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
If it was hubris it was very self-depracting hubris which is that even hubris anymore?
Forever liveblogging the AvengersI loved both for different reasons, but I'll have to give the slight edge to Got G 2. It still gets to me in a way that I didn't expect from Marvel. If you've seen Lindsay Ellis' video you can probably get a feel of what I'm talking about. Aside from that, yeah Thor: Ragnarok was an absolute blast. Taika really knew what he was doing here. Way better than I expected after what I've heard about The Dark World.
On my wave, passing oooooooonGot G 2 made me cry. Thor: Ragnarok made me feel like I could wrestle a bear and win. I loved both movies; Ragnarok has the edge though. Because Valkyrie. And Thor. And Loki. And Heimdall. And the level of Kirby and camp.
edited 28th Jan '18 6:45:32 PM by wisewillow
One of the problems that causes this is the Omnidisciplinary Scientist trope because it treats being good at say, making lasers as a similar field to being good at making energy reactors. It essentially pushes everyone into an intelligence heirarchy when it really should be more experts in incomparable fields.
"And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat?"That's true. It's why I'm not really that bothered by Age of Ultron having Stark responsible for Ultron instead of Pym. That was always one of the more outstanding Omnidisciplinary Scientist moments of the Marvel Universe.
Hank Pym is a physicist who discovers a radical new particle, allowing for the alteration of a thing's size. He's also a natural biologist who specializes in the study of ants, who has developed gear making it possible to communicate with them.
Naturally, this means he is totally qualified to design cutting-edge robotics that copy neuroscans of his brain and formulate them into a free-thinking fully-aware artificial intelligence.
Ultron is one of the most iconic Avengers villains around, but his actual creation was always one of those moments where they only really got away with it because comic book scientists are basically wizards. They wave their science tools around and stuff happens.
edited 28th Jan '18 7:46:27 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.And MCU Tony already proved to be working on synthetic intelligences
... What was Bruce's field again?
Forever liveblogging the AvengersRe Tobias' post, it reminds me of something I found interesting. So I'd really like Raz Malhorta to be in the MCU played by Kumail Nanjiani, but then it struck me that there was a bit of an issue in that in the comics, he's supposed to be knowledgeable about artificial intelligences, which is why he follows Pym's work, whereas as noted, that's a Tony Stark thing in the MCU.
However, I came across a scan/image from a more recent comic, where Raz is discussing programming Pym Particles. I have no idea of context, but that seems like the perfect retcon if you wanted to facilitate Raz appearing on screen.
Edit- Also, I don't really have a problem with the idea that Shuri is smarter or better than Tony Stark either at something specific or in general. Partly because I don't like Tony Stark that much, but also partly (and connected with my relative dislike) is that he's framed as it is as always being the smartest and the best.
Or to put it another way, the "status quo" is that Tony Stark is the Always Someone Better, and so when a character (especially one from a minority group) is framed as being better, I think it's a good way of avoiding having their interactions with him consist of him explaining things to them.
Like more generally, I think there's a difficult line between avoiding Character Shilling of new characters (who not coincidentally are more "diverse" than older, more established characters), and avoiding dialogues and plot-lines where the newer characters are always being put down by the more established characters.
edited 28th Jan '18 8:23:48 PM by Hodor2
Also, from a comic book reader perspective, there's also the point that of course Shuri is going to be smarter than Tony Stark. It's her book movie. I mean, technically, it's T'Challa's, but like, it's pretty normal in comics for the cast of whoever's comic you're in to be the most awesome.
There are exceptions but, like, nine times out of ten, if DareDevil and Spider-Man are teaming up in a Spidey comic, they'll do it in a way that makes Spidey look awesome. But if they do it in DD's book, then DareDevil's going to be the one who rocks.
Like, over in Ant-Man, Hank Pym wasted no time shitting on the Starks. It's how you do when it's your comic. If Shuri was introduced in Iron Man 4 then she might be introduced as Tony's less-talented protege with some potential to improve. But she's not. She's being introduced in Black Panther so she gets to be the rock star.
edited 28th Jan '18 8:39:59 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.While I agree that Gotg Vol 2 would have been better without that toilet humour, there are perhaps four or five unfunny jokes in the movie and none of them were placed in moments in which they had a particular impact on the overall quality of the movie. With Ragnarok on the other hand I started to predict the jokes half through the movie before they happened, and they really distracted me in moments in which I actually wasn't in the mood to see another joke.
Humour is very subjective...but I do think that Ragnarok suffers under exactly the same problem the other two Thor movies have, by having one two plotlines which aren't on the same level. Thor one had an excellent Loki plotline and a really mediocre Thor one. Thor TDW had a excellent Loki plotline and a really terrible Thor one. Ragnarok has a mediocre Ragnarok story paired with a really funny Thor story. The only difference this time around is that the title character doesn't get short shifted.
With GOTG 2 (...and the original one too, now that I think about it), the humor was hit or miss for me. A lot of the jokes were fine but some of them, especially from Drax, were a bit too...vicious (rude/pointed/mean-spirited/what have you) for my tastes and it tended to pull me out of the movie. They felt like jokes that weren't really coming from the character themselves but from some guy in a writer room trying to be "edgy." I guess it just felt weirdly misogynistic for a universe that, outside of those specific jokes, hadn't really shown itself to be that way.
While Ragnarok's jokes could be predictable at times and had that awful final joke, I did find them overall to be more consistent for the characters.
"Yo, those kids are straight up liars, man. All I told them to do was run product. And by product, I mean chewing gum."For me, I give the edge to GOT Vol. 2. Both had hit or miss humor for me. But GOTG hit the emotional beats far better than Ragnarok did imo. Also I didn't feel like there was a wasted character (besides maybe Ayesha) in GOTG, whereas there were several in Ragnarok.
Ragnarok was, alright. But I'm not nearly as in love with it as so many others seem to be. Actually I'd dare to say that it's the WEAKEST MCU film of this year imo.
I really liked Spider-Man: Homecoming but it didn’t hit me as hard as Got G 2 or blow my mind like Thor: Ragnarok. Like I said earlier, Ragnarok just hit all the right notes for me. All the humor and badassery I could ask for. (And SO MUCH eye candy. All the bisexual screaming).
My girlfriend saw civil war and so fsr she said.
-Tony and Steve annoy her greatly, saying they need a Room and not bother the team with their bullshit.
-She like vision, calling him robot jarvis since he was is favorite chararter in agent of cárter and said Tony didnt deserve him in his team.
-She is kind creep out by bucky, not know why.
-She consider t'challa the most sexy Man on Marvel and dosent mind If there is a léast one shirtless scene in Black Panther, hard to disagree on that.
And so fsr That is all, She is not s hardcore Marvel fan so is the best She can said about the movie.
edited 29th Jan '18 7:57:36 AM by unknowing
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"For GOTG Vol 2 vs Ragnarok, weirdly enough, even though Ragnarok's humor was much more up my alley (GOTG's humor honestly is a bit too on the verge of Too Inappropriate for me in general. Kinda fratbro-y.), I actually have to give more points to GOTG Vol 2 because it really nailed its emotional beats and thematic content. Ragnarok didn't really let the emotional beats sit and be emotional and instead tended to break them up with a lot of jokes. I did find Ragnarok funnier, and boy was it a blast to watch, but I think GOTG Vol 2 was better overall.
When we're done, there won't be anything left.I liked Ragnarok but I do agree with the criticism that the titular Ragnarok was the film's weak link. Hela, in particular, is an obnoxiously shallow Generic Doomsday Villain. She's cool and flashy - and, as an aside, it's nice to have a female Big Bad for once - but there's no substance to her. She exists purely to provide an impetus for the protagonists to get together and bounce off of each other.
Which makes her not unlike Ronan from Guardians of the Galaxy, I should note. But Ronan was some dipshit conqueror looking to wage war on a hated enemy. This is Ragnarok. It feels like it should be a bigger deal than it actually is and that feeling detracts from the investment.
It's kind of like making a Batman movie called "The Killing Joke" and then spending 4/5 of its runtime on Batman and Superman fighting Doomsday, Superman's double-kill takedown of the villain, and his resulting death. Then Batman pops back to Gotham just in time to wrestle with the Joker for five minutes and the Joker fires off that Actually Pretty Funny gag from the conclusion of the famous story.
It's like, I'm really glad that they did a Planet Hulk movie. The Planet Hulk elements are the best part of the film. But why wasn't that the movie? There are two narratives here that are thoroughly divorced from one another, and they both suffer for the presence of the other.
edited 29th Jan '18 8:59:51 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Hela is a conqueror and warmonger who refuses to accept that her people don't want that any more. Perhaps not the deepest of characters, but I liked her. Definitely helped by her spending the entire movie annoyed that she has to kill everyone because they don't want her to lead them to glory.
If she does end up coming back as the Death that Thanos is obsessed with, though, she'd definitely need a real plotline.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.

That’s your opinion.
I thought Korg was hilarious.