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

KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#43151: Sep 16th 2015 at 12:04:18 PM

Wait, unnoun, you don't usually post in this thread, do you?

Oh God! Natural light!
unnoun Since: Jan, 2012
#43152: Sep 16th 2015 at 12:05:37 PM

I watch the MCU movies sometimes.

I've talked about them with Wack'd sometimes (okay he's done most of the talking) so I figure, what the hell.

KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#43153: Sep 16th 2015 at 12:06:47 PM
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#43154: Sep 16th 2015 at 12:13:25 PM

Anger and passion are fine. There are many worthy causes to be angry and passionate about. I, myself, tend to get passionate and angry over feminism. Most people in this thread remember how much Ant-Man pissed me off.

But it's important to use that passion and anger constructively. When I wrote my angry review of Ant-Man, I tried very hard to present my opinions of why it upset me so much in a coherent and civil fashion. I may or may not have succeeded, it's ultimately not my place to judge how it was received, but I made that effort because people don't like reading a transcript of the Tasmanian Devil's whirling mouth noises.

"Age of Ultron has issues with representation of its main female character. Here are the reasons why Black Widow's presentation is problematic." That's an opinion.

"FUCK Age of Ultron and its STUPID SHITTY SEXISM, they RUINED Black Widow, Fuck Marvel and Fuck Joss Whedon and FUCK EVERYONE WHO LIKSE THIS PIECE OF SHIT MOVIE" That's just noise.

There are times when an over-emotional response is justifiable. If you're pissed off about a cop shooting a black kid and can't figure out a way to voice your opinion on the subject beyond, "GODDAMMIT this keeps happening FUUUUUUUCK," that's fine. Current events are a big f*cking deal, especially when people are dying for no good reason.

A film review is rarely one of those times.

edited 16th Sep '15 12:14:54 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#43156: Sep 16th 2015 at 12:22:30 PM

I'm not a fan of angry rants regardless of ideology or subject matter because they often verge into incomprehensibility, self-righteousness, obfuscate the actual point being made, or make the author come off as hostile to dissent and incapable of engaging in proper discourse, even if they aren't. They look like a real life McCoy.

On the subject of angry rants the term "tone policing" pops up a lot as an accusation of attempting to silence them. It's often a fair point in social justice debates. For example even if I think this article is hard to get through because the author is kinda being a rear end in a top hat, it's wrong to say that it makes their opinion automatically less valuable.

But just as often I see it thrown at people for telling someone to tone down their vitriol when their idea of "social justice" is retaliatory violence or Tall Poppy Syndrome, or "venting" by making blanket statements about how all X are horrible unredeemable garbage and wishing they could just gather every X onto an island then nuke it or they would kill their children if they ever found out they were X or friends with X. It's just pointless namecalling without any attempt at being constructive. If you want to be angry for anger's sake that's one thing, go ahead, but don't expect to get a good two-way discourse out of it.

[up][up] Basically.

edited 16th Sep '15 12:42:38 PM by AlleyOop

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#43157: Sep 16th 2015 at 12:59:18 PM

I skimmed the article...there are a few good points in it, including a few I made myself in the past but the analysis is too one-sided.

An interesting aspect of the Iron Man franchise which, I think, the audience usually blissfully overlooks is that Tony never really understood why the idea that you should be the one with the biggest stick on the playground is wrong. He simply decided that nobody but he himself or people he personally choose should carry said stick. And it kind of worked.

But I have the feeling the Civil war will address the issue.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#43158: Sep 16th 2015 at 1:07:37 PM

He also "successfully privatized world peace", a speech that was intended to highlight how reckless and cavalier he's become about Iron Man but was subsequently validated with the establishment of the Avengers.

His "suit of armor around the world" was also validated by Vision in Age of Ultron.

Tony makes bluntly egotistical, problematic claims and then follows through on them effectively and is validated by his success.

edited 16th Sep '15 1:08:20 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#43159: Sep 16th 2015 at 1:12:34 PM

His "suit of armor around the world" was also validated by Vision in Age of Ultron.

Actually, I think he still failed on that front - the Vision is just one robot. When Tony said he wanted a "suit of armor around the world," I assume that meant he wanted a fully automatized Ultron army that could take on any alien invaders, which is why Ultron can control so many bodies at once.

Instead, what Tony made was the Vision, one living robot. Not a shield around the world, but rather a piece of the Avengers.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#43160: Sep 16th 2015 at 1:14:00 PM

[up][up]Are the Avengers really a private organization in the MCU? They seem more like an outgrowth of Shield.

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#43161: Sep 16th 2015 at 1:14:19 PM

I was hoping Age of Ultron would deal with that in some capacity, but it looks like it apparently didn't even make it to the planning stage. Odd because I thought Whedon was all about sticking it to the man.

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#43162: Sep 16th 2015 at 1:16:18 PM

Even after so many movies, I still find the fact that Tony essentially gave himself a license to kill and then strong armed the government into letting him keep it to be a bit creepy.

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#43163: Sep 16th 2015 at 1:20:06 PM

Once SHIELD found out, didn't they cover for him? I remember Coulson saying that they had a whole cover story for him. So, really, SHIELD gave him that license to kill.

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#43164: Sep 16th 2015 at 1:29:59 PM

It is a little bit fuzzy how Tony managed to create world peace by force. But I guess it is a good thing that he is not working for the American government. It is bad enough when some guy comes to dictate your internal conflicts, but it is even worse when a foreign government does it.

Bocaj Funny but not helpful from Here or thereabouts (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Funny but not helpful
#43165: Sep 16th 2015 at 1:33:00 PM

Actually, I think he still failed on that front - the Vision is just one robot.

Plus, he's going to start getting into feelings and jazz and looking moodily out windows.

edited 16th Sep '15 1:34:09 PM by Bocaj

Forever liveblogging the Avengers
AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#43167: Sep 16th 2015 at 1:45:00 PM

Vision wasnt his plan, it was more of a bet, a gambit he devolpt on the spot after learing Jarvis have been the only one who manage to go against Ultron in his field(the internet) problem is that Tony dosent said anything to the other avengers...again.

In fact Steve suspect of Tony thanks to wanda "Ultron dosen know the diferent between destroy the world and save it...where did you think it get that?"

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
comicwriter Since: Sep, 2011
#43168: Sep 16th 2015 at 2:02:25 PM

I remember some guy from Entertainment Weekly once said he hated Iron Man for no other reason than a lifetime of 80's movies taught him rich guys are always irredeemable douchebags.

Which is weird because rich guy protagonists certainly aren't a new development.

Ekuran Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#43169: Sep 16th 2015 at 2:08:20 PM

[up][up][up]And mope like there's no tomorrow.

"Beneath thine icy exterior, avenger, thou seem’st far too sensitive" indeed.

JBC31187 Since: Jan, 2015
#43170: Sep 16th 2015 at 5:41:57 PM

I never understood how Stark privatized world peace. Sure, he can fly into any country and start killing people, but he spends most of the movie puttering around, drinking and alienating his closest companions. It isn't until Age of Ultron that he actually takes steps towards that goal; like all things Tony Stark, it blows up in his face, but not enough to stop him.

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#43171: Sep 16th 2015 at 5:43:54 PM

Once SHIELD found out, didn't they cover for him? I remember Coulson saying that they had a whole cover story for him. So, really, SHIELD gave him that license to kill.

He already had it. SHIELD only started getting involved well after he had already killed a bunch of people hi-tech international Punisher-style.

SHIELD apparently didn't interfere with his issues with government in the second movie, either, since he banked on the fact that he had "privatized world peace" and shaky legal ground to protect him from prosecution.

edited 16th Sep '15 5:44:59 PM by KnownUnknown

Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#43172: Sep 16th 2015 at 5:55:47 PM

I recall being kinda annoyed that we never got to see Stark at least doing said privatizing. It's just kinda mentioned as having happened. So how then are we expected to by that he somehow ended war across the world?

Previously on SHIELD Vs. Carter - Dubsmash War.

ultimatepheer Since: Mar, 2011
#43173: Sep 16th 2015 at 5:57:32 PM

I think the Logic Tony was going with is "I invented an unstoppable new weapon system, and even if countries had them they'd be insane to attack anyone else who had them, and if their enemies had them would they really tell anyone they had them?"

It's a flawed argument, but it IS one I would use.

edited 16th Sep '15 5:57:47 PM by ultimatepheer

JBC31187 Since: Jan, 2015
#43174: Sep 16th 2015 at 6:03:42 PM

[up]He also argued that no nation on the planet could build anything close to Iron Man suit, so there was no need to worry about any power-armored invasions.

Well, he was half-right.

Anomalocaris20 from Sagittarius A* Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: Love blinded me (with science!)
#43175: Sep 16th 2015 at 6:38:00 PM

And then a greasy-haired dude with a pair of whips nearly killed him. tongue

But regarding Tony's license to kill, it's not as though he flew into an enemy base and started shooting people up as the aggressor. He flew into a town that was being mass-executed and rescued the civilians. By killing the dudes killing them, yeah, but I'm pretty sure legally you'd be protected in that case since you're defending someone else's life from immediate harm.

At worst he violated laws regarding international travel customs and bringing dangerous weapons outside the country, I think.

edited 16th Sep '15 6:39:04 PM by Anomalocaris20

You cannot firmly grasp the true form of Squidward's technique!

Total posts: 186,763
Top