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
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.
![]()
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
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.
![]()
![]()
![]()
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
![]()
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
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 Kang and the Shi'ar
.
edited 21st Jul '15 3:45:08 PM by AlleyOop
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.
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.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.
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.
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

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...