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
Count me as someone who thinks Spider-Man would work much better as a TV series than a film series (though, yeah, Netflix would probably be a bad fit).
More than most superheroes, Spider-Man is built around the idea that crime fighting is something he does constantly. He doesn't defeat a big, dangerous villain then have a bunch of downtime before the next big crisis. He'll defeat one villain, and the next day there'll be another one, and another one the day after that, and on and on and on. The strain that keeping up that daily grind puts on Peter's life is a big part of what makes the character so sympathetic.
That's something that's difficult to portray in a film series. In a movie, you only get to spend a couple hours with the character once every two or three years. No matter how many montages you put in (something all the Spider-Man movies so far have made liberal use of) it can be quite difficult in that framework to get a real sense of what a character's day-to-day life is like.
Think of the other MCU film series so far and ask yourself: how clear an idea do you have of what the hero was doing with their time inbetween movies? The sequels usually have a Cold Open that shows the hero on some minor mission before the main plot starts up, and the idea is that they're going on other adventures like that during the interim, but those really only give us a glimpse of what their lives are like when they're not dealing with the sort of big crisis they'll inevitably spend much of the movie on. You don't really get to live with the character's daily life the same way you do in a serialized medium.
I don't think it's really a case of people for whatever reason wanting SFX heavy characters on Netflix/TV just because.
The fact is that even though some characters really do need the kind of intensive and convincing special effects that a big-budget movie would allow, movies, and especially big-budget movies, have certain constraints by virtue of only being able to have so much runtime and needing to make back all that money. They need to have a certain kind of mass appeal to sell, and that can put a big limit on the kind of stories and characters you can have.
TV budgets often mean less and worse special effects but a TV series format gives a lot more breathing room and time to flesh out characters and storylines. An adult series on a cheaper budget, like the kind on Netflix also allows it to tackle subject matter that wouldn't be appropriate for a PG-13 big budget movie. It's not a coincidence that the Netflix villains like Killgrave, Wilson Fisk and Cottonmouth have been well-received; because they have way more time, the Marvel shows can afford to create more complex and interesting villains. It's not that you can't do that in film but it requires very elegant and efficient storytelling to create a character like that in only 2 hours or so.
While I agree that the special effects pose a problem, that's why a lot of people said they wanted a Ghost Rider Netflix series. He's a very dark, sometimes even nihilistic type of character who fits better with the grittier series Marvel has been doing on Netflix. R-rated superhero movies are only just now starting to be a thing, with the success of films like Deadpool and Logan.
edited 24th May '17 10:41:48 PM by Draghinazzo
Well, it's different now that the character has already been done on Agents of Shield. I was just explaining the reasoning behind it in general since people seemed to be just glossing over it, and I was also talking about special effects heavy characters in general and not just Ghost Rider.
edited 24th May '17 10:44:56 PM by Draghinazzo
For fuck's sake, they can't even afford to show Jessica jump, she just disappears out-of-frame.
My various fanfics.I still see people insisting on Ghost Rider at Netflix and I really don't get it. Aside from Netflix not being the right place for him, it is simply not practical. The Netflix schedule is packed already. And why not spread out the MCU a little bit? Yeah, this makes crossovers a little bit more complicated, but then, I actually don't think that CW-verse style crossovers are such a good idea. I mean, I would think that it is great to have side-characters turn up in other shows, but they should be treated like new characters there, so that knowing about them is a bonus, not a requirement.
edited 25th May '17 3:01:24 AM by Swanpride
I say: bring back the ABC TV movie. Only this time, have it as the Marvel TV movie. And make it an event, like they used to. Have it run two hours or four hours over two nights during the summer. That way, they could put money into it and see if there were any viewers out there interested.
I mean, that's almost what they are doing with Inhumans, only they are having it as an eight episode series where the first two episodes are being shown in theaters for some reason (yeah, I know, because Imax partially funded it). But, like, if ABC or Marvel is unsure about making a Ghost Rider series, make a TV movie. If they don't want to do another Agent Carter season, make a TV movie to wrap it up. Hell, isn't that what they used to do all the time?
edited 25th May '17 7:01:04 AM by alliterator
Atlantean artifacts are part of the new GOTG ride at Disney
. Wonder if that's a hint.
Ironically that is the only one of Marvel's animated movies I ever saw because it happened to be on Netflix (and it seems to be the only one). I wonder if they uploaded it there to prepare fans for the Thor movie. And, yeah, this was actually not a bad story. Not bad at all. But depressing. Especially the scene with the child.
Sony already has a director for their planned Black Cat and Silver Sable movie, and strangely enough she's also directed the pilot to Cloak and Dagger. One of the film's writers is Chris Yost, who also wrote the script for Thor: Ragnarok.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?

I am honestly rather intrigued by Homecoming, I like most of what I see and think it is a really fresh perspective on the character. Not so much for including Tony but the idea that Peter is really new at this and uncertain of what he should be doing as Spider-Man. Tony just gives it context that Spidey is firmly in a specific kind of world where he is looking at other heroes and aspires to join them.
An issue I had with the Amazing Spider-Man movies was that it never really settled into a specific world, the opening of ASM 2 had him assisting a police chase where the criminals had stolen radioactive materials (with him comically juggling said materials) and then whipped into showing him being haunted by the death of Captain Stacy, showed a surprisingly unironic Freak Lab Accident creating a supervillain and showed the hero using actual science to fight them, had a climax include a Dubstep-esque "The Itsy Bitsy Spider" as a gag and dove into the utterly serious death of Gwen.
The only real concern with Homecoming is just how much they are showing in the trailers. Each trailer feels like mini-movies, we see and understand all three acts fairly clearly, which ends up losing some impact because we already get the beats. I mean, when Batman v Superman showed Doomsday in a trailer it was certainly a big spoiler, but I recall while actually watching the movie that most of the plot was actually a surprise (the opening at the terrorist compound, the senate bombing, Superman's death). Maybe Homecoming will be similar, but they've shown enough of the plot mingled with character dialogue that we can piece together 3/4 of the plot sequentially.
I think they may have gone overboard with the gadgetry, but Spidey is a fairly tech savvy character and the movies haven't really explored that beyond having an interest in science and creating his web shooters in ASM.