TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Marvel Cinematic Universe

Go To

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.

    Original post 
Since Thor and now Captain America came out this year, I wanted to get what Tropers thought of the concept and execution of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in general. Personally I love the idea and wonder why this idea hasn't been seriously tried before. It sorta seems to me like the DCAU in movie form (And well, ummm, with Marvel), and really 'gets' the comic book feel of a shared universe while not being completely alienating.

Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM

Theokal3 Since: Jan, 2012
#38551: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:04:22 PM

That was Secret Invasion, not Secret Wars^^ Also yes I considered that too, but can they still use Skrulls at this point? They did introduce the Chitauri, which are their equivalent in Ultimate...

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#38552: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:09:12 PM

They can't use the Skrulls (owned by Fox), which is why they used the Chitauri. If they wanted to go with the Secret Invasion storyline, they could probably replace the Skrulls with the Dire Wraiths, but I doubt it.

They also probably won't go with Secret Wars (both the original and the new one) because, well, the most iconic parts of both involve Doctor Doom.

Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#38553: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:10:19 PM

Maybe an expy of them or they'll finally get the Fantastic Four rights back by then and they can adapt Galactus.

comicwriter Since: Sep, 2011
#38554: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:23:43 PM

[up][up]The official Word of God is that Marvel and Fox BOTH own the Skrulls. The reason they used the Chitauri, according to Whedon, is that adding shapeshifting would have added an unnecessary plot element in an already stuffed film.

They just needed generic Red Shirt aliens for the Avengers to heroically slaughter in droves.

edited 21st Jul '15 3:24:09 PM by comicwriter

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#38555: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:25:57 PM

Hmm, that's weird. If Marvel co-owns the Skrulls, I wonder why they don't co-own the Badoon as well. (Same thing: alien race that was introduce in FF and spread out to the rest of the Marvel universe.) They had to use the Sakaarans instead of the Badoon in GOTG.

I also wonder if they co-own Uatu the Watcher - also introduced in FF, but pretty much a Marvel-wide character.

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#38556: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:29:46 PM

[up][up][up][up] I think they can. They share the rights with Fox like Quicksilver. They just can't use named Skrulls like Kl'rt. But I personally don't want them to try to one-up Thanos. It's hard to maintain that much Serial Escalation. In that sense Secret Invasion isn't too bad of a bad premise.

Phase 4 is really their chance to diversify their roster, if we're assuming the big obstacle for it right now is the schedule's lack of flexibility.

As for the lack of LGBT representation in the movies. Why not reveal a few assumed straight characters as Bi The Way? It's not really "changing" anything from the comics, and doesn't negate any of their canon relationships (so as not to repeat one of the mistakes of the recent gay Iceman disaster). Just revealing a new side to them that hadn't been seen before.

Or bump up a minor LGBT character like Victoria Hand into a supporting role for one of the films, with a mention or glimpse of their partner to avoid it being Word of Gay. If Leet Brannis could make it into Agent Carter, then Marvel doesn't have much of an excuse to not at least do that much.

At least in the US, attitudes towards LGBT individuals have changed to the point there would be very little backlash among the kind of target audience who comes to see these movies. That boost in representation will win over way more people than it would lose.

edited 21st Jul '15 3:34:57 PM by AlleyOop

Theokal3 Since: Jan, 2012
#38557: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:31:49 PM

If they wanted to go with the Secret Invasion storyline, they could probably replace the Skrulls with the Dire Wraiths, but I doubt it.

The Dire Wraith? From Rom Spaceknight? I would soooooo watch that^^

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#38558: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:33:50 PM

I still want Avengers 4 to be Kang. He's probably the most iconic villain next to Ultron.

doineedaname from Eastern US Since: Nov, 2010
#38559: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:34:53 PM

[up][up][up] Wasn't Victoria Hand in Agents of Shield and killed off?

edited 21st Jul '15 3:36:34 PM by doineedaname

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#38560: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:35:44 PM

[up][up] Fox owns Kang, James Gunn confirmed it in a Facebook post.

[up] I know about that. I just couldn't think of any other obscure LGBT character off the top of my head.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#38561: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:38:04 PM

How does Fox own Kang but not the Skrulls?

Either way this is assuming Marvel doesn't get FF back before 2021ish.

Theokal3 Since: Jan, 2012
#38562: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:39:15 PM

[up]That will depend on the FF Reboot's success.

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#38563: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:41:41 PM

[up][up] The rights agreement Marvel has with Fox is weird. Its count some things but not others - Kang first appeared in Avengers, but previously Rama-Tut appeared in Fantastic Four and was later stated to be Kang. So technically Kang appeared in Fantastic Four first, even though he's mainly an Avengers villain. (This is also why Annihilus is owned by Fox as well.)

Which is weird if Marvel co-owns the Skrulls, because they, too, first appeared in Fantastic Four. So either somebody is wrong and Marvel doesn't own the Skrulls or someone else is wrong and Marvel co-owns Kang.

Or Marvel simply doesn't want to use a big villain whom they only co-own and don't own.

edited 21st Jul '15 3:41:47 PM by alliterator

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#38564: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:41:56 PM

I'm guessing the Skrulls made enough appearances in non-FF contexts to dilute ownership, whereas Kang's real identity as Nathaniel Richards is too intrinsically tied to Reed and Doom.

Also we as the public don't have access to the text of the contract Marvel wrote when they signed away the rights. It might've been a fairly arbitrary call.

James Gunn on the Skrulls.

James Gunn on Kang and the Shi'ar.

edited 21st Jul '15 3:45:08 PM by AlleyOop

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#38565: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:46:05 PM

How is him being Nathaniel Richards more significant than the Twins being Magneto's kids? I feel like they should be fine as long as they avoid Rama-Tut and any FF references.

Watchtower Since: Jul, 2010
#38566: Jul 21st 2015 at 3:48:51 PM

If I remember right, the X-Men negotiation was stupidly complicated, in that they didn't just license the property; they had a giant-ass list licensing every single individual character, location, and term. Maybe the FF had a similar deal?

MrTerrorist Since: Aug, 2009
#38567: Jul 21st 2015 at 6:24:27 PM

Ok, after watching Ant Man i'm already confused with the ages of Tony Stark and his dad Howard Stark. In the 1st Iron Man film, Howard died when Tony was a teenager with Tony in the film being in his 40s and then we see a film of Howard who looks 50 or 60 years old with Tony as a kid taken what assumed was in the 1960's or 1970's in Iron Man 2. Then came Captain America The First Avenger where we see a young Howard who looks in his 30s. And finally we see Howard again in Ant Man......in 1989, while still looking the same from Iron Man 2.

This inconsistency is making my head hurt over how old were these two men are.

Ekuran Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#38568: Jul 21st 2015 at 6:28:40 PM

Tony was born on May 29, 1970, Howard was born on August 15, 1917, so he was in his mid-to-late 20's in the first Cap movie and Agent Carter, and he died when Tony was 21/on December 17, 1991.

edited 21st Jul '15 6:31:50 PM by Ekuran

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#38569: Jul 21st 2015 at 6:33:47 PM

Howard was 53 when Tony was born? I feel like the timeline would have worked out better if they just made Tony his grandson instead of his son.

Discar Since: Jun, 2009
#38570: Jul 21st 2015 at 6:38:59 PM

Eh, sometimes people have kids that late. Especially rich men who might have much younger wives.

Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
wanderlustwarrior Role Model from Where Gods Belong Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
Role Model
#38571: Jul 21st 2015 at 6:39:54 PM

Or, we could acknowledge that people, mainly men, can have kids in their older age. Plus, it makes sense that Howard would've taken that long getting over the loss of Steve to finally have a kid of his own.

I'm pretty sure they'll explain it in the next movie.

comicwriter Since: Sep, 2011
#38572: Jul 21st 2015 at 6:57:36 PM

Ok, after watching Ant Man i'm already confused with the ages of Tony Stark and his dad Howard Stark. In the 1st Iron Man film, Howard died when Tony was a teenager with Tony in the film being in his 40s and then we see a film of Howard who looks 50 or 60 years old with Tony as a kid taken what assumed was in the 1960's or 1970's in Iron Man 2. Then came Captain America The First Avenger where we see a young Howard who looks in his 30s. And finally we see Howard again in Ant Man......in 1989, while still looking the same from Iron Man 2. This inconsistency is making my head hurt over how old were these two men are.

Well there is a line in the movie where someone explicitly calls him Howard "Nazi Killer" Stark, so I assume his eventual age was more or less in the ballpark of what was planned in the first movie.

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#38573: Jul 21st 2015 at 7:04:35 PM

Hmm. So Howard Stark was 72 in that opening scene. He didn't quite look that old. I did notice all the wrinkles they gave Hayley Atwell, although even she didn't look in her 70s.

I would have loved it, though, if Hank passed by a young Nick Fury in the hall.

edited 21st Jul '15 7:04:55 PM by alliterator

Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#38574: Jul 21st 2015 at 7:06:32 PM

Hang on, I thought the Winger Soldier killed Howard Stark? Did I miss something? The Winter Woldier killed a bunch of people during the founding of SHIELD, right?

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#38575: Jul 21st 2015 at 7:09:31 PM

It wasn't during the founding of Shield.

edit: It does eliminate the possibility of that happening on Agent Carter though.

edited 21st Jul '15 7:10:01 PM by Kostya


Total posts: 186,763
Top