The Anti-Targ

Marvel Cinematic Universe General Discussion 6: Just Send Me a Raven T-Bone

422 posts in this topic

It doesn't have to be 20:1 though does it? Just enough that Larson can conceivably still play the character. I don't see her being recast for the modern films. They could also just say "oh her powers cause her to age slower" or do somethings to make her look younger in the 90's film. We've seen 80's Tony Stark and I think '99 Tony Stark, the latter didn't even require CGI de-aging.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, RumHam said:

It doesn't have to be 20:1 though does it? Just enough that Larson can conceivably still play the character. I don't see her being recast for the modern films. They could also just say "oh her powers cause her to age slower" or do somethings to make her look younger in the 90's film. We've seen 80's Tony Stark and I think '99 Tony Stark, the latter didn't even require CGI de-aging.  

It'll be pretty hard to do a Brie younger than her current age. She's meant to be a Colonel, which would suggest late 20s at least, probably more into the 30s. And that's around her current age. So current age IRL Brie is 1990s Carol, which means "putting a bit more experience" in Brie's face if Infinity War Carol is going to be be notably older than 1990s Carol.

You are right of course, assuming one can get away with being non-specific adult age between the ages of say 27/8 and 40, then you only need a 1:10 time dilation. Which is achievable at mumble mumble carry the 1... 0.995c, which is so much easier to achieve than 0.999c /s. If anything, the further Carol has to travel (i.e. the more Earth time that has to pass) to get back to Earth the better, since travelling only 0.995*20 light years doesn't get you very far in the galaxy, though maybe she can be wormholed 100 or so light years from her starting point but has to, for reasons, take the slow option for the final 10 or 15 light years.

Yes the other thing could definitely be that her cosmic powers grant her significantly greater longevity and slower ageing, so she ages at a 1:5 rate (for instance) which puts her at only 4 years older in appearance to when she left, and if she's mid 20s when she leaves she still looks like shes in her twenties when she returns, but she is much older and much wiser than that. Which could set up an interesting character dynamic in that the Avengers see her outwardly as young, inexperienced and immature, not much better than Spider Man, but in reality she's been [actively] in the game longer than any of the Avengers aside from Thor, and knows a heckofalot more shit about shit than any of them.

 

Back to speculation about Thor and Bruce having a conversation about their fight in the arena. I tend to agree that the trailer is misdirecting us and that Thor will eventually overcome Hulk and win the fight. The only untruth to the conversation being that Thor won quite easily. I feel like Thor can beat frenzied rage Hulk as Thor can use honed fighting skills, but focused rage Hulk, no. Also, non-enraged Hulk is probably not stronger than Thor, and Hulk needs to get to a decent level of rage to be stronger than Thor.

Arguably Thor is only OP with his hammer, but I think the MCU is tending to transfer a lot more power to Thor as inherent to his person and that Mjolnir is just icing on the cake. But according to the Marvel COmic power rankings Thor only has strength without a known limit when he has Mjolnir. I would like to know how the keepers of the MCU lore see Thor's power level with and without Mjolnir.

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.