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
I imagine you're accountable to the government who's jurisdiction you find yourself operating in. The accountability would take the shape of transparency and reviews of conduct. The downside of that is that there's suddenly a lot of countries you're not allowed to operate in and both the Avengers and the governments have to trust information with each other.
Damn, I'm getting nostalgic for Thunderbirds. Rich guy decided to spend lubricious amounts of money on an island and a network of super craft and disallow his children from ever having a public identity, just so that he can provide a rescue service to people in third world countries without having to bother about jurisdiction. Because saving lives is more important than any silly old Cold War that was going on.
Um, is anyone aware of the fact that there's a rumor buzzing that Spider-Man's standalone movie might be called Spider-Man: The New Avenger?
Mind you, this apparently came from Latino Review, so we should all take it with a nice big fistful of salt.
Regardless, I hope it's bogus because, IMO, it's a bit...eh.
I'd much prefer something like The Spectacular Spider-Man.
![]()
Yep.
I think it came from a guy who's no longer part of Latino Review (via Screen Rant) but still...
Don't know how I'd feel about that if it was confirmed.
I do like their point though- http://screenrant.com/spider-man-new-avenger-marvel-movie/
edited 27th Apr '15 4:47:24 PM by yellowturtle
Crow: There's a plot?While I take the rumour with a grain of salt, putting "avengers" somewhere into the title might be a good marketing move. It would be a good way to make clear to the not so informed audience that this Spider-man is somehow connected to the MCU. Though "new Avenger"? How about "youngest Avenger"?
Concerning the rating of Ao U on RT: I don't think that it is representative with movies which are so popular. The hype as well as the hype-backlash screws with the rating.
edited 27th Apr '15 11:56:07 PM by Swanpride
![]()
I didn't know it was doing that well. That's impressive, especially considering how early in the year it's been released and the poor exchange rate at the moment means that oversea tickets count for less than they normally do.
Despite not watching much of the series I may have to give it a try.
edited 28th Apr '15 4:43:12 AM by Whowho
![]()
I actually don't think that it is that impressive, exactly because it is so early in the year. There is next to no competition (Dreamwork's "Home" does very well for similar reasons). And then you add the "death actor" bonus to it, and there you have it.
Avengers broke btw the record the first movie set in the UK market.
edited 28th Apr '15 5:59:43 AM by Swanpride
It scored the biggest Superhero debut ever with $27.3 million. Since Skyfall is not a Superhero movie I don't know if it was better or not. It was also second all-time in Brazil and third all-time in Australia. According to Disney, it was up 44 percent on the first Avengers movie, and up 24 percent on Iron Man 3 in local currency. In dollars it made $201.2 million already. And it hasn't even started in China yet, which is easily the biggest overseas market.
I'm glad that Furious 7 has proven to beancounters that April is a great month for tentpole flicks, and that a diverse cast attracts a diverse audience.
I remember finding The Fast and the Furious and 2 Fast 2 Furious to be terribly dull affairs, but Fast 5 was unashamedly enjoyable. I had planned to watch the sixth film simply on the ground of Michelle Rodriguez being in it. Perhaps I'll acquire the sixth film and then catch the seventh before it leaves theatres.
Title is kinda clickbaity, and there's mention of Ao U without spoilers. It sounds like Civil War will have the Sharon Carter romance, or something like it. I'm slightly disappointed because I think the lack of any romance at all was one of The Winter Soldier's strengths (also because Steve/Peggy -> Steve/her niece is a little weird for me, as would be Steve/Howard -> Steve/his son if that was the case), and the movie's already full enough, but if Chris Evans will be in more films and it's just the start of the relationship then hopefully they can avoid getting Strangled by the Red String.
edited 28th Apr '15 4:02:49 PM by AlleyOop
Eh, I see it more as "Cap strengthens his bond with these two people he's already close to, oh and then he gains a new one with a fellow woman which leads to romance". Though I guess it's kind of weird how sparsely he talks about the romance.
...
Well that’s just it. You need to give a little bit of a nod to it because if you ignore it, it’s insulting the audience’s intelligence. But at the same time, the audience almost has to respect movies: ‘Look, do you guys want this? If you want The Avengers, we have to accept the fact that there’s going to be splinters in our plotlines.’
That's surprisingly frank of him.
edited 28th Apr '15 4:20:13 PM by AlleyOop
Latino Review is now reporting that Asa Butterfield is the front-runner for Spider-Man: http://www.latino-review.com/news/1pxytqq4q12n5fa3i4sfg2nli03mrc

I imagine that's sort of the point. There CAN be a happy middle ground between "The government controls everyone and everything" and "Let's allow a group of buck wild mavericks to operate without any sort of consequence or oversight."
In fact I think part of the point of Fury and the new SHIELD-like Avengers at the end was to sort of address that the previous team ran into serious problems when it was just a bunch of people living in Stark Tower playing by their own rules.