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
![]()
![]()
Ultimate Eddie's kind of reedy, iirc. Being Venom makes him huge - maybe they could do a Hulk sort of thing and have Andrew MOCAP Venom.
Honestly Grace would have been fine if they'd made Venom a Serkis Folk, but Raimi wanted to stick to practical makeup and costuming because he felt that it'd be "cheating" to have Venom be a mo-capped CGI creation.
But I think history has shown us there are certain characters who just look much better in CGI.
the latest rumor for Civil War is Iron Man builds Peter a better suit and webslingers because he wants the Avengers to look cool. Meanwhile someone thinks Marvel is casting Daniel Rand as black in Luke Cage. Then in Jessica Jones someone claims Marvel isn't going with the full out sociopathic joker-esque sadist but someone more understandable in the same sense as they did with King Pin and all the show will keep guest stars to an ant sized amount so it doesnt dabble in the wider metapower side of MCU
edited 31st Aug '15 1:03:39 PM by xbimpy
Then in Jessica Jones someone claims Marvel isn't going with the full out sociopathic joker-esque sadist but someone more understandable in the same sense as they did with King Pin
Anyone who thinks the Kingpin isn't a sociopath obviously didn't see the scene where he took off that guy's head with a car door.
edited 31st Aug '15 1:04:30 PM by alliterator
By socipath I mean not the generic one comicsbooks always have. the ones who are just cometpely insane for sake of insane to the point where its narmchastike. on the other hand King Pin was more grounded because he was treated as a human being first. no one wakes up and says im gonna be evil! we can understand him based on BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.
the only thing we can understand about comicbook purple man is he's crazy cuz the writer said i wanna see a crazy man do crazy stuff! its worth noting mental illness here wasnt a joke either or done "wrong". well that same style applies to Purple Man based on what this says: "The full details of Jessica’s past will be teased through the season before a full revelation, but rather than save Killgrave for the grand finale, he will be a series regular, harassing Jessica throughout the show. But instead of portraying him as the complete monster of Jessica’s endlessly recurring nightmares, it seems the relationship between the two will be quite complicated, and the villain will be given moments where the audience understands the origins and potential skewed reasoning behind his evil. How this plays out exactly will be interesting to see, as it’s quite a departure from the completely skin-crawling, sociopathic, libertine sadist Bendis reappropriated for his series in one of the most twisted retcons ever written. It’s also possible he may not, actually, be purple…but I’m hoping his true colors will be digitally added at some point when he uses his powers. "
see hes just not evil for evil sake. yea im interested hows hes gonna be. before he was purple man he was an assassin... one of the pictures has a guy with a jacket and a gun behind the jacket. a hitman hnmmm idk i just want a trailer ok bye
edited 31st Aug '15 1:15:01 PM by xbimpy
![]()
Y'know, considering that there are high-quality cosplay groups that function almost like special effects studios nowadays, it's not out of the realm of possibility.
edited 31st Aug '15 6:39:35 PM by edvedd
Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau ProjectKevin Feige no longer under Marvel Entertainment CEO Ike Perlmutter's purview
.
Just to clarify, this is a good thing, right?
edited 31st Aug '15 7:39:01 PM by TargetmasterJoe
Seeing as it's Perlmutter's fault for the lack of female-led movies
It's not all Perlmutter's fault. He expressed the opinion that female-led superhero films didn't succeed, but I'm pretty sure if Feige wanted to have one in Phase 2, he would have made one. He had plenty of opportunity to make a Black Widow movie and decided to just give her a big part in Winter Soldier instead.
the last two female led superhero movies people remember is Elektra and Catwoman, both of which were complete flops. of course that's more to do with the fact that they were just considered bad movies, but when you factor in that hollywood is notoriously risk-averse and generally doesn't want to buck the status quo if they can help it, i'm not surprised.
edited 31st Aug '15 9:47:26 PM by wehrmacht
BTW: It is a good move for the movies. IP is well known for being extremely frugal, which is not necessarily a bad thing (personally I think way too many studios are overspending), but becomes a problem when it comes to seeing the bigger vision. But since Disney is not known for overspending but for a readiness to do long-term investments - for example Tangled was ridiculous expensive, but the software developed for this movie has been used for the following movies too, is largely responsible for Frozen looking so impressive and has therefore paid off ten times over by now - it will be good for the Marvel movies.
The bad news is that the live-action TV division didn't move, too. Those two element should be kept together. But perhaps it was impossible to do this, after all, Feige concentrates on the movies, not on the shows.
I would really like to know who is doing it, btw. Someone has to keep an eye of those shows, too.
Hell, what part of "Feige's boss did not want a female-led movie" translates to "he had plenty of opportunities to make a female-led movie"?
Because by Phase 2, the MCU was making a shit ton of money and he could have used that to greenlight a female-led superhero film. "Feige's boss did not want female-led movies" isn't what happened either - it was more "Perlmutter expressed how female-led superhero films flopped." And Perlmutter may have been his boss, but he could have simply gone over his head to Disney and said, "Hey, a Black Widow movie will make tons of money, let's make one."
I mean, he essentially did that to complain about Perlmutter being his boss, which is why he isn't anymore, so I don't understand why he couldn't have done that to get a Black Widow movie greenlit.
Well, actually, I do understand why he didn't do that, but he could've done that. He just didn't want to make a Black Widow movie.
The subject of diversity was one that was coming up as far back as the tail end of Phase 1. In particular, I remember around the time Avengers was out (this was either just before or right after) there had been an interview where Feige basically said "Yeah it'd be great to have some women and minorities, but that's out of my hands right now."
So some people did take that as an indication that he was saying he was totally for making movies about minority and female heroes but someone above him was preventing that from happening, even though his later statements seemed to contradict this to a degree.
edited 1st Sep '15 7:37:35 AM by comicwriter
