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
For that idea, they would at least need a movie to set-up the idea of alternate realities/timeline without simultaneously introducing the entire X-Men mythos as well (to prevent ludicrous amounts of clutter and dissonance) - which would likely become its own series itself given Marvel's track record.
edited 17th Dec '17 6:29:23 PM by KnownUnknown
The government might be investigation the Disney-Fox merger
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-government-might-be-investigating-the-disney-fox-me-1821355343
The values Disney espouses in its movies aren't necessarily the ones it plays by in business, and even as a fan of a lot of what they produce, limiting the number of distinct companies producing entertainment means less competition which means less incentive to do anything other than pander to what they know will sell. Niches tend to get shallower, people's tastes aren't challenged, and it only compounds with itself over whole time. The echo chamber effect is bad when it comes to news, but it's still in play when it comes to 'pure' entertainment. You are what you consume.
edited 17th Dec '17 10:12:56 PM by Unsung
I said this in a different thread, but:
As a general rule of thumb, it is good to be concerned about a major corporate consolidation such as this, but those concerns don't seem very valid in the modern media landscape. Currently, there is an absolute explosion of competition in the entertainment industry. Advances in technology mean that the entry barrier for making and distributing a film to a wide audience has never been lower. New venues for films and television appear online almost too fast to keep track of. We're living in the age of what's called "peak TV", where American companies are producing over 400 scripted television shows each year, and that number keeps going up as more cable networks and streaming services start producing their own content. And that number doesn't even take into account the countless independent productions being uploaded to sites like You Tube and Vimeo every day.
Corporate consolidation is bad when it reduces competition, and thus reduces options and alternatives for both employees and consumers. That doesn't remotely seem to be a threat in the world of film and television right now.
edited 17th Dec '17 10:37:09 PM by RavenWilder
![]()
THANK you. I said the same. I also need to add that it is not like Disney suddenly becomes an unstoppable behemoth. It roughly reaches the size of WB with this step. In a way this is something to celebrate because it means that a studio which was what passes nowadays an independent small time producer during the golden age of Hollywood managed to struggle its way to the top. Disney used to be the absolute underdog (yeah, I know, hard to imagine), and it is now one of the top dogs.
Re the Gifted in Ao S: NONE of them were mutants. Before Inhumans became a thing, they were all a matter of "oh no! Science!!!" Scorch for example was the result of living near some Chemical plant. Blizzard was the result or a weather experiment. And they made a point in the first season that at least back then the index was fairly short.
edited 18th Dec '17 12:05:32 AM by Swanpride
I think mix Young Avengers and New Avengers.
I can't see a group seriously calling themselves Young Avengers (and fair enough that name was put on them by the news) but after the Avengers are broken up or retired or dead or whatever after Infinity War Sequel, I can see a bunch of young heroes teaming up to be New Avengers.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersI want them to introduce the Savage Lands, though I do think that the reason why there haven't been a hint of them so far is because part of those rights are tied up with those Fox rights.
Young Avengers, yeah, but not immediately. And not necessarily the team from the comics, more a mix of legacy characters and new talents.
Otherwise, the Thunderbolts. But again, not immediately, they need to build this up first.
edited 18th Dec '17 12:19:23 AM by Unsung
I somehow have a hard time to believe that it is harder to work for Disney than working for the Murdoch group.
And what we currently experience is a huge shift in the media landscape. Net neutrality, that is a danger to this new freedom of producing and distributing content freely. Google being so big is. But movie studios, no matter what seize, they are just one producer under many.
This is really not me freaking out about this. I don't think it's 100% cause for celebration, but I don't think it's 100% cause for alarm, either. It's mostly a problem in terms of the precedent it sets for businesses in general, and what letting it lie might mean for other industries.
And I never said working for Murdoch was easier than Disney, but it seems like it sort of depends on what you want to do. Murdoch seems like he'd let Fox run wild as long as they were still making money— except when it came to news, where it was obviously all about his agenda— but with Disney it's more like a loose leash in a nice yard. That leash just got a lot longer if they're still making R-rated X-Men movies, but I still have to think there's going to be a limit to that. Some rules, spoken or otherwise.
edited 18th Dec '17 1:16:10 AM by Unsung
I don't think it's a bubble, though. I think it's us approaching post-scarcity when it comes to media. When the only way to see a movie was to go to a theater or wait for it to show up on a TV channel, that placed a hard limit on how many movies could be available to someone at once. Now, there effectively is no limit. You Tube probably gets more hours of video uploaded to it in a single day then Fox or Disney release in an entire year, and they're all equally easy for the average consumer to access.
The big film studios still get a huge share of the market because their higher production values and enormous advertising campaigns are more appealing to the audiences, but they can't keep smaller productions from being available to the public in the same way Walmart can outprice and outcompete smaller stores until they can no longer afford to operate, leaving Walmart as the only option in town.
Now, if Disney tried buying out a lot of the big streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon, and You Tube, that I'd see as very troubling.
![]()
Yes, but Hulu is a minor player. Netflix and Amazon operate worldwide, and they are currently pretty much dominating the market. We could use more player in this particular game, not less, so Disney moving in is adding another provider which I consider a good thing.
I don't think that we have to offer about variety either. There are more movies made nowadays than ever. And also more experimental movies.

Retcon them, sure, but in their own universe, don't just try and surreptitiously jam them into the MCU as it is now. If you're going to make that kind of change, it should be a crossover event unto itself, really. Cosmic Retcon is a trope for a reason.