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 said it was a love story between brothers. The Russos already mentioned this in an interview a while back that while they wouldn't sink the ship they personally saw it as a relationship between brothers. Markus and McFeely also said they saw them as brothers, but fans praised them for using the phrase "soulmates". For some reason Sebastian Stan is the one who catches all of the heat to the point quite a few people are convinced he's a homophobe deadly afraid of being caught playing a "gay" role, despite having played multiple openly gay roles in the past.
edited 28th Mar '16 12:06:03 PM by AlleyOop
![]()
Yeah, I agree. I actually like the themes which pop up in Man of Steel...nature vs nurture, making your own decisions vs a predetermined destiny as well as Superman having to kill who he thinks is the last of his own kind. But they are just there. They never get properly explored. Nothing in this movie ties properly together.
I usually compare the movie with Iron Man 3 because they are both movies which are quite ambitious in their themes but ultimately fail to execute them. But Iron Man 3 at least works for most of the movie (until the last 30 minutes shoot everything to hell). Man of Steel already starts falling apart after the first 30 minutes.
![]()
also lets be real, Steve "soulmate" is tony and it always will be
![]()
![]()
Is more of the typical critism that DC should be more "fun" like Marvel which ignore how dark their universe is now, the upbeat end of the avenge get undermined by next movies to the point is kind of depressing.
@Swanpride: the issue is not Marvel cant bring dark theme is that almost all the theme get only focus in the chararter, South africa is just there so Banner can Mpoe about Hulk and the group feel defeat for a moment but it dosent act anything else, they aren adressing the fact that Wanda is responsable for it(or the fact she hate stark so much that she work for his metalic robot son) or that Steven have right now 3 ex agent of Hydra in his team, one of it aparenly try to shoot him if the trailer is anything to go, it something Winter soldier work because it adress thing beyond Cap
Is again, theme vs chararter, the debate that kept on giving.
edited 28th Mar '16 12:07:18 PM by unknowing
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Nobody claims that Marvel is perfect. Age of Ultron did a lot of things right (I really like the underlying theme of creators), but there are also things which got glossed over.
But: What Marvel did VERY well in Phase 2 is building up the theme "trust vs fear", which culminated into Tony creating (see what I did here) what he fears the most out of fear. It was beautifully done.
![]()
Yeah and even them, it take Wanda pushing him to do it, I know I kept repeating this a lot but her getting scott free for her role in Ultron is annoying me, specially the fact she join Stark jr in other to stop Stark father....that sound really mess up, even for Wanda usual standars
edited 28th Mar '16 12:22:43 PM by unknowing
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
is more with the whole "Tony and Steve are best friend" because they since to have more issue than friendship, my main critic is that they conflict be reduce to "Tony and Steve have a bad fight and everyone pick a side" that is reductive as hell.
https://swanpride3.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/marvel-musings-the-ten-worst-decisions-of-phase-2/
Since we are currently in a critical mood either way.
Nobody ever said that Steve and Tony are "besties". But they are friends. They fought together, earned each others respect and have living under the same roof for at least a year. But they are also always had their differences.
Don't want to start a franchise war but I just thought this
was too funny not to share.
edited 28th Mar '16 12:48:23 PM by AlleyOop
lol
i feel incredibly bad for affleck. i hope he ends up directing the batfleck solo movie that's been thrown around in discussions by warner and that it restores everyone's faith in their efforts. he really deserves better.
But anyways, I'm not sure if it matters THAT much if steve and tony are super close friends or anything. i'm sure that would make the movie MUCH stronger yes, but the movie still works if they're colleagues with mutual respect for one another who end up having opposing views.
![]()
I still don't get the vehemence people have for Earth in the Thor movies. I get that, initially, it was a reaction to how Earth was treated in the first movie, but now it's starting to feel like a knee jerk reaction regardless of how those scenes are written in the present.
Even the idea that Thor as a character doesn't belong on Earth doesn't hold water, since "protector of Midgard" is basically his character description - at this point, it's starting to feel like people actually want a different series, and are simply choosing the Thor series as a hate sink for that.
I mean, that guy put "Earth appears in Thor 2" as a worse thing than "The MCU severely lacks diversity despite being around for years," for cripes sake.
edited 28th Mar '16 1:06:47 PM by KnownUnknown
I haven't seen The Dark World, but my main problem with Midgard in the first film was that it was boring. None of the characters in it were interesting at all and I had little investment in what was going on down there. If they can make going to Earth actually interesting I have no problem with it.
edited 28th Mar '16 1:02:35 PM by wehrmacht
Yes, but that was Thor 1. That article is talking about Phase 2.
If people are going to go "Thor should never have Earth in it ever despite the premise of his character, because we didn't like how the Earth scenes were paced in a movie made years ago," then the writers honestly shouldn't be listening to them.
edited 28th Mar '16 1:04:46 PM by KnownUnknown
From what I can tell from both my own take on the movie and all the criticisms I've seen about it over the years, people's problem with Thor's Earth scenes isn't the characters themselves, it's the passage of those scenes. The movie sets up a major plot with the Frost Giants and Loki, and then that just stops once he gets on Earth. He makes an attempt to get the hammer, but he doesn't really do anything on Earth but sit around, eat food, fall for Jane and wait for the plot to come to him. It grinds the movie to a halt, during which all we have to pick us up are Darcy's one-liners and Selvig being smarter than everyone around him.
It's boring, it drags on forever, it's not all that well written and nothing of consequence really happens. I totally understand why people railed against it, and anything that happened during that time (like the similar hate people have for Thor X Jane, at least in the context of that specific movie).
But those are all problems with the writing, not with Earth itself. Imo, improving how Earth was written is one of the few things Dark World did that was out and out superior to its predecessor (along with improving the quality of the action in general). If Thor is protector of Midgard, then Midgard should be a place of adventure, in addition to slow scenes if necessary, but with the sense that it's one of the many places in the galaxy where an Asgardian can find something meaningful to do. In Thor 2, they improved that by having the final battle be him teaming up with his Earth allies to take on an - rather than dragging him down, the Earth characters functioned as the tech equivalent of mages and blacksmiths, changing the scope of the fight in interesting ways.
But that's just my own opinion. The main reason I'm skeptical about the continued complains otherwise being anything less than knee jerks is because, in general, it seems like people tend to dislike Thor on Earth because of the Earth scenes in Thor 1 and because they're projecting those scenes on Earth itself. Even when people outright explain why they don't want to see more Jane, why they don't want to see more Earth, etc, etc, that tends to be the justification: that those scenes were written badly, and thus it's impossible to write scenes with Thor on Earth correctly. Which imo is silly.
But it's something that's actually rather common with fanbases of series that have had disappointing installments, and it's something that the MCU is no stranger to (for example, I'm of the belief that Iron Man 3's lack of development in its setting beyond the bare bones it needed to tell its plot is an overreaction to the criticisms of overdeveloping SHIELD and such in Iron Man 2 - which, ironically, causes the film to have similar problems to its predecessor). It's a stigma that follows all of Thor's appearances, and one that I've been hoping the writers wouldn't cave into - since I feel it would ultimately ruin what little they've done with Thor's character so far.
edited 28th Mar '16 1:30:08 PM by KnownUnknown
I'd say that the best two scenes in any of the Thor movies were both on Earth ("Another!" and the pet shop, both in the first movie). In both movies, any attempts at drama mostly feel overblown; comedy is where the original shines.
The main issue with the earth plotlines is the attempt to play a weekend romance as being True Love For the Ages. If Thor 2 started with Jane going, "hey, you were gone for a few years, I moved on" and Thor going "yeah, it was fun", and that being the end of it, the movie might have worked better. Also, not making Jane a damsel in distress would have been an improvement.
I wouldn't mind seeing more of the Nine Realms, but if there isn't a good story to go with it, scenery alone isn't going to make a movie enjoyable.
edited 28th Mar '16 1:31:05 PM by Galadriel

Captain America with Winder Soldier is probably the darkest franchise, and it's better off for it. The fact that Winter Soldier was more serious and tightly constructed is what makes it the best movie in the MCU.
I am pretty hesitant to make a comparison DC to Marvel because their cinematic universe only has two movies so far, both made by the same director, whereas the MCU has way more movies made by different directors that nonetheless have some similar trends propping up. The movies made before that were isolated efforts by different directors that varied very wildly. I consider Green Lantern mostly an isolated incident that was a woefully misguided attempt to ape the MCU.
The problem with the two DCEU movies so far isn't really that they're trying to be more dark or dramatic movies but that they're not particularly good at being that. I mean I liked Mo S enough, but Bv S has some major problems and in spite of how bleak it is, and its attempts at handling darker and more grandiose themes, does not have any more substance than the average Marvel movie, in fact I'd argue it has less substance than the better ones like Winter Soldier, merely because a few good isolated dramatic scenes or interesting themes that are trying to be addressed don't necessarily matter if they aren't strung together competently.
The other comparison you could make is with the Nolan trilogy. The main thing with those movies is that they kinda blurred the line a little bit, they were more attempts to make serious and dramatic thriller action movies than "superhero" films per se, it was just Cristopher Nolan being Nolan using the Batman characters. They downplayed the more fantastical/superhero elements deliberately and played up the noir aspects of the character. And well, Snyder definitely has his strengths as a filmmaker but when it comes to making a movie that just works on a theme-driven level he is not anywhere near on Nolan's level.
edited 28th Mar '16 11:54:11 AM by wehrmacht