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 can only speak for me, but I also wouldn't want Taika anywhere near Guardians 3. For my taste Thor Ragnarok was a bit too focused on being a "fun and funny space adventure" than being an especially good Thor movie (particularly regarding the shoddy treatment of the Warriors Three and failing to really do anything with Hela being Thor and Loki's sister) or even following up on some of its really interesting themes and ideas. Although the Guardians movies also have a pretty heavy emphasis on jokes, they also know when to let moments just be moments and not immediately undercut them. Yondu's funeral and Ego telling Peter he killed Meredith are two of my favorite examples. Hell I feel like the Russos did a better job giving the new jokey Thor more genuine emotional depth with one conversation in Infinity War (talking about everything he's lost with Rocket) than Taika did in an entire movie.
I don't need every movie to be outright serious, but a sense of when to crack a joke and when to just let something sink in would be nice.
Dreaming of it was the inciting event that started off Thor on his journey and Ragnarok was the big climactic ending of the movie.
Maybe not as focused as it could have been, being titular, but hardly a side event.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersIt wasn't that bad. The scenes cutting back to Asgard needed a little more weight and time spent on them — even just a little more time, given enough weight — and I do think the contrast between the two could've worked that much better. And it was still pretty good as it was — the visuals of the thing do go a long way in a case like this, with characters this archetypal, as a payoff to the time we've spent getting to know them. Honestly, if they'd just given more of the time they spent on Skourge to the Warriors Three and Heimdall...
I honestly don’t care about the Warriors Three. They weren’t exactly gripping characters in the first two movies.
They probably deserved better deaths, but still...
Oh God! Natural light!Up to one third of them went out fighting the good fight. And it was the one that had gotten grievously side lined in two previous movies.
It balances out kinda.
My concern is that Thor's supporting cast is awfully thin now. I don't think they intend to do more Thor movies but I'd like stuff that follows up on whither Asgard. I want a Valkyrie movie and while she should get her own supporting cast her bouncing off of Thor's would have been nice too.
Edited by Bocaj on Aug 7th 2018 at 10:36:17 AM
Forever liveblogging the AvengersSee, my Ragnarok problem with the Warriors Three isn't based on the idea that the three shouldn't have died, but that the stated reasons for doing so don't really seem necessary and that their position in Thor's life means it should have gotten more focus.
The Warriors Three were killed off to hype up Hela, which... why? We just saw her crush Mjolnir, smackdown Thor and Loki mid-Bifrost flight, and she then goes on to destroy a legion of Asgardian warriors and even a ship or two using nothing but a bunch of summoned knives. She's a badass, that's easily established. It's even more baffling and feels even more unnecessary when you could've just had the Warriors Three sit out the movie like Sif did. Sure you'd probably need to explain why all of them are gone, but that's easily handled with a single line of dialogue, just say they're protecting the Realms under "Odin"'s orders (easily lines up with Loki wanting the people who could see through his deception gone).
That just leaves doing it for emotional reasons, which... I mean, the lack of enthusiasm for the Warriors Three even on this thread should illustrate how much that doesn't work from a Doylist perspective, so that just leaves a Watsonian perspective. And from a Watsonian perspective it doesn't do anything. Thor never finds out his best friends are dead, hell Infinity War low-key implies that Heimdall has shifted to the "best friend" position instead. There's just no reason to kill them given that the movie refuses to do anything with it.
Edited by Khfan429 on Aug 7th 2018 at 7:45:50 AM
Heimdall being Thor's best friend is funny because he's like the cool older kid.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersThey're not wonderful characters, but they've been around since the beginning and they have somewhat distinctive personalities that don't take a lot of time to reestablish. If you were to still insist on killing them, it'd give be so much more effective, for them but especially for Asgard in general to make them the face of the Asgardian survivors first — and then if you killed even just one of them, show the others' reactions to it. That would show, rather than Hela's power, the stakes that Heimdall and company are fighting for — we can see the Asgardians are being killed off by Hela, but other than Heimdall, Thor doesn't know any of these people, and thus neither do we.
Chiding Waititi for not “committing to the title of the film” is silly, yeah, given how movie making works. Unless they’re making a direct adaptation (which Ragnarok isn’t) titles are the last thing writers and directors are thinking about when they make movies. They change in production, even in post, all the time, and even if they didn’t the story isn’t beholden exclusively to the name that precedes it.
I didn't expect him to make a one to one adaptation of Ragnarök, but I didn't expect it to be a sideshow. And if you turn it into a sideshow, don't do it in a way which makes Ragnarök boring.
Yes, I said it, the whole part about Hela rampaging through Asgard is boring. And it could have been more interesting if someone had put a little bit more thought into it.
Waititi directing Guardians 3 would be awesome.
Speaking of returns, looks like two familiar faces are gonna be in Spider-Man: Far from Home.
Edited by comicwriter on Aug 7th 2018 at 3:16:39 AM
Apparently, there's a Captain Marvel Easter Egg in the form of the sash hanging from Cull Obsidian's waist. It's an exact match for her color scheme and design, red on top, two bands of gold in the middle, and blue at the bottom. I really hope this means that Cull Obsidian and maybe even the other Children of Thanos show up in Captain Marvel. Hell, maybe the reason Supergiant wasn't in Infinity War is because Captain Marvel killed her in the 90s!
The fact that Disney seems to be doing this in the face of massive public outcry (including from the cast no doubt) suggests two things:
- Disney sees the whole Guardians franchise and cast as expendable.
- Disney and James Gunn had some behind-the-scenes Creative Differences that may have factored into Disney's quick decision to fire him, with the old tweets simply being an excuse to finally ditch him.
Either way, Guardians Vol. 3 is toast, and it means bad news for Phase 4 of the MCU. If I were Kevin Feige, I'd save face and quit.
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher

Still, it's something that remains to be seen regardless of what you think.
The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.