for his horrors and give him a new chance to love her. She's touched by his story and embraces him.

The skin promptly melts off her and forms a new layer of magical armour around Doom; as she screams, Doom tells her that in his youth, he chose science. He has now appealed to darker gods to choose sorcery instead; the price was to sacrifice the only person he's ever loved aside from his mother to form a new suit of armor made of magically strengthened human flesh.


Sooooo, AGENTS OF SHIELD in Season 6 is set one year after Season 5 -- but it will not address INFINITY WAR or ENDGAME at all: … me-marvel/

The problem: Marvel TV had no information on ENDGAME but assumed that time travel would resolve the INFINITY WAR cliffhanger. AGENTS OF SHIELD's sixth season was set one year after Season 5, thinking that would grant the show some distance. But ENDGAME is set over the course of five years. Jeph Loeb and Jed Whedon say they have written Season 6 without referring to the Thanos snap, and essentially written it the way LUKE CAGE, DAREDEVIL, JESSICA JONES and PUNISHER were written -- as though they take place before INFINITY WAR. But AGENTS OF SHIELD tied into INFINITY WAR with the final episodes happening concurrently with INFINITY WAR -- so how can Season 6, set one year after INFINITY WAR and four years before the ENDGAME conclusion possibly make sense?

Loeb and Whedon said they simply weren't going to explain it, that they couldn't, that SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME is tasked with presenting the Marvel Cinematic Universe after the events of ENDGAME and also, that Marvel Studios withheld any and all ENDGAME information from Marvel TV. Whedon asked that viewers go along with the story and not be distracted by trivialities -- except the disappearance of 50 per cent of all biological life forms is not a trivial matter and it would be inexplicable that absolutely nobody in the AGENTS OF SHIELD cast fell victim to the disappearances.

Whedon added that in his mind, there is an explanation, but that it may not end up onscreen and that it will need to be determined at a later date. (Later as in Season 7?)

Anyway. I think the simplest explanation: the Thanos-snap didn't happen after the Season 5 finale, but during the flight to Tahiti. Everyone was erased from existence. Five years passed. Tony restored all the disappeared and, of course, made sure that their surroundings (like a plane) were restored as well. As a result, the SHIELD team didn't realize that they had gone missing or that five years had passed. They touched down in Tahiti, bid their farewells to Coulson and May, flew off to space in search of Fitz and then one year passed between that and the Season 6 premiere. As a result, all the reactions to their disappearances and returns and Earth adjusting to the restorations takes place offscreen between Season 5 and Season 6.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

With Doom, I think it’s really more of his visual that captures people.  Doom was Darth Vader before Darth Vader.  Many have described Vader as one of the greatest movie villains, and he’s undeniably iconic - but how much is really there when you lift the hood and look at the character?  The prequels tried to fill in some of it, but Vader had his place in history long before the prequels.

Doom is only defined by a few things - his hatred of Richards; his obsession with control; and the desire to rescue his mother’s soul from hell (which led to much of his mystical knowledge).  For abilities, Doom is the combination of Iron Man, Doctor Strange and Black Panther (minus the athletics) - and that makes him undeniably cunning and powerful.  But Doom is usually defeated by his own arrogance or his inability to let go of an obsession.

The funny thing is that Doom has actually won several times in the comics - he beat everyone and took over.  In one memorable example, Doom found his victory so boring that he was almost relieved to see Vision reappear from a long sleep and help take the world back from Doom.  Doom likes the fight; he doesn’t really want the prize.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Some Marvel phase four rumors on 4Chan.  They’re extremely likely to be garbage, but still some interesting thoughts in there. … -spoilers/

The interesting one is the synopsis for the Falcon / Winter Soldier series on Disney+.  It lays out the series as an adaptation of the 1980’s John Walker story:

Steve Rogers doesn’t necessarily have the power to determine who the next Captain America will be - the Captain America name, design and physically the original shield are property of the United States government.  They have the ultimate legal right to decide who is next to wield the shield.

With a few tweaks here and there, it would be pretty easy to adapt the story to where the MCU stands now.  The original story even featured Falcon as a candidate for Captain America, but the government panel rejected him with the idea that America wasn’t ready for a black Captain America.  As it turned out, America wasn’t ready for someone with psychological problems like John Walker.

And while I don’t think Disney would go there, this did give me an interesting thought.  It’s hard for me to believe government today concluding that the world isn’t ready for a black Captain America; so how could the MCU end up thrown back to that kind of mentality?  Well, do we know if the Thanos snap was racially sensitive?  If practically all black people in America vanished for 5 years, what would the country look like when they came back?

It could be a soul searching moment of how much America has really changed versus what it just came to accept.  There is a difference.  Many black commentators have been talking about how America hasn’t really changed - people just aren’t paying attention to racism as much anymore.  This could highlight that.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

When watching the AGENTS OF SHIELD premiere for Season 6... well, it felt like it was set after ENDGAME to me. I realize that the writers had no idea whatsoever how ENDGAME would turn out. They thought putting a year between Seasons 5 and 6 would give ENDGAME space, not knowing ENDGAME would happen over the course of five years, not one. Any tie-ins to ENDGAME are accidental and unintentional. And yet...

The one year later tagline doesn't come after the recap of Season 5; it comes after the opening scene where Fitz's spaceship is sliced in half with no timestamp for the opening scene itself. And, since it's airing after ENDGAME, it feels reasonable to assume that it takes place after ENDGAME.

The entire cast of AGENTS OF SHIELD is present. No one is missing, no reference is made to half the planet's population disappearing a year ago. This suggests that the episode is set one year after ENDGAME when the population has been restored as opposed to one year after Coulson landed in Tahiti with May. Jemma says she spent the past year learning alien languages, but Davis says he hasn't seen his child for "months."

If I hadn't read any press, I would take this to mean that the entire cast of AGENTS OF SHIELD (along with Nick Fury and Maria Hill but excepting the frozen Fitz) were erased in INFINITY WAR. INFINITY WAR was taking place concurrently with "The End." I would assume that the team landed the Zephyr in Tahiti at which point they were all erased from reality. Five years passed, then Tony Stark used the Infinity Gauntlet to restore everyone with no memory of their disappearances and unaware that they'd gone missing.

At that point, the team promptly resumed everything they'd been doing -- bidding farewell to Coulson and May, preparing to search for Fitz, installing Mack as the new director -- and they only realized that they were missing five years' worth of time when the Zephyr was in the air or as Coulson and May settled into Tahiti.

And with the Season 6 premiere taking place a year later, all those reactions happened during the time gap. The anomalies in reality seem to tie into the trailer for SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME which indicates that the Thanos snap and undoing it opened ruptures between dimensions.

I guess the main thing that made the Season 6 premiere feel like it was set after ENDGAME -- it was airing after ENDGAME and the episode was very good and the timeframe in relation to ENDGAME just didn't seem to matter as much as the characters and their conflicts for this season of AGENTS OF SHIELD.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I've enjoyed the episodes, and I feel like the TV writers have decided to simply return the movie division's favor and ignore the movies.  I feel like they've been the little brother for long enough, and they just want to do their own thing.  No more connections, no more mentions.  If a snap happened, it doesn't matter.  If there's an Iron Man and a Captain America and a Thor and Avengers, it doesn't matter.  Just like it didn't matter that the Avengers brought every hero of all time (including Howard the Duck) to fight Thanos, and there wasn't Quake or Inhumans or anyone else that could've helped.

And I think that's fine.  Daredevil supposedly exists in that universe even though it never felt like it.  It's sad because I think it could've been cool to introduce people on the show and have them bleed into the movies and vice versa.  While they were never going to get Chris Evans, it was cool that they got Jaimie Alexander.  It was cool that there was a plotline on AoS to explain how the Helicarrier got there in Age of Ultron.  It was cool that they had to react to Captain America: Winter Soldier and clean up after Thor: The Dark World.

But when the movies didn't seem like they cared, it's fine that the show decided the same.  Just do what the Netflix shows did - carve out your own little place and don't worry about anything else.