MCU Multi-thread of Marvels

[Heartofice]

True, then just make 'Step up: 8: Baron Zemo Dance Party', a movie there is more demand for. 

[DMC]

29 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

True, then just make 'Step up: 8: Baron Zemo Dance Party', a movie there is more demand for. 

I dunno, considering the Black Widow writer is doing it I assume Pugh will be in it as Yelena.  And while I was making fun of that meme, I do really enjoy Bruhl as Zemo.  Add Stan as Winter Soldier - who was the only real bright spot in the TV show for me - and that's far more interesting to me than any Suicide Squad. 

Edited June 10, 2022 by DMC
Black Widow writer, not director

[Heartofice]

Whatever this movie is going to be I’m pretty sure it won’t take many risks, and will be a sort of watered down safer version of Suicide Squad. Whatever the weaknesses of that last SS movie, and it wasn’t perfect, it’s tone and humour was far more interesting than whatever Marvel would do with the concept 

[Ran]

If they follow the actual Thunderbolts premise, it would be a bit different from Suicide Squad in that established villainous characters disguise themselves and pretend to be heroess... sort of like how Mysterio was presented in Spider-Man, I guess, if he had been a known villain before trying to do his hero schtick. But it'd be a a team conspiring (and then starting to get conflicts as some like actually being heroes instead of villains). But the speculated list of members of the team makes it feel like... yeah, they're turning it more into a Suicide Squad clone.

 

 

[DMC]

44 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Whatever this movie is going to be I’m pretty sure it won’t take many risks, and will be a sort of watered down safer version of Suicide Squad. Whatever the weaknesses of that last SS movie, and it wasn’t perfect, it’s tone and humour was far more interesting than whatever Marvel would do with the concept 

Oh sure that's definitely built into my expectations.  Just saying I like those three actors as those characters in a standard MCU romp probably more than the "risk taking" of Gunn's Suicide Squad.  Which, let's face it, has a lot to do with potty humor and nihilistic violence that may be refreshing in a way for a superhero flick, but isn't exactly unique.  Basically we're talking about degrees of watered down/corporatized Tarantino offerings.

[sifth]

I actually really liked that SS film, that came out last year. I thought it was a lot of fun. Granted I usually say this about most James Gunn films.

Edited June 10, 2022 by sifth

[Quijote Light]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

If they follow the actual Thunderbolts premise, it would be a bit different from Suicide Squad in that established villainous characters disguise themselves and pretend to be heroess... sort of like how Mysterio was presented in Spider-Man, I guess, if he had been a known villain before trying to do his hero schtick. But it'd be a a team conspiring (and then starting to get conflicts as some like actually being heroes instead of villains). But the speculated list of members of the team makes it feel like... yeah, they're turning it more into a Suicide Squad clone.

 

 

Maybe they’ll go for the members believing they’re heroes, but their leaders/directors are using them for nefarious purposes? Then the majority of the team can rebel against them as a form of redemption. Which is still too close to the latest film. 

[Rhom]

One advantage this film will have over SS is that we have actually met each of them already.  There’s at least some backstory to them established.

Both SS films followed the backwards DCU thought process of putting a team movie out there with no lead up.

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, Rhom said:

One advantage this film will have over SS is that we have actually met each of them already.  There’s at least some backstory to them established.

Both SS films followed the backwards DCU thought process of putting a team movie out there with no lead up.

On the other hand, I think the latter SS movie showed that you don't really need a backstory to make characters fun and interesting.

Whereas the first SS movie made the fatal flaw of spending far too long telling us characters backstories to the point of ridiculousness. 

I would think if you have well written, well acted, interesting characters then it's not that important to delve deeply into their entire past. Also no amount of backstory can make a bad character interesting. I think its a mistake so many movies seem to make in recent times.

[sifth]

19 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

On the other hand, I think the latter SS movie showed that you don't really need a backstory to make characters fun and interesting.

Whereas the first SS movie made the fatal flaw of spending far too long telling us characters backstories to the point of ridiculousness. 

I would think if you have well written, well acted, interesting characters then it's not that important to delve deeply into their entire past. Also no amount of backstory can make a bad character interesting. I think its a mistake so many movies seem to make in recent times.

Yup, Gunn did this with the first GoTG film as well. There were a few brief glimpses into the characters past and a few short conversations about their back stories, but that was it. 

[polishgenius]

 

I've really no idea why the success of the MCU convinced so many people that, for superheroes at least, suddenly an ensemble cast and character list on a fresh project is an unworkable thing. No-one's proclaiming that Ocean's Eleven or Resevoir Dogs would be great movies if only we got years of buildup with the backstories of Rusty or Mr White, are they? That LotR needed introductory movies for Aragorn and Legolas and Gimli? Even with superheroes, while yes, people had a problem with the portrayal of Cyclops and Storm in particular in the X-Men films, I don't recall that anyone thought the answer was that they should have had individual X-Men movies beforehand. Even in the MCU itself, we didn't get The Adventures of Rocket and Groot to build up to Guardians of the Galaxy. 

 

Justice League and the first SS were bad movies because they were bad movies, not because they were ensembles.





On Thunderbolts: I assume they'll be following more of the, yeah, Suicide-Squad-ish setup that later versions of the team, like Warren Ellis' one after Civil War, did. They might even use a similar premise to that specific instance, of it being a team existing to bring in rogue supers, since even though the aftermath of Endgame has kinda drowned out the results of CW, the Sokovia Accords are as far as I can tell still a thing and it would tally very well with Zemo's motivations in the MCU.

[Winterfell is Burning]

I didn't catch it at the time, but the premise and the reveal who the Thunderbolts were was a massive shock to fans at the time and still is one of the most remembered moments- think of a Keyzer Soze or dead Bruce Willis type of reveal and impact.

That said, yeah eventually they just turn into Marvel's Suicide Squad. But that could still be fun is well made.

[Ran]

8 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I've really no idea why the success of the MCU convinced so many people that, for superheroes at least, suddenly an ensemble cast and character list on a fresh project is an unworkable thing.

They are not. So long as you have a strong lead character who coheres with the rest of the cast. GotG is very much Starlord's film, he's the "in" for the audience to the setting and other characters in the ensemble. And the setting -- interstellar MCU -- was new and allowed everything to be fresh.

8 hours ago, polishgenius said:

No-one's proclaiming that Ocean's Eleven or Resevoir Dogs would be great movies if only we got years of buildup with the backstories of Rusty or Mr White, are they?

These are new films that were not part of an established setting, though. Introducing a bunch of new characters into the already exhaustively-detailed universe of the MCU is not necessarily as straightforward. As The Eternals showed, I think. Thunderbolts potentially using established characters in surprising ways makes more sense for the MCU and its way of building things. 

 

21 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

I didn't catch it at the time, but the premise and the reveal who the Thunderbolts were was a massive shock to fans at the time and still is one of the most remembered moments- think of a Keyzer Soze or dead Bruce Willis type of reveal and impact.

Yeah, it's revealed at the end of the first issue, but leading up to that they were just an interesting new team comic written by the great Kurt Busiek and drawn by Mark Bagley (whose involvement put me in mind of New Warriors) after the latest mega-event (Onslaught) which temporarily removed a lot of heroes (the Avengers and the Fantastic Four) from that particular reality and sent them into a new one. So it seemed very plausible that, okay, these are new characters being put together to take advantage of the "absence" of these other teams to establish some new people... although one of them, Citizen V, claimed to be related to a Golden Age-era character that Marvel owned, which was intriguing in itself and made it all seem that much more plausible.

Another cool turn in the whole saga is when they end up inducting a young superhero (Jolt) into the team without her realizing that they were in fact all villains, which led to some interesting twists and turns as she eventually realized the truth.

 

[Jaxom 1974]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

 

Yeah, it's revealed at the end of the first issue, but leading up to that they were just an interesting new team comic written by the great Kurt Busiek and drawn by Mark Bagley (whose involvement put me in mind of New Warriors) after the latest mega-event (Onslaught) which temporarily removed a lot of heroes (the Avengers and the Fantastic Four) from that particular reality and sent them into a new one. So it seemed very plausible that, okay, these are new characters being put together to take advantage of the "absence" of these other teams to establish some new people... although one of them, Citizen V, claimed to be related to a Golden Age-era character that Marvel owned, which was intriguing in itself and made it all seem that much more plausible.

Another cool turn in the whole saga is when they end up inducting a young superhero (Jolt) into the team without her realizing that they were in fact all villains, which led to some interesting twists and turns as she eventually realized the truth.

 

That initial Thunderbolts run was amazing.  Some of the best stuff from that era.  Oh, it went off the rails after a while, but the first three years or so was just great.  (I think I stuck with the title for a while...maybe 75 to 85 issues.  Far longer than I should have, to be honest...

[mormont]

Going back to Ms Marvel for a sec, I think the theory that her heirloom bracelet is a Nega-Band and the mysterious grandmother that was hinted at indicates some Kree ancestry seems to be pretty unassailable. Provides her with a nice link to Captain Marvel and a lead-in for The Marvels. And yet the bracelet is part of her comic costume, so it all hangs together.

[Heartofice]

I’m looking forward to more Ms Marvel but it did occur to me just how many similarities there are so far between it and ‘Turning Red’. I’m just hoping she doesn’t also turn into a giant red panda and bounce across the city 

[Luzifer's right hand]

I catched up on the Disney+ shows.

My personal ranking so far is.

1. Loki

2. Moon Knight (Oscar Isaac would need a beard for rank 1 bring back the Dune look!)

3. What if?

4. WandaVision

5. Hawkeye (Yelena does not really work for me. I enjoyed it much more until she showed up).

6. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier(Zemo was fun and Bucky too).

I enjoyed all of them though.

[Werthead]

On 6/9/2022 at 7:52 PM, john said:

The first Avengercon is 10 years (12? 15?) after the Avengers first appeared? I guess there has been a lot going on in the world.

I'm less surprised there's an Avengercon and more that it's so low-budget. It looks like a local con put on a very tight budget whilst I'd be expecting a more Comic-Con kind of affair.

I think it's also not entirely surprising. The Avengers saved the world in the first film and got some good press, toys, lunchboxes etc, but there was also criticism of them not being accountable and having trashed New York in the process (however unfair that is). And after Winter Soldier, Age of Ultron and Civil War, when the Avengers and SHIELD were responsible for the mayhem, I can see them facing a big backlash (something that Agents of SHIELD explored really well). It's only really after saving half of lifekind in Endgame that I can see mass adulation becoming the norm.

[RumHam]

come to think of it, there were no obvious aliens at avenger con! They saved half of life everywhere.

I just want one movie or show to acknowledge that a major galactic event happened on earth and you'd think that like, we'd have joined the galactic community at some point during those five years and be working towards Star Trek type stuff. United earth and all that.

[SpaceChampion]

According to the falafel truck guy's operating license, first episode of Ms. Marvel is set some time after March 2025, so about a year and half to two years post-Endgame.