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
Regarding Thor
I can't help but feel that the first Thor movie would have been more effective if it took place over a longer period of time. The relationship between Thor and Darcy, the S.H.I.E.L.D. investigation, Loki's rise to power and the growing suspicions of the Warriors Three +Sif, it would all work a lot more smoothly if Thor's banishment was longer than three days.
Regarding the Green Goblin
I want Norman Osborn for the MCU so, so hard. Especially right now, with S.H.I.E.L.D. not being a thing and all. I hope this deal with Sony means we might get to see Osborn step up as a serious presence. I've been arguing for a while now that Marvel Studios would be able to use the character so long as they only used Iron Patriot Osborn and not Green Goblin Osborn under the same conditions that Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver have - the Iron Patriot is not, and never was, a Spider-Man villain - but now they don't even need to!
Best to still avoid the Green Goblin stuff, though. Osborn is at his weakest as a character when he's flying around on his glider lobbing pumpkin bombs at folks and cackling like the Joker.
edited 12th Feb '15 8:11:41 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I also like the Thor movies. They're not the best in the MCU but they have their charms and they're entertaining enough.
And Darcy is fun.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersYes. Yes, it is, which is absolutely the reason I did that and not at all a typo.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I'm sorry, but I'm still not a huge fan of Darcy. She's just too in-your-face awkward for me to really find her funny. And no, "But Kat Dennings!" never struck me as a convincing counter-argument.
Tobias: I don't think they would have been able to use Osborn even as Iron Patriot. The reason Marvel has access to Wanda and Pietro is that even though they're mutants (and thus fall under Fox's film rights) they're more associated with the Avengers than the X-Men (and therefore are part of the rights to the Avengers as well).
It's not that they're connected to both that lets both companies use them, it's a quirk of their characters that makes them equally part of both sets of film rights. Norman Osborn, for all the fact that he never fought Spider-Man as Iron Patriot, is still part of the Spider-Man rights alone.
There's also the fact that Iron Patriot debuted long after Sony had the Spider-Man rights, while Wanda and Pietro have been Avengers for decades. The fact that he starts calling himself something different and not fighting Spider-Man is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for Marvel to use him.
All of which is basically moot now.
Keeping with the Spider-Man thing...I actually don't know that Marvel does get to use Spider-Man's supporting cast for anything. This isn't sharing of the film rights, it's cooperation to recognize Sony's franchise as part of Marvel's. Apart from Spider-Man's one confirmed appearance in a Marvel film, Sony still has complete control of the franchise. Marvel will probably now at least be allowed to do things like name-drop Osborn or Dr. Connors, and have the Oscorp building be part of the skyline, but I don't think that Cap is suddenly allowed to fight Kraven the Hunter.
edited 12th Feb '15 8:30:13 AM by BadWolf21
Didn't Spider-Man break into Avengers tower disguised as Venom and get his ass kicked by Iron Patriot?
I mean, it was a curb stomp and not a straight up fight but the whole travesty was sparked by Spider-Man considering Osborn his responsibility.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersRight; they can use Wanda and Pietro because despite their association with the X-Men franchise via being mutants, they're very distinctly Avengers characters.
Osborn as the Iron Patriot is very distinctly an Avengers villain. He stopped being a Spider-Man character for the entire duration of his time from becoming the Director of the post-Civil War Thunderbolts through his time as Director of H.A.M.M.E.R. H.A.M.M.E.R., Victoria Hand, the Iron Patriot, the Dark Avengers, etc. are 100% Avengers-franchise and not Spider-franchise, and Osborne is an important part of that.
I've heard the argument that Osborne would still be disallowed because he spent time as a Spider-Man villain before being promoted to the big leagues, but I've also heard the argument that Spider-Woman would be disallowed because she has Spider- in her name even though there is not a single part of her character that has anything to do with Spider-Man, and I give the two about equal credibility.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.At the end of the day his helmet was removed and he turned out to be still as mad as ever and still the Goblin on the inside.
◊ He was a Avengers villain for a time but on the inside he will always be a Spider villain.
![]()
That, I think, is pushing it. At least comparing it to the Spider-Woman situation.
Osborn is a predominantly Spider-Man character who had a stint as a big player in the wider universe. But he is, primarily, Spider-Man's archenemy, or one of them, and ultimately that is what he is known for. He isn't, I think, even remotely comparable to Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, who are connected to the X-Men and the Avengers roughly equally.
And he's certainly nothing like Spider-Woman, whose connection to Spider-Man is literally In Name Only. Osborn is a big Spider-Man player, first and foremost. Everything else is gravy.
And just as a point of fact, all those things that Norman was involved in? They can make work just fine without him. They did with Iron Patriot.
Now that they have Spider-Man, it's possible that they might not have to, but no, I don't think they had any kind of claim to Osborn before now. And even now, it's uncertain how much they could use him.
Tobias: You missed my point about Norman only becoming Iron Patriot after Sony had the Spider-Man rights. If all Marvel had to do to use a character another company had the film rights to was give them a new identity and costume, and make them more involved in a different franchise, don't you think we would have a mass exodus of Spider-Man villains into the books of the characters they can use?
There's that misconception again. Marvel does not have Spider-Man. The have an agreement with Sony that lets Sony set their Spider-Man movies in Marvel's universe, and has Spider-Man appearing in only one MCU movie at this time.
No, they can use him in a movie. With the possibility that the will be allowed to use him in more in the future.
Sorry if it seems like I'm biting your head off, but I've seen that kind of misunderstood or misleading language thrown around a lot in the last few days, and I really don't want people getting ahead of themselves. What they can do now is a big deal, but it's not open season on Spider-Man like some people are making it out to be.
Blowing up a city is fucking up even by Parker Luck standards.
![]()
If they can't use him in more than one film then the deal makes no sense. They won't get any money from Sony's films and apparently Feige is working with Sony for free. The only way the deal makes sense is if they an use Spider-Man in their films (note the plural) because that's how they'll make money off of him.
edited 12th Feb '15 12:02:31 PM by CorrTerek
Okay, thinking about the Captain Marvel movie.
Am I the only one that thinks Carol should fight like she was in DBZ to differentiate her from other people in the Flying Firepower mould? Jokes about episode-length powerups aside, the kinetic frenzy of martial arts and Ki Attacks could work well with her powerset, personality and training.
You are not alone.I wonder how that would look in live action but it seems an interesting way to make her stand out.
(She's pretty blasty in the comics I've read recently)
Forever liveblogging the Avengers
Hmm...that does look pretty awesome. Emphasizing the physical bits should prevent her from being too similar to Iron Man, I should think.
edited 12th Feb '15 12:30:44 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!"She works best as a blasty flyer who can punch your head off if you get close."
That actually sounds like the ideal type of fighter in any kind of world.
You are not alone.

They have no say in Civil War apart from who they're casting, though. Sony is stupid. Marvel is not.