Joss Whedon: So Cancelled His Thread Got a Sequel

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I didn't particularly like the change to Thanos' plan, but 'complexity' doesn't mean his motivations have to make sense. He's still the Mad Titan - just in this instance he's also The Titan Who Thinks His Motivations Are Altruistic.

I guess you are right there. And Thanos actually seems rather complex on an emotional level. But the fact that his actions make no sense at all he is, perhaps, the worst comic book villain of all time. Any crazed 'I want to rule the universe' megalomaniac makes more sense than Thanos and his plan.

4 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

He doesn’t need to have a hand in it, just know that Hela would return upon Odin’s death, and know that Odin was nearing death. Perhaps his plan A was that a Hela led Asgard wouldn’t interfere with him, but as luck would have it they destroyed Asgard. Or maybe he knew that that was the only way they’d defeat her, and so he wins either way.

I guess one can see it like that ... but that would imply Thanos cared much about the inner workings of Asgard - and there is no indication that he watched or cared for those events. And it would mean that Hela couldn't have stood against a Thanos with all or a couple of Infinity Stones ... which I don't think is a given. Also, destroying Asgard was remarkably easy. All Thor needed to do was to get Surtur to Asgard. Thanos could have brought about that, too, one imagines.

By the way - I recognized that Hela is called Thor's half-sister in Infinity War when Ragnarök always had her as his sister. I know that the MCU Hela is different from the comic version, but who would be her mother in the MCU if it isn't Frigga?

4 hours ago, Fez said:

I've never read comics, so maybe it doesn't make much sense there either. But after reading a synopsis of the original story, I think Thanos' motivations would've made more sense, and been more interesting, if he was still trying to court the literal personification of Death. And wiping out half the universe was just about trying to impress her.

I don't know the comics, either, but anything make more sense than Thanos thinking killing half the population of the universe would solve a problem.

1 hour ago, sifth said:

The thing that bothers me, is this is such an easy fix in the script. All Thanos would have to say is half of all "sentient" life in the universe would be erased and suddenly his plan would make a whole lot more sense.

It doesn't really make sense in that context, either, since the only way to repeat a repetition of this 'catastrophe' (which is only in Thanos' head) would be to implement fixed rules that would ensure populations wouldn't grow beyond a certain point. And if you have that magical gauntlet why not change natural laws so folks lose the ability to procreate when the population of a given planet goes beyond a number arbitrarily determined by Thanos? Or why not transform all people into members of the Sovereign race? They know all about population control, presumably.

There are so many other less ridiculous potential solutions to this imaginary problem.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, RumHam said:

I know someone at Marvel said half the plants went too, but that makes no sense. We would have seen trees and grass turning to dust in Wakanda. 

I never get tired of overthinking whole snap thing. Imagine a dog had intestinal parasites that got snapped. Then the dog passed away during the five years. Where do the intestinal parasites rematerialize safely?

Does he kill half the micro organisms in the soil too?

The plants would recover in less than a decade. The Human population would recover in 50-100 years. It's a silly plan. Yeah, best not to over-think it.

1 hour ago, sifth said:

The thing that bothers me, is this is such an easy fix in the script. All Thanos would have to say is half of all "sentient" life in the universe would be erased and suddenly his plan would make a whole lot more sense.

I thought they did say that once. I might be mis-remembering.

3 hours ago, RumHam said:

Thor's new Ax lets him beam himself wherever he wants to go. I wouldn't be surprised if he never uses that ability again. 

3 hours ago, Fez said:

I've never read comics, so maybe it doesn't make much sense there either. But after reading a synopsis of the original story, I think Thanos' motivations would've made more sense, and been more interesting, if he was still trying to court the literal personification of Death. And wiping out half the universe was just about trying to impress her.

Yeah, remember that the next time someone yodels about "comic accuracy". They turned the MCU's big bad guy into an eco-terrorist and no one said shit.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I guess one can see it like that ... but that would imply Thanos cared much about the inner workings of Asgard - and there is no indication that he watched or cared for those events. And it would mean that Hela could have stood against a Thanos with all or a couple of Infinity Stones ... which I don't think is a given. Also, destroying Asgard was remarkably easy. All Thor needed to do was to get Surtur to Asgard. Thanos could have brought about that, too, one imagines.

It amazes me the lengths people will go to resolve apparent plot holes in this mythology. This must some new genre of fan fiction or something.

Regarding Thanos v. Odin/Hela, in 20 films, do these characters ever share a scene together? Prior to Loki's attack on earth, is it ever implied their histories intersect at all? Is it ever demonstrated or implied that Thanos and Hela have any awareness of, much less antagonism toward, each other? Since when would the Goddess of Death have a problem with, like, a lot of death?

Thanos awaiting Hela's return before putting his plan into action because it's revealed she's his partner and consort; that would have been interesting. They went another way.

[Lord Varys]

49 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Yeah, remember that the next time someone yodels about "comic accuracy". They turned the MCU's big bad guy into an eco-terrorist and no one said shit.

You know you have reached a new all-time low when comic book villains have more coherent/intelligible motivations than their movie counterparts...

10 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Regarding Thanos v. Odin/Hela, in 20 films, do these characters ever share a scene together? Prior to Loki's attack on earth, is it ever implied their histories intersect at all? Is it ever demonstrated or implied that Thanos and Hela have any awareness of, much less antagonism toward, each other? Since when would the Goddess of Death have a problem with, like, a lot of death?

Yes, Hela, is seriously underdeveloped in Ragnarok, no surprise considering that movie's pointless detour with the Jeff Goldblum Grand Master character. That was nearly as worse as the pointless detour in The Last Jedi.

We don't know how/where she was imprisoned, nor why nobody in Asgard remembered her. But in regards to Thanos it actually makes no sense to even connect those two characters since nothing indicates he even cared about her or knew that she ever existed.

Also, Infinity War basically has the same problems I complained about earlier in relation to Tony. Thor's big revelation in Ragnarok is that he isn't his hammer and doesn't need the damn thing to unleash his powers. Granted, that also kind of undermined the entire magical super heavy hammer thing they played around with in a couple of movies ... but, hey, it is kind of an interesting idea. Character development and all.

But in Infinity War Thor needs his super ax to try to kill Thanos. He cannot just unleash his innate powers he does need another hammer-like tool.

10 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Thanos awaiting Hela's return before putting his plan into action because it's revealed she's his partner and consort; that would have been interesting. They went another way.

That actually could have worked. And one wonders whether that's something like they may have had in mind originally. Cate Blanchett doesn't really get a clear death scene in Ragnarok, or does she? And if Asgard isn't a place as they realize or declare at the end ... then how could Hela die if Asgard is destroyed if she draws strength from Asgard which isn't a place?

[polishgenius]

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, Hela, is seriously underdeveloped in Ragnarok, no surprise considering that movie's pointless detour with the Jeff Goldblum Grand Master character. That was nearly as worse as the pointless detour in The Last Jedi.

 

Naaaah, Ragnarok is the best MCU film and the difference between that detour and TLJ is in TLJ the detour achieves less than nothing either practically or character-wise (and I like TLJ) whereas in Ragnarok it leads to character development for Thor, introduces Valkyrie and has a whole character arc for her, brings back Hulk, and gets them crew and equipment they need to be able to face Hela. Sure, the Grandmaster himself is an empty threat, but the movie needed him- the section needed an antagonist, it couldn't be Hela coz she'd have squashed them, but using a real serious enemy they had to defeat in a serious manner would have meant too-many-endings syndrome.

I mean I'm not gonna sneer too much about someone not liking Ragnarok but in terms of how to tell that kind of story/what that kind of story detour is actually for it's a great example.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Naaaah, Ragnarok is the best MCU film and the difference between that detour and TLJ is in TLJ the detour achieves less than nothing either practically or character-wise (and I like TLJ) whereas in Ragnarok it leads to character development for Thor, introduces Valkyrie and has a whole character arc for her, brings back Hulk, and gets them crew and equipment they need to be able to face Hela. Sure, the Grandmaster himself is an empty threat, but the movie needed him- the section needed an antagonist, it couldn't be Hela coz she'd have squashed them, but using a real serious enemy they had to defeat in a serious manner would have meant too-many-endings syndrome.

I mean I'm not gonna sneer too much about someone not liking Ragnarok but in terms of how to tell that kind of story/what that kind of story detour is actually for it's a great example.

I think you could have established all that without that particular detour, most notably, for example, by making Hela's return something that occurred at a later point in the film and by slowly building up the threat she poses. For instance, we could have had a plot where Loki impersonating Odin finds out that he has another sibling which was imprisoned by his adoptive father and now he is resolved to free her to right another wrong done by his father. There were quite a few way to do this better than in the way they did it.

I also didn't say I disliked the movie all that much - I implied I dislike the pointless detour plot (although I actually did like Jeff Goldblum in that role). And I'd would maintain my point that the detour is part of the reason why Hela remains a one-dimensional villain.

[polishgenius]

I mean, 'better' is subjective here. You could have done those things but then you would be telling an all-the-way serious epic and Waititi was making an adventure comedy. A comedy with some strong tragedy and personal journeys, but still a comedy adventure.

I also have to say I've never understood why villains have to be deep. If all villains were shallow that'd be dull and in other Marvel films where they are it doesn't always work, but Hela's role in the movie is to be a force of nature. She's the oncoming storm whose very presence causes the heroes to fall apart. Humanising her would have taken away from that and taken away from the time Thor spends falling apart and then getting the gang together. Yeah, you could have done it the way you suggest and it could have been a very good movie, but it's not an inherently better way to tell the story.

[RumHam]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Also, Infinity War basically has the same problems I complained about earlier in relation to Tony. Thor's big revelation in Ragnarok is that he isn't his hammer and doesn't need the damn thing to unleash his powers. Granted, that also kind of undermined the entire magical super heavy hammer thing they played around with in a couple of movies ... but, hey, it is kind of an interesting idea. Character development and all.

But in Infinity War Thor needs his super ax to try to kill Thanos. He cannot just unleash his innate powers he does need another hammer-like tool.

It gets worse in Endgame. Spoiler tagging just in case though I think you said this was a re-watch

Cap picks up the hammer and...gets lightning power.

Another good one is that in Ragnorok Banner has no memory of his time as Hulk. He's totally confused as to where he is. Then in Infinity War he wars them about Thanos and and how "thor is gone" but that all happened while he was the Hulk so he should have no memory of how he ended up in the sanctum.

[polishgenius]

8 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Another good one is that in Ragnorok Banner has no memory of his time as Hulk. He's totally confused as to where he is. Then in Infinity War he wars them about Thanos and and how "thor is gone" but that all happened while he was the Hulk so he should have no memory of how he ended up in the sanctum.

 

In that particular instance I think it's implied that the memory problems and discombobulation come from being trapped ss Hulk for so long, not from being Hulk on its own.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, Hela, is seriously underdeveloped in Ragnarok, no surprise considering that movie's pointless detour with the Jeff Goldblum Grand Master character. That was nearly as worse as the pointless detour in The Last Jedi.

In general, I rate the first two Thor films, particularly The Dark World, better than the consensus. My initial reaction to Ragnarok was positive but even then I had my reservations about Hela.

First, the Hela I remember from the comics is kind of humorless and terrifying. Not 'sassy'. The Norse goddess of death isn't supposed to be 'sassy'. Second is that the cast Cate Blanchett, an incredible, award winning actress in the role of an equally impressive villain and don't really do much with her. 

34 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I also have to say I've never understood why villains have to be deep. If all villains were shallow that'd be dull and in other Marvel films where they are it doesn't always work, but Hela's role in the movie is to be a force of nature.

They don't have to be, they just tend to be better if they are. Still, I kind of agree with this. 

Heath Ledger's Joker is an example of getting it so very right. We know that the biographical information he gives about himself is either partially or totally fabricated. But this revelation has an impact for the audience and even his lies tell us something about that character. He's doing his whole agent of chaos thing but at the same time he's got something to prove. What we do know about him is enough to make him an engaging, fascinating character. Contrast this with Phoenix's Joker, where we're given a ton of backstory about him but he still manages to be a mysterious character. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

16 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Another good one is that in Ragnorok Banner has no memory of his time as Hulk. He's totally confused as to where he is. Then in Infinity War he wars them about Thanos and and how "thor is gone" but that all happened while he was the Hulk so he should have no memory of how he ended up in the sanctum.

In the Incredible Hulk film it's revealed that Banner can have some vague fragments of memory of his time as Hulk. This has been used to rationalize Bruce's very-specific recollection of Thanos at the beginning of A:IW. Seems like a stretch to me. Banner knows Thanos was behind Loki's attack on New York. 

[Lord Varys]

41 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I mean, 'better' is subjective here. You could have done those things but then you would be telling an all-the-way serious epic and Waititi was making an adventure comedy. A comedy with some strong tragedy and personal journeys, but still a comedy adventure.

Of course it is subjective. We are talking movies, not how best to do a rather complex surgery. If the movie was supposed to be so fun then, perhaps, it shouldn't have been about the desctruction of Asgard, the death of Odin, and so on.

41 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I also have to say I've never understood why villains have to be deep. If all villains were shallow that'd be dull and in other Marvel films where they are it doesn't always work, but Hela's role in the movie is to be a force of nature. She's the oncoming storm whose very presence causes the heroes to fall apart. Humanising her would have taken away from that and taken away from the time Thor spends falling apart and then getting the gang together. Yeah, you could have done it the way you suggest and it could have been a very good movie, but it's not an inherently better way to tell the story.

Well, my original point was that I was confused why it is that folks think - and I drew that from the wiki article on Thanos - think that he was a complex villain. When the discussion shifted to Hela I realized that she was pretty one-dimensional, too - in part, because the movie takes a long detour.

There are all kinds of ways imaginable how Hela could have had more screentime and been an actual character instead of a caricature (think about those 'executioner' lines) while we also get an arc for Thor. Say, Loki frees Hela from whatever dungeon her father threw her into, Thor then challenges her for the rule of Asgard, Hela wins and makes him her little slave pet in basically the same kind of manner the Grand Master did. From there Thor has to work his way back into a position where he could topple and defeat Hela.

They could even have included the Hulk in all that if Loki had captured him while impersonating Odin to get even with him for their last encounter back on Earth. Although dragging Banner into all this wasn't really necessary for that movie to work.

In a sense, I'm also pissed that they actually sold Civil War as a Captain America movie when this was in fact the third Avengers movie.

16 minutes ago, RumHam said:

It gets worse in Endgame. Spoiler tagging just in case though I think you said this was a re-watch

Thanks, but I knew all the movies aside from the two Guardians of the Galaxy movies which kind turned out to be mildly irritating when first watching Infinity War in the theater. In that sense, it was/is mostly a rewatch.

I think my girlfriend and I are going to try the DC movies after that one, and figure out which series has more continuity issues.

16 minutes ago, RumHam said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Cap picks up the hammer and...gets lightning power.

Another good one is that in Ragnorok Banner has no memory of his time as Hulk. He's totally confused as to where he is. Then in Infinity War he wars them about Thanos and and how "thor is gone" but that all happened while he was the Hulk so he should have no memory of how he ended up in the sanctum.

I think there are also problems with that in the sense that they did establish things in the Hulk movie with Edward Norton that Banner remembers bits and pieces of what's going on when he goes green - and at the end it is implied he can get better at that since he remembers/doesn't hurt Liv Tyler.

Also, the Hulk wouldn't really be effective in any capacity if he couldn't direct his anger at some common enemy and act somewhat rationally - which he does whenever he is unleashed in a fight against the big bad. The entire thing about the Hulk not returning after Age of Ultron also seems to have been about Banner realizing that Natasha doesn't deserve as fucked up a person as he is. It would have been Banner's decision to not go back, not the Hulk's. That guy isn't really a different person. Or not completely. Same brain and all.

In that sense, Banner remaining the Hulk up until he meets Thor should have been about Banner not wanting to be himself again because the grief he felt for not being with Natasha would have been too much, or something along those lines.

Instead it seems to be just weirdly inconsistent. I do like the Hulk being too afraid of Thanos to transform, though. That's kind of fun.

12 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

In general, I rate the first two Thor films, particularly The Dark World, better than the consensus. My initial reaction to Ragnarok was positive but even then I had my reservations about Hela.

No idea about the consensus but I'd say that the first Thor movie is the best with the second one being not that bad.

12 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

First, the Hela I remember from the comics is kind of humorless and terrifying. Not 'sassy'. The Norse goddess of death isn't supposed to be 'sassy'. Second is that the cast Cate Blanchett, an incredible, award winning actress in the role of an equally impressive villain and don't really do much with her. 

Yeah, they just gave her some stupid lines and Karl Urban as a really stupid sidekick.

12 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Heath Ledger's Joker is an example of getting it so very right. We know that the biographical information he gives about himself is either partially or totally fabricated. But this revelation has an impact for the audience and even his lies tell us something about that character. He's doing his whole agent of chaos thing but at the same time he's got something to prove. What we do know about him is enough to make him an engaging, fascinating character. Contrast this with Phoenix's Joker, where we're given a ton of backstory about him but he still manages to be a mysterious character. 

I think most Batman villains never made sense. Just think about Two Face. How could he even be a villain if he always followed that coin?

And the Joker only works up to a point, in my opinion, regardless which incarnation. Spreading chaos works for the most part ... although there comes the point when the setting breaks down since most folks doing organized crime don't want to organize themselves out of business or so they can burn shitloads of money. This is where, for instance, George created a much better psychopathic super villain with Euron Greyjoy - who seems to have very Joker-like qualities but gives himself the aura/pretends to be a guy who acts in the best interest of his people (for instance, by not burning the money or dumping the gold they capture into the sea ... but by keeping almost nothing for himself and giving his men the lion's share of the plunder) which is something that's completely absent from the Joker.

Ledger's portrayal is great but I think it breaks down when we are supposed to swallow that the Joker can turn Dent into the monster that he becomes. That's too much for me since Dent actually knows who is responsible for all of that - the Joker, not Batman. So he should be the main target of his revenge, not Batman.

For the plot to work as portrayed the manipulation should have been less obvious.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

In that particular instance I think it's implied that the memory problems and discombobulation come from being trapped ss Hulk for so long, not from being Hulk on its own.

Yeah Banner specifically says the two years he lost - or "this time" - was different to Thor after coming out of it in Ragnorak.  You don't have to go back to Incredible Hulk to explain that away, they do it rather immediately.

[Werthead]

If we're not talking about Whedon's cancellation any more, it's probably a good idea to move the more general and specific non-Whedon-related MCU discussion to one of the several MCU threads we have going on.

[Lord Varys]

33 minutes ago, Werthead said:

If we're not talking about Whedon's cancellation any more, it's probably a good idea to move the more general and specific non-Whedon-related MCU discussion to one of the several MCU threads we have going on.

Of course, if anyone wants/can move my posts about that to such a thread. I didn't realize we had those going and actually didn't want to turn this into a MCU thread. It just kind of flowed sort of naturally from the discussion of Whedon's two Avengers movies.

[Derfel Cadarn]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah Banner specifically says the two years he lost - or "this time" - was different to Thor after coming out of it in Ragnorak.  You don't have to go back to Incredible Hulk to explain that away, they do it rather immediately.

Was probably longer than two years for the Hulk/Banner due to time working differently on Sakaar

[Mark Antony]

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

4 hours ago, Mark Antony said:

 

Money says WB come out with some DC related news in the next two days.

It's also interesting to me that among the Snyder fandom I pay attention to, everything that's been coming to light in recent months involving the reshoots is just confirming what these people have been talking about for a while now. Like there was a lot of buzz about it once Ray came forward a year ago, but there was also rumors going back to 2018.

And CBM websites and entertainment press, who love spilling tea, didn't say a word. How is it that some guy with maybe a few thousand followers on youtube knows this stuff and they don't? Or were they just reluctant to talk about it?

[polishgenius]

Joss starts his comeback tour with a... not very convincing interview if I'm honest.

[Kalbear]

This thread pretty much captures it