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
Here's the newspaper dated 1991.
◊ Why they would use an old picture is anyone's guess.
edited 21st Jul '15 7:11:55 PM by alliterator
This from Iron Man 1 about Tony's life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUCfMDcTvHM
I feel the later MCU films retcons the Stark's family life just like how SHIELD, which was first introduced as new Government Agency in Iron Man 1, only for the later films to reveal it's been around longer.
edited 21st Jul '15 8:31:53 PM by MrTerrorist
There really aren't any retcons in that clip. In fact, if you pause it here
, it even has the same date on the newspaper of Howard's death, December 17, 1991. (That's not John Slattery in the picture, but that's all.) I mean, nobody knew that Stark also ran SHIELD as well (or was involved with SHIELD), but then again, it is a spy organization.
That clip only tells us that Tony wasn't born in 1970 because he wasn't 21 yet when his parents died. So Tony is slightly younger than Robert Downey Jr.
edited 21st Jul '15 9:18:28 PM by alliterator
Could've been he was still born in 1970, just that Stane's takeover was early in the year or that his actual birth date is towards the end of that year.
I mean, if he was born in 1970, he would have been 21 in 1991. And since his parents died in December, he would have taken over the company in, like, a month. So I'm guessing that he was actually born in 1973 or 1974, so Stane was the head of the company for a few years before Tony turned 21. Just speculation, but that's what the video indicated.
I've wanted Zeke ever since someone (I think it might have been Tobias) gave this awesome description of him.
"Justin Hammer wants to be Tony but better. Ezekiel Stane wants to make Iron Man obsolete."
My various fanfics.http://archiveofourown.org/works/3452657/chapters/7573451
This timeline should help. But basically, the date of Howard's death (1991) is one of the few which is consistent in all movies and extra-material. Tony's birthdate on the other hand has been changed a couple of times (though it is never mentioned in the movies itself), because the writers didn't really pay attention. For the timeline I ignored the extra-material and instead figured out one based on what is said in the movies itself.
Concerning Secret Invasion (sorry for the mix-up): Whoever own the Skrulls, I am pretty sure that the story-line is from the Avenger comics, so Marvel is the one who owns that one.
The last question in this interview
makes me sad.
So I've finally seen the film! And caught up on the thread!
Bobby Cannavale seems to be everywhere since I saw Annie. It's weird.
I like that the film retained a lot of Edgar Wright's visual style. Not just the shrinking stuff, either—the backing away gag is very him.
I don't like that they kept a lot of his casual misogyny. Hope may not have been in the original script, but the whole "get them out of the plot to save them" trick is very much World's End. (Though at least in that movie the character that does this is clearly an unrepentant jackass and everyone screams at him for it.)
Luis is best character. I'd prefer the first prominent Hispanic character not be a convict, but at least the movie goes out of its way to show there's more to him than that.
I was hoping Hope would be best character but alas she doesn't have much going for her beyond righteous bitterness.
The Microverse—I refuse to call it by it's fake-science name—is wonderfully trippy.
I like that the Scott emotional daughter plot flies in the face of how this thing normally goes—what with stepdad being a cool guy and Scott making an honest effort to get into the world before succumbing to his worst instincts rather than the reverse.
Representation issues aside, it was a fun movie. I had fun.
Hank Pym carrying a functioning tank on a key-chain is the best thing since IBM-retro Zola. I thought Thomas the Tank Engine would be the goofiest thing in this movie and I have never been so happy to be wrong.
edited 22nd Jul '15 1:03:07 AM by Wackd
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.I don't appreciate Edgar Wright's lack of concern for female characters, and it's really shitty either way, but to describe his problems with overly narrow Write What You Know as "casual misogyny" seems a tad excessive.
To me it seems more "I don't write women because I can't understand them due to not being one and I'm too much of a lazy chode to get around that" than "I don't write women because women are less interesting than men by nature".
edited 22nd Jul '15 1:06:33 AM by AlleyOop
If you're gonna admit that it's shitty I don't see why my using a word that denotes it as such is a problem.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.I'm kind of fussy when it comes to semantics, and You Keep Using That Word and Square Peg Round Trope are some personal pet peeves of mine. It's why I get extremely annoyed when I see people describe any kind of remotely scary implications as Nightmare Fuel when it belongs in Fridge Horror. The two are similar, but are still different things.
When I think of "casual misogyny" I think gendered slurs, Men Are Better Than Women, and inclusion of negative gender-based stereotypes. Wright's problem is with leaving them out altogether. In the greater context of things it contributes to women's lack of representation, but on a micro level I don't see any particular issue. In his case it seems motivated more by apathy, cowardice, or supreme laziness at tackling "the other" than subconscious malice or any belief that women's stories simply aren't worth telling by nature. I mean, if a female author refuses to write men or minimizes their roles because she just doesn't understand them I don't consider that as casual misandry either (whether or not that's an OK attitude to have is a separate issue). Just a sign of a lazy writer unwilling to take that extra step.
Course other people might view that word differently, also I'm not as much of an expert on Wright's work so it's possible actual misogynistic attitudes do show up in his other works (I've only seen Scott Pilgrim and Shaun of the Dead) but if Wright doesn't do stories starring people who aren't straight white men because he can't understand them, it's still wrong but I wouldn't call it "casual homophobia" or "casual racism".
edited 22nd Jul '15 1:36:15 AM by AlleyOop
When I think casual misogyny I think of folks like Wright, or Mark Gatiss, or anyone else for whom women are just kinda not important enough to bother with.
Then you and I simply have different definitions for what "casual" means. To me it connotates people who are chill and unconcerned enough that they don't even bother hiding it. Like, I can't imagine Wright including any Hangover-esque "bitches and whores, right?" jokes in his films. That's the opposite of "subtle". Which is what I think you mean?
edited 22nd Jul '15 1:41:01 AM by AlleyOop
I'll be honest, I'm just sorta relieved your beef seems to be with "casual" rather than "misogyny".
I'd say that subtle misogyny would be the stuff pointed out earlier—the slurs and the ideals and such—because they just kinda creep into our culture. They're clearly there but no one thinks to hard about them. Whereas casual to me connotes something that is visible by its absence—casual wear means a lack of tie or fancy fabrics, casual language by words missing letters or syllables or sentences missing bits, casual misogyny by the absence of interest in women.
Casual is lazy. Casual is sweatpants and the word "kinda" and forgetting to put women in your films the same way you'd forget to take your laundry out of the drier.
I'd say the presence of boob socks on the new Wasp costume is subtle misogyny.
edited 22nd Jul '15 1:48:10 AM by Wackd
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.Remember though, Paul Rudd and Adam Mc Kay rewrote the script, and Evangeline Lilly gave them ideas for punching up her role in the story. I dunno, maybe that's just kind of what they landed on.
If Edgar never intended to use her all that much anyway, you can't really say that it bears his signature. It's a pretty standard story beat.
edited 22nd Jul '15 2:00:58 AM by edvedd
Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau Project

Um, no, not during the founding of SHIELD. That would have messed up Hydra's plans, since they infiltrated SHIELD. Howard was killed later on — Zola says that "accidents were arranged" with a picture of a newspaper about Howard and Maria Stark's car accident.
According to the newspaper, it was in 1991.
◊
edited 21st Jul '15 7:11:03 PM by alliterator