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
I’ve seen toys refer to Thor’s new axe as “Stormbreaker”, which is Bill’s weapon (though it looks different in the comics.)
I am not sure how they’d adapt him now considering Mjolnir is gone, others were worthy of lifting it, and it didn’t do the thing in the comics where lifting it gave you Thor’s clothes.
Bill's appearance would probably be contingent on whether or not there's a fourth Thor movie. That's kind of the interesting question right now. Avengers 4 will be the first time we've ever had a MCU movie series go past its third installment. Iron Man hasn't had a movie in 5 years, and as of yet we don't know if there will be a new Captain America movie coming up.
There is no rule that any of those franchises has to be a trilogy, though. I mean, I am ready to bet that the Got G won't be, they might change the team, but the franchise itself should continue to exist.
Idle thought: you know what the problem with Iron Man 2 was? And the Incredible Hulk, for that matter.
It wanted to be a oneshot.
There's an issue that's plagued comics in recent decades called "writing for the trade", where everything has to be a six-issue arc. Nothing is a oneshot, but the writers still try to write the comics around basic superhero conventions like "they fight crime" and "formally establishing superteams" and such.
This can result in truly bizarre storytelling where, like, five superheroes work together to fight off an alien invasion and decide they work so well together that they should become the Hero Squad or something. And then on their very next mission, the team is disbanded forever and everyone delivers their heartfelt farewells for the many years of adventuring together that they've had. Because those two stories took up twelve issues and then the comic was cancelled.
Oneshots are pretty vital to the health of the superhero genre, because they show you the hero going about his day to day. Superheroes don't really even fight crime anymore because stopping bank robberies and the like are oneshot adventures, and everything has to be an arc now.
Movies, however, have the opposite issue. They don't release in quick fifteen-minute snippets. Every movie is a 3-5 year process to produce a two to three hour experience. In a shared universe like this, movies are event-based storytelling. There is an expectation that at the end of the film, things will be dramatically different for our hero and possibly the world than they were at the beginning.
Phase I and I think even some parts of Phase II wrestled with that comic book writing style by trying to have some adventures that were just a quick and silly jaunt where a bad guy shows up and the hero fights him. Iron Man especially suffered for this, with allusions to all that offscreen terror-fighting we're meant to assume he's doing but that we can't actually see for ourselves because movies don't have oneshots - just like how, in the comics, we're to assume he probably fights crime somewhere between Big Explosive Avengers Event #62 and Decompressed Arc Where He Saves The Whole World From One Million Dooms #568.
Look at Iron Man 2's setup. Tony's having a swell day at his expo, but little does he know that the sinister Whiplash is plotting his doom! That's a oneshot story, right there. 21 pages of Whiplash attacking Tony, getting beat down, and then life moves on. It ends at the Nascar fight, you roll credits, and we're done.
But we aren't done because that's not a satisfying film experience. It's a oneshot. So the writers were left to try and decompress it into the film we got, but there wasn't enough substance to fill a movie. They were trying to write it like a comic book.
I think the tail end of phase II and most of phase III marks the point where Marvel finally got the hang of writing these movies as event-based stories.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Iron Man 2 is loosely based on a actually pretty great arc, Armor Wars, but it managed to drop most interesting things about that arc or the film itself after the first act.
It would have been beautiful if we could have gotten IM 2 being a blend of Armor Wars and Extremis while IM 3 is a blend of Enter The Mandarin and Demon in a Bottle. Get all the classic Iron Man arcs in it.
edited 23rd Mar '18 6:37:47 AM by Gaon
"All you Fascists bound to lose."I wonder if there would be any way to put US Agent in the MCU somehow.
If they ever make the Valkyrie movie, I could see Beta Ray showing up there.
There downside is that Vision stole his big moment, and now Mjolnir isn't even here any more, so they'll need something else for him to shock the audience with.
Interesting thoughts but I don't think the the problem with Incredible Hulk has much to do with the mentality of it being a oneshot. Rather, it's that everything about it is mediocre at best. The scriptwriting is frankly downright bad because it fails to satisfyingly establish any reason why we should care about any of the characters and they all feel incredibly flat and impossible to care about. Edward Norton is a snooze, Liv Tyler's Betty alternates between "crying" and "nearly crying" for 99% of the film, and Ross is just a flat out dick who barely seems to care if his daughter is in danger or not. Like was said, the only person even remotely worth giving a shit about is Tim Roth who feels like he's at least trying and who has a character with an actually established motivation, but he's just not given enough to elevate the character or the film.
The direction itself is also competent but completely bland and uninspired. It's a film completely devoid of any personality and feels like any other lifeless dour action movie that came out at the time. While I think IM 2 isn't great ultimately I'd be lying if I said that film didn't feel like a relief in comparison to the lifeless mediocrity that I'd just witnessed prior.
So a while back, someone posited the theory (it might have been me, I can't remember) that Howard Stark only pretended to try to steal Hank Pym's Pym Particle tech in order to subtly push Hank out of Hyrda's reach (as it's thought he suspected that Hydra had infiltrated Shield). He basically wanted Hank to leave, and the only way to do it in secret was to make him do so himself, knowing Hank would then devote all his resources to keeping Pym Particles out of the wrong hands (even if he was wrong about who those wrong hands were).
We don't have any confirmation on this theory at all, beyond the lengths he went to hide the improved Arc Reactor tech that Tony used in Iron Man 2, but do we still consider this a thing?
I'm kinda hoping it turns out to be turn so that Hank will lose his grudge against the Starks and come to terms with things. Plus, Pym Particles plus the Arc Reactor Tech, plus Wakandan Vibranium is gonna be the life saver of the world post infinity war...or during infinity war for that matter.
One Strip! One Strip!

I am all in for Beta Ray Bill.