The Anti-Targ

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

339 posts in this topic

I don't think it's worth overthinking. Chris Evans was Human Torch in Fox's FF series 4 years before Captain America came out. It isn't like the same actor is being cast to play a different character within the same cinematic universe. There's never going to be a Fox X-Men/MCU crossover...unless Fox reboots the X-Men and makes a deal with Marvel. And, if that's done, Trask would have never existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Funny how Dinklage was in X-men DoFP. He obviously can't reprise that role in Infinity War, so unless he voices a fully CGIU character such a recognisable person makes an MCU/X-men cross over problematic at least in this X-men continuity. With a subsequent soft re-boot possible in future, so as to introduce a new Wolverine, it would make a cross over more less problematic.

Interesting spoilers on GotG and Thor. 

I think they can worry about that if they ever reach a scenario where the current x-men and marvel franchise cross-over. Even if they did, it's not like Trask is a keystone figure of the X-men universe.

Marvel had an actress in Cap:Civil war and Luke Cage and it didn't cause any issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enver Gjokaj also has played a character in the Avengers and in Agent Carter. Steve Rodgers is planning to watch Star Wars, three films of which Nick Fury appears in. None of this stuff matters.

On X-Men crossing over. I actually don't want it, and I say that with X-Men being one of my favourite cast of characters. They are a quite nicely self contained set of characters, they have a number of solid villains and storylines. I quite enjoy them being their own thing, their adaptations have been hit or miss, but they strike a different tone to Marvel that's as good in it's own way (incidentally this is what I'm hoping DC will eventually manage, they just need to make a decent film first.) Deadpool would never have been made at Disney, neither would this Logan film (which I am seriously hoping will be good.

As for Fantastic Four, I will not be bothered if I never see them again, but please let their villains and aliens go back to Marvel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That brings up a point: isn't the Watcher a FF character? So as much as I would love Dinklage to be playing Uatu, that would seem unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do suspect he is at Fox.

But if Guardians and Thor are bringing in the bigger older cosmic entities, he could easily be something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just seen a (only semi serious) theory thrown out that he could be MODOK. I can dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The BlackBear said:

Enver Gjokaj also has played a character in the Avengers and in Agent Carter. Steve Rodgers is planning to watch Star Wars, three films of which Nick Fury appears in. None of this stuff matters.

On X-Men crossing over. I actually don't want it, and I say that with X-Men being one of my favourite cast of characters. They are a quite nicely self contained set of characters, they have a number of solid villains and storylines. I quite enjoy them being their own thing, their adaptations have been hit or miss, but they strike a different tone to Marvel that's as good in it's own way (incidentally this is what I'm hoping DC will eventually manage, they just need to make a decent film first.) Deadpool would never have been made at Disney, neither would this Logan film (which I am seriously hoping will be good.

As for Fantastic Four, I will not be bothered if I never see them again, but please let their villains and aliens go back to Marvel.

On Earth 616 the NT was never made. Also Nick Fury never made it as an actor and he joined Shield :-P

Gjokaj was an extra in Avengers with no speaking part. And as a no name part one could easily say he's Sousa's grand son / son and they look a lot alike.

The difference with Dinklage is that he played a major antagonist role in X-men, and he's Peter Dinklage, y'know everyone knows him as Tyrion the dwarf, oh and he's a dwarf, one of the few dwarf actors and maybe the only dwarf A-lister.

It's all academic anyhow as a cross over won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we not describe Mr Dinklage using terms that are considered offensive, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

On Earth 616 the NT was never made. Also Nick Fury never made it as an actor and he joined Shield :-P

 

The MCU isn't 616 though, it's Earth-199999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Dinklage agreeing to play MODOK...  I remember him being interviewed where he mentioned how many parts he passed on because they were demeaning .... MODOK is a CGI character.... anyone can play the role, regardless of height... I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Mr. Dinklage plays a character who isn't a dwarf in the comics... and I bet --like he was playing Trask-- he'll be terrific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2017 at 6:40 PM, Bastard of Boston said:

Peter Dinklage is reported to be in talks for Infinity War, which starts filming next month. I'm thinking...Galactus? Or Pip the Troll.

Pip? Naw, man. Puck! However, I'm not sure if Dinklage in a unitard with a giant "P" on it would be the greatest or worst thing ever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2017 at 4:30 AM, mormont said:

Can we not describe Mr Dinklage using terms that are considered offensive, please?

He has Pituitary Dwarfism, does he not?  Caused by insufficient Growth Hormone during childhood.  Typically resulting in a head and torso that are normal sized with smaller extremities.  Medically there is a difference between a dwarf (Dinklage) and a midget (Verne Troyer of Austin Powers fame) who are proportionally small all over.

Not sure why we would have to be afraid to use a medically accurate term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rhom said:

He has Pituitary Dwarfism, does he not?  

Yes. And many people who have that problem dislike being described by the term you used. There are other ways of saying what you want to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mormont said:

Yes. And many people who have that problem dislike being described by the term you used. There are other ways of saying what you want to say.

I don't think "dwarf" is as offensive as you think, at least not everywhere.

Quote

LPA issues statement to abolish the "m" word 

September 2015

Little People of America, the world’s oldest and largest dwarfism support organization and an international, membership-based organization for people with dwarfism and their families, advocates to abolish the use of the word “midget”.  The word “midget” was never coined as the official term to identify people with dwarfism, but was created as a label used to refer to people of short stature who were on public display for curiosity and sport.  Today, the word “midget” is considered a derogatory slur. The dwarfism community has voiced that they prefer to be referred to as dwarfs, little people, people of short stature or having dwarfism, or simply, and most preferably, by their given name.

http://www.lpaonline.org/the-m-word

It seems midget is the offensive term because of its association with freak shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do understand that there are *more* offensive terms, and I don't want to derail the discussion further. But 'medically accurate' terminology is appropriate for medical conditions, not people. People are not their medical conditions and it is in general offensive to label them as if they were their condition. What can be OK for a fictional character who would be so labelled in his fictional context, isn't OK for an actual person, in my view. And that's all I'll say about that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so back to some actual MCU discussion. I seems like Gywneth Paltrow may be putting in at least one more appearance as Pepper Potts. She claims to be contracted to appear in at least one more movie, and she is cited to have said she's keen to reprise the role.

I like the idea of having significant ongoing characters who are not super heroes. They relegated Coulsen to TV, dunno what they're doing with Nick Fury, and Maria Hill has been rather underdeveloped. It does look like they will be making Sharon Carter a regular feature, but she's a renegade for now.

It's a pity they decided to effectively divorce AoS from the MCU because they could have easily graduated some non-super characters from AoS to the MCU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's a pity they decided to effectively divorce AoS from the MCU because they could have easily graduated some non-super characters from AoS to the MCU.

Yeah I'm hoping there is some AoS, MCU, Marvel Netflix crossover at some point. Not so much that it gets silly. But the fact that they are all in the same universe is a big bonus to me. In fact, I'd probably stop watching AoS at this point if they weren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14.9.2016. at 11:44 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

But it turns out the Norse god is merely an alien, not an actual god. And you could call Wanda's powers an ability to manipulate the laws of physics that operates still on a physical level and is kind of sciency and not magicky. Dr Strange's shit is mystical/metaphysical, possibly even, dare I say it, spiritual.

What is the explanation for the magicky stuff Loki does? Manipulation of perception by...how exactly does he do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Annara Snow said:

What is the explanation for the magicky stuff Loki does? Manipulation of perception by...how exactly does he do it?

Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, lacuna said:

Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Exactly. So, why wouldn't the Dr Strange magic also be explained as really advanced technology? I'm sure someone in-universe could always come up with some pseudo-scientific explanation, as they always do for whatever weird shit is going on in MCU.

It's like the hype for the magicky stuff in season 4 of AoS. People were going on about how it's going to be something totally new with the Ghost Rider and the Darkhold and "how are Fitz and Simmons going to explain the burning skull?" And then some fans were surprised/disappointed when Fitz and Simmons did what they always do and offered (pseudo)scientific explanations for all the weird shit going on. But what else did anyone expect? If they can argue that Hive using dead human bodies and looking like the dead person but then being able to morph his face into his real tentacled look and back, was somehow biologically possible, then why wouldn't a burning skull, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now