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

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#42676: Sep 8th 2015 at 3:24:03 PM

Deleted scenes are never canon on their own. The events in them may be canonized by later references, such as Banner in The Avengers talking about when he swallowed a bullet in a deleted scene from The Incredible Hulk, but may or may not be a Broad Strokes canonization.

If it didn't happen in whatever constitutes the "official" version of a film, whether that's the theatrical release, extended release, director's cut, etc., then it didn't happen.

edited 8th Sep '15 3:25:04 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
comicwriter Since: Sep, 2011
#42677: Sep 8th 2015 at 3:36:24 PM

Yeah my general statement is that unless it's explicitly there on the screen (or in some explicitly licensed ancillary material) then it's not canon.

And I'm even iffy with the novels because for a while people were claiming that Tony Stark invented vibranium because that's what the Iron Man 2 novelization says, even when that's demonstratively false based on what we learned in later movies.

spashthebandragon thebandragoness from USA Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
thebandragoness
#42678: Sep 8th 2015 at 4:01:05 PM

Personally, I like to take all tie-in / extra material of any sort as canon unless some later detail explicitly contradicts it.

On a related note, do you guys think the MCU will ever slip up and have a major continuity error eventually? I mean, the more movies are added to the 'verse, the more likely it gets, especially with some of those movies being made concurrently with each other.

edited 8th Sep '15 4:01:26 PM by spashthebandragon

I've got fanfics for Frozen, Spectacular Spider-Man, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon.
alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#42679: Sep 8th 2015 at 4:02:08 PM

A major one? Probably not. A minor one is much more likely.

spashthebandragon thebandragoness from USA Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
thebandragoness
#42680: Sep 8th 2015 at 4:05:15 PM

By "major," I mean something along the lines of how the X-Men movies screwed up the timeline of when Xavier and Erik met. Y'know, stuff like that. Not "major" as in "In Ant-Man 3 Hank Pym creates Ultron and it's treated like Ultron's never existed before then because every single person working on the movie literally just forgot."

I've got fanfics for Frozen, Spectacular Spider-Man, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon.
xbimpy Since: Jul, 2015
#42681: Sep 8th 2015 at 4:10:18 PM

So basically become convoluted like the Source material

edited 8th Sep '15 4:11:06 PM by xbimpy

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#42682: Sep 8th 2015 at 4:27:27 PM

By "major," I mean something along the lines of how the X-Men movies screwed up the timeline of when Xavier and Erik met.

Did he say when they met? I don't actually remember that being a plot hole (I mean, I remember the plot hole of Xavier walking in the flashback in the beginning of X3 and then being confined to a wheelchair in First Class, but I don't remember him saying when they met).

But, in any case, yes, that will probably happen eventually.

edited 8th Sep '15 4:28:18 PM by alliterator

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#42683: Sep 8th 2015 at 4:55:24 PM

As for the Tony and vibranium thing, I guess you can Fan Wank it as him coming up with the means of synthetic production, same way scientists "invented" a way to make gold from lead via particle accelerator, or synthetic diamonds, or the Haber process. But it's probably so prohibitively expensive and inefficient it's not worth it, plus the quality is not as good as natural Wakandan ore.

higherbrainpattern Since: Apr, 2012
#42684: Sep 8th 2015 at 5:03:58 PM

Wow. Is synthetic vibranium (or adamantium, as it were) a thing in the comics?

comicwriter Since: Sep, 2011
#42685: Sep 8th 2015 at 5:12:06 PM

I know synthetic adamantium is.

Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#42686: Sep 8th 2015 at 5:15:37 PM

I think it's unlikely. For one, it doesn't seemt o have taken Tony more than an hour to synthesize that element. He just tore up his basement, built a machine, and aimed a laser at a thing. Additionally, Howard Stark made it seem that the element he discovered was unique. The vibranium that became Cap's shield was in storage for a while and there was record of it existing. Other scientists would have recorded the presence of a new element that it was made of, so Stark wouldn't be keeping anything secret.

edited 8th Sep '15 5:15:58 PM by Tuckerscreator

comicwriter Since: Sep, 2011
#42687: Sep 8th 2015 at 5:39:43 PM

The damning piece of evidence that puts it into Canon Discontinuity territory is that he explicitly comes up with the name on the spot. No "Yeah, after that stuff my dad worked with in the 40's" or "Yeah, after that rare metal from Africa." The way it's phrased makes it clear that vibranium is a new thing he made up himself.

Plus if that were the case, I imagine that would have played a part in Age of Ultron given how important vibranium was to the plot. "Oh, don't worry guys. I made some in my basement once! It's easy!"

higherbrainpattern Since: Apr, 2012
#42688: Sep 8th 2015 at 5:52:34 PM

....Wow, the Iron Man 2 novelization sounds much, much worse than the actual movie. Which I actually enjoyed.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#42689: Sep 8th 2015 at 6:09:40 PM

I generally take the view that spin-offs and side material are canon unless Word of God says they aren't or something in the primary medium contradicts them. So, for example, the events of Daredevil are canon to the MCU movies but if there's an unexplained contradiction between them I'll go with the movie's versions.

Heatth (X-Troper) Relationship Status: In Spades with myself
#42690: Sep 8th 2015 at 6:25:39 PM

Which is why Joss doesn't do Director's Cuts. Once the theatrical version is out, he can't change it. Therefore, what's the point in making a Director's Cut?

My point is that such line of argument doesn't make any sense. No one was arguing that anyone's opinion on theatrical release would change with a potential Director's Cut. That was not the reason anyone argued for the issue. Therefore, it seems bizarre to use that as an argument against it.

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#42691: Sep 8th 2015 at 7:08:58 PM

@vibranium Fair enough. Never read the novelization, didn't realize it was that blatant. It's not Raymond Benson-tier is it?

edited 8th Sep '15 7:09:16 PM by AlleyOop

VeryMelon Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#42692: Sep 8th 2015 at 7:09:10 PM

That's a really weird argument against Director's Cuts.

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#42693: Sep 8th 2015 at 7:10:27 PM

[up] Why, exactly? If you already put out the movie, why put a new version?

Mukora Uniocular from a place Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: I made a point to burn all of the photographs
Uniocular
#42694: Sep 8th 2015 at 7:14:11 PM

Because people might want to see a different version?

Because the version that was released in theatres was paced really weird?

Because you can?

"It's so hard to be humble, knowing how great I am."
ultimatepheer Since: Mar, 2011
#42695: Sep 8th 2015 at 7:16:38 PM

Because you can call it a directors cut, sell it for triple the price, and make all of the money ever.

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#42696: Sep 8th 2015 at 7:16:51 PM

Because you can?

You can do lots of things, it doesn't mean you should. I think, ultimately, it's up to the director if they want to do a Director's Cut. And Joss Whedon didn't want to do it. There's really nothing else to say.

Heatth (X-Troper) Relationship Status: In Spades with myself
#42697: Sep 8th 2015 at 7:36:28 PM

You can do lots of things, it doesn't mean you should.

Why not? Talk about that. That is what should be the focus of an argument regarding that subject.

Not "it wouldn't change something that can't be changed". Might as well say adaptations shouldn't be made because they don't change the original. That is not an argument, that is nothing.

I think, ultimately, it's up to the director if they want to do a Director's Cut. And Joss Whedon didn't want to do it. There's really nothing else to say.

Of course, there is nothing to discuss about the fact that Whedon is not making a Director's Cut because he doesn't want to make one.

But he also said, vaguely, why he is not making one. It is not just because he don't wanna. That is one interesting subject to ponder and discuss. Is he right? Are Director's Cut wrong? Or could they have value? We can talk about that, and there is stuff to be said on that subject. There is no need to sidestep the discussion for random arbitrary argument that doesn't actually mean or address anything.

Personally, I art is art, and can be improved. Art doesn't come fully formed, and there is no arbitrary rules that say that just because someone else already seem it, it is now immutable forever. If the artist think they can improve it than, by all means. Just do it. There is no need to further justification. Of course, it is also the Artist prerogative to not to if they don't want to. That is fine too.

edited 8th Sep '15 7:36:43 PM by Heatth

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#42698: Sep 8th 2015 at 7:40:16 PM

Why not? Talk about that.

Why shouldn't you do everything that you can do? Because, uh, lots of stuff you can do is probably illegal. Or immoral. Or messy. I mean, the "things you can do" covers a lot of stuff, probably outside the bounds of things thread.

But, if you asking why Joss shouldn't do a Director's Cut: because he doesn't want to do it.

As for why he doesn't want to do it, here is his explanation:

“It has always been my ambition never to do a director’s cut of anything, and always to make the movie with the studio that we both want to make. Ultron was very complex. There was a lot of back-and-forth. My instinct is no. Just as an artist, I’m super f***ing lazy and that sounds like it would be hard. I don’t think there’s interest in it, right now. You’ll see a bunch of stuff on the DVD in extras that were meant to be there. But the narrative came together very close to the way that I hoped it would, and I don’t think it needs me to constantly tweak it.

“The first time I ever heard a re-mix, I was 13 and I was listening to the radio. I heard a song that had been re-mixed and it freaked me out so much that I turned off the radio and never listened to it since, literally. That is an actual truth. I felt like, “Wait, that was the song. You can’t do that.” Our entire culture consists of doing exactly that, but I’m not for it. If I tell a story, I want that to be the story I told.”

Now, I don't agree with him that there's no interest. There is obviously some interest. But if he doesn't want to do it because it's too hard right now and he doesn't like changing things after they've already been released, well, that's his prerogative.

Heatth (X-Troper) Relationship Status: In Spades with myself
#42699: Sep 8th 2015 at 7:46:59 PM

Why shouldn't you do everything that you can do? Because, uh, lots of stuff you can do is probably illegal. Or immoral. Or messy. I mean, the "things you can do" covers a lot of stuff, probably outside the bounds of things thread.

Exactly. You need a reason for not doing something. Be if you don't have a reason against it, then you might as well do it if you want to.

Mukora proposed two different reasons plus a non reason that, nonetheless, is fuel for thought(yes, 'because you can is a reason if not challenged). You replied with an incredible vague answer that doesn't address anything. Sure, some things shouldn't be done. But others could.

But, yeah, I know why Whedon is not doing it. Never said he should do something he doesn't want to nor never suggested he should want to in the first place. Again, my beef was entirely about terminating a discussion with a non argument.

edited 8th Sep '15 7:47:10 PM by Heatth

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#42700: Sep 8th 2015 at 7:52:23 PM

"Because you can" isn't really a reason though. Okay, sure, it's a supervillain reason ("Why are you destroying the world?" "BECAUSE I CAN! MWAHAHAHA!"). Most people need a bit more reason to do/not do things.

I mean, that's why like asking "Why?" and getting "Why not?"

But, once again, this is off-topic.

edited 8th Sep '15 7:53:13 PM by alliterator


Total posts: 186,763
Top