Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
Well DC is working on a Suicide Squad film, assuming any of its later films don't blow up in their face.
They'd be better at making a film and tv shared universe. They'd already had the ground with 3 shows on the CW (though the Superman one wasn't connected to the others), plus potential in Gotham (which I hear has worn out its welcome?) on FOX.
Of course, then that'd turn the CW into even more of the "superheroes and vampires" network than it is.
Oh, I don't mind. I'm actually happy with it, except that as a Supernatural fan, I feel that it has run its course, and have never really felt like getting into a comic book live action series.
edited 9th Feb '15 11:39:43 PM by wanderlustwarrior
The CW seems pretty okay with where it is now, and I have a bizarre amount of respect for that.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.The Wallstreet Journal
claims Sinister Six is still in production but obviously no longer for next year.
I am sad about the prospect that there will never be a proper conclusion to the Amazing Spider-man. I would have prefered this news to come a few years down the line.
On the upsite, though, I look forward to a teenaged Spider-man...that's what Marvel wanted, right? And I bet they are already looking for an actor who is as young as possible, so that he can play the role for a couple of years.
What really worries me about the news is that Sony has the final creative control over the movie. I really hope that they listen to Marvel.
And Fox can keep the X-men. While I am still surprised that Dof P was declared an awesome movie just because it had one impressive scene, I like my MCU mutant free for now. But I don't think we have to worry about that. As I said multiple times, there is a big difference Sony and Fox and their relationship to Marvel/Disney.
I have been thinking about how they deal with the unmasking scene from Civil War...I mean, it is such a core scene I would be surprised if the don't reference it somehow. So how about Peter agreeing to unmask but then chaning his mind in the very last minute? I am normally all for putting away with secret identities, because they tend to be very pointless, but in Spider-man's case, I see a lot of valid reasons for it.
- bfbfbfbfbfbfbfbfbf*
I was rather fond of the Amazing Spider-man series and wanted to see where it's going. I was also really happy with the current MCU line up and looking forward to Black Panther Franchise being established before Infinity War 1 and the Inhumans being established before Infinity War 2, I also think this will have a negative affect on the Defender's Show I was so eagerly looking forward to because it means they suddenly have a lot less creative control over New York City in the MCU, I also don't think Spidey adds anything new to the MCU that couldn't have been found else where.
I am genuinely happy though that Norman Osborn is now fair game; Dark Reign is my favourite Avengers storyline, but I'm not sure how we're going to go about establishing him yet again.
Unmasking a fresh Spidey in Civil War doesn't make much sense to me as we'd have little investment in this iteration of the character; not knowing what their cast of supporting characters are like.
I still think that the Civil War will start in CA 3, not end there. I actually expect it to end in Infinity War 1, when a common enemy will force the heroes to work through their differences. Which means that there is a lot of time to establish Spider-man.
What worries me the most is the level of creative control Marvel doesn't have. I guess Sony will have to work with them and allow them first say in the design of New York, though.
My thoughts: I've liked all five Spider-Man movies. I'll be sad to see the TASM franchise end and I would have liked to see the spinoffs. Even so, I'm excited to see how he'll interact with the characters. But, and this is the most important part, get Squirrel Girl and Khamala Khan into the movies!! Preferably a buddy cop movie.
@Swan: In that case, Ambush Bug will definitely get a movie! Come on, DC! Make your version of Deadpool! Yeah, that's definitely going to happen. -goes off to cry-
Thematically Spider-man would make a lot more sense in the Defenders series, though budget wise that's not practical; though he can cameo heavily and his rouges gallery could really benefit from the format of the TV series; Norman Osborn especially who's tangled plots of manipulation work well in serialised story.
It occurs to me that you can do spiderman on a TV budget, if you never show him outside a building. Is the web slinging that is CGI intensive.
Well, the deal will make it certainly easier for Marvel to access Spider-man's extensive Rogue Gallerie...not that they couldn't beforehand for the TV shows, but think about the possibilities. They could give Venom a better origin story, letting him turn up briefly in Got G as some sort of teaser (who knows what else the collector has horded), and then let him turn up as main villain in a Spider-man movie. They can establish Oscorp as business rival of Tony Stark (one to take seriously). And there will finally a Daily Bugle in the MCU, annoying characters in all TV-shows with badly done articles.
edited 10th Feb '15 7:35:54 AM by Swanpride
With Inhumans pushed after Infinity War Part 2 by the release date shuffle, I wonder how that's going to impact the story of Infinity War. I've been working under the assumption that the Inhumans movie would be the first time we'd meet the royal family and see Attilan in all it's glory. But with it being pushed after Infinity War Part 2, I wonder if that's still the case. With some of the underlying concepts of the Inhumans potentially being introduced in Age of Ultron, there should be enough buildup in other movies even excluding what's happening on Agents of SHIELD.
If I had to guess, the Inhumans movie will be an adaptation of the Inhumanity event, which in the comics was indeed a result of the fallout from Infinity. This will then change the context of the movies going in to phase 4 as it will mean that superpowered individuals will become commonplace.
As for Spider-man, it'll be interesting to see how he's tied into the MCU. At this point I'd be surprised if he has anything other then a minor role in Civil War and he might not even have his powers yet. Bringing in the whole unmasking thing would be problematic since they'd have to establish both who this guy is and why him unmasking himself is a big deal within a movie that is supposed to be mostly about Captain America and Iron Man.
You don't have to establish who Spider-Man is. He's one of the most recognizable superheroes in the world. If there's any character Marvel can rely on the audience recognizing without having to say anything, it's Spider-Man.
It's not that hard for Tony to be looking at a feed of various new/street-level heroes, and say something along the lines of "This guy — calls himself Spider-Man — he's got Avenger potential." Ta-da. Character set up.
As for how Inhumans moving after Infinity War affects the storyline, I'm guessing "not much" or they wouldn't do it. Inhumans, like Guardians, seems like it would be mostly disconnected from the rest of the MCU, especially since it's their first movie. Captain Marvel is a lone hero, based on Earth, so setting her up in her own movie leading into a big role in Infinity War Part 2 makes sense. Even if her movie doesn't do well, it's not that hard to go over the basics in one movie for her. With the Inhumans, that's a lot of characters to introduce at once when you're already dealing with all the other Avengers and Thanos.

One of HYDRA's lawyers, negotiating deals between them and other criminal organizations, daughter of a supervillain, decides to become a mercenary in an armored* suit because why the hell not? The MCU could use more supervillains who are just plain mercenaries and/or career criminals.
(*) Armored being relative, in this case.
◊
edited 9th Feb '15 11:05:45 PM by KnownUnknown