TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Marvel Cinematic Universe

Go To

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.

    Original post 
Since Thor and now Captain America came out this year, I wanted to get what Tropers thought of the concept and execution of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in general. Personally I love the idea and wonder why this idea hasn't been seriously tried before. It sorta seems to me like the DCAU in movie form (And well, ummm, with Marvel), and really 'gets' the comic book feel of a shared universe while not being completely alienating.

Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM

chasemaddigan I'm Sad Frogerson. Since: Oct, 2011
I'm Sad Frogerson.
#96326: Feb 5th 2019 at 10:41:51 PM

... This conversation's going to dark places.

Oh, I know what will lighten up the mood! Have Peter and Rocket kicking Thanos' corpse!

slimcoder The Head of the Hydra Since: May, 2013
The Head of the Hydra
#96327: Feb 5th 2019 at 10:46:07 PM

Is Thanos on a crusade? Is that what his actions align more on?

Edited by slimcoder on Feb 5th 2019 at 10:47:02 AM

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#96328: Feb 5th 2019 at 10:49:11 PM

[up]A crusade is an organized campaign concerning a political, social, or religious issue, typically motivated by a fervent desire for change.

So yes, it technically is a crusade I guess.

Disgusted, but not surprised
alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#96329: Feb 5th 2019 at 10:49:55 PM

The difference is that the atomic bombings were done for the sake of, among other things, reducing the loss of American lives.
Which makes what America did worse and what Thanos did better, because he was saving everyone's lives, rather than just American ones. That's the logic you're using, right?

Also: Thanos regularly brings armies to planets to achieve his goals. One could say that he was at war with everyone.

Anyone still willing to work onboard that thing after that was effectively an accomplice to mass murder on an unprecedented scale. Clerks had a bit about that.
Clerks was a comedy, it's whole thing was making a joke.

Edited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 10:51:19 AM

MileRun Since: Jan, 2001
#96330: Feb 5th 2019 at 10:51:11 PM

That's the fundamental flaw in the movie — that Thanos is using a real world philosophy to justify his actions, one that many dictators have already used. And nobody tries to point out the flaws, they only call him "insane" which doesn't help. If someone tried to point out the many flaws in his plan, even if he ignored them, that would go a long way to showing people that this type of thinking isn't right. After all, there are many criticisms of utilitarianism.

That's not a flaw. I don't understand what you're trying to say - are you suggesting that, because the film presents a real-world philosophy at all, it must be endorsing it?

The heroes very clearly act counter to Thanos' philosophy. They refuse to make or accept any sacrifices at all, save for those willing to sacrifice themselves (and Quill and Wanda attempting to aid in other characters' self-sacrifice after very painful deliberation). Cap very prominently states that they do not trade lives, which is echoed by Vision in the third act. And yes, many characters do call Thanos insane.

That Thanos does abide by a real-world philosophy used by real-world dictators makes the movie stronger. Now, it's not just about a villain against bunch of heroes who respectively fall into black-and-white abstracts of good and evil. It challenges viewers to see real-world evils for what they are, and to watch their heroes stand firm against them.

But the movie shows that Thanos has empathy. Hell, there are posters here that arguing that he's sympathetic because he's shown empathy. He just doesn't have enough empathy to stop him plan, because, as he puts it, "The hardest choices require the strongest wills."

If Thanos was shown as just a straight up sociopath, I wouldn't have a problem.

The movie never once asks us to sympathize with Thanos. He absolutely is shown to be a villain and a sociopath. The movie repeatedly calls us to see the suffering that his plan causes (which is what I meant by "Empathy is key") and doesn't ever actually show anyone reaping the benefits of his plan (admittedly, because the movie ends right after the snap, but I highly doubt anybody will be happy about the snap in Endgame).

Even if Thanos was supposed to be sympathetic, being sympathetic does not mean being right. For another MCU example, the Ghost is irrefutably a sympathetic villain - all the evil she commits is done out of desperation upon severe pain and threat of existential death. The themes of the movie still present her worldview as misguided.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#96331: Feb 5th 2019 at 10:51:24 PM

[up][up]No, I'm saying that the USA didn't try to bullshit a claim that bombing part of Japan was good for the rest of Japan. As opposed to Thanos who claimed that killing half the universe would be good for the universe.

And war requires a formal declaration of war. Otherwise you're just a mass murdering asshole. And it's not like most of the universe was aware of Thanos' "war" with them. They were still targeted by The Snap.

And comedy or not, Clerks had a point. It's not like everything in a comedy can be discounted just because it's comedy. The Jester after all was meant to speak truth to power in a funny way.

Seriously, are you conflating the people onboard a planet-killing superweapon with the victims of The Snap? Not cool.

Edited by M84 on Feb 6th 2019 at 2:57:54 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#96332: Feb 5th 2019 at 10:57:59 PM

That's not a flaw. I don't understand what you're trying to say - are you suggesting that, because the film presents a real-world philosophy at all, it must be endorsing it?
No, I'm saying that by not having someone refute his plan, it leaves it open for interpretation whether or not it will work and, in doing so, whether or not it was right.

The heroes very clearly act counter to Thanos' philosophy.
They act counter to his philosophy, but that doesn't automatically make his philosophy wrong, especially since they lose. For all Cap saying "We don't trade lives," he lost and Thanos won. If they had traded lives at the time, Thanos might have lost.

The movie never once asks us to sympathize with Thanos.
It absolutely does. It shows us how he cares for Gamora and how killing her is tearing him apart. Hell, one of the last scenes is him saying that acheiving his plan cost him "everything." He isn't triumphant, he's sad.

For another MCU example, the Ghost is irrefutably a sympathetic villain - all the evil she commits is done out of desperation upon severe pain and threat of existential death. The themes of the movie still present her worldview as misguided.
Completely different — Ghost's goal is to save herself and stop the pain and, despite the fact that she goes about it in the wrong way, her goal is always shown as good. Hell, Janet helps her in the end. Thanos's goal, on the other hand, is repeatedly called insane by other people and involves killing half the universe and yet, somehow, he gets the same amount of sympathy from the movie that Ghost does.

No, I'm saying that the USA didn't try to bullshit a claim that bombing part of Japan was good for the rest of Japan.
But the USA did claim that bombing Japan was for the good of the United States, a claim that is, again, still being debated to this day.

And war requires a formal declaration of war.
Only on Earth. Stop applying Earth-rules to space-combat.

Seriously, are you conflating the people onboard a planet-killing superweapon with the victims of The Snap? Not cool.
The "people onboard" included Leia at one point and all of the other prisoners in the Death Star. So, I mean, they totally killed innocent people, no matter what, the only question is "how many?"

Edited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:01:52 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#96333: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:05:35 PM

[up]Leia was a special case. They wanted her to watch Alderaan die. There's no indication that prisoners are regularly kept onboard the planet-killer.

And I'm pretty sure a formal declaration of war is a thing in the rest of the MCU. Why would you assume otherwise? Do you think alien worlds are just that barbaric? What are you, a xenophobe?

Shit, Guardians of the Galaxy very clearly had the Kree engaging in political shenanigans to avoid being associated with Ronan.

And the atomic bombings did spare the lives of the US soldiers who would have died taking Japan. That is not debatable.

Edited by M84 on Feb 6th 2019 at 3:08:35 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#96334: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:09:03 PM

Leia was a special case. They wanted her to watch Alderaan die. There's no indication that prisoners are regularly kept onboard the planet-killer.
Then why was there an entire floor just for prisoners? Leia was held in Cell 2187, which means that there were at least 2,187 cells (probably more like 3,000), which means that the Death Star was designed to hold a lot of prisoners.

And I'm pretty sure a formal declaration of war is a thing in the rest of the MCU. Why would you assume otherwise?
Why would you assume that aliens have the same rules of law that humans have?

And the atomic bombings did spare the lives of the US soldiers who would have died taking Japan. That is not debatable.
I'm not going to go into it, but there's a lot of debate over that especially since Japan was already looking for a way out of the war. But what's not up for debate is the fact that the US wanted to drop a couple bombs to show the rest of the world that they had and would use them.

Edited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:10:52 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#96335: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:10:33 PM

[up]Those cells were likely meant for holding unruly soldiers and staff who cause trouble onboard. They are holding facilities. In Leia's case, one was repurposed.

Seriously, you really think a planet-killer is going to take prisoners?

And it's funny that you think what I pointed out was debatable while claiming your stance is not debatable.

Edited by M84 on Feb 6th 2019 at 3:12:25 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#96336: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:12:02 PM

Those cells were likely meant for holding unruly soldiers and staff who cause trouble onboard. They are holding facilities. In Leia's case, one was repurposed.
And now you're just making stuff up. There's nothing at all in the movies that say that (and EU doesn't count).

Seriously, you really think a planet-killer is going to take prisoners?
Yes. It was designed as a planet-killer, sure, but it also was supposed to be a show of force — it shows up, Empire forces a planet to do its bidding "or else," they ship off the dissidents to the Death Star, the end.

Edited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:12:53 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#96337: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:13:18 PM

[up]All you stated is that the Death Star had cells to lock people up. In a typical military installation such a thing is necessary to lock up unruly assholes. It's simple logic.

And even if you're correct...you're still trying to draw a false equivalence between Luke blowing up the Death Star with Thanos' Snap.

Edited by M84 on Feb 6th 2019 at 3:14:15 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#96338: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:15:39 PM

All you stated is that the Death Star had cells to lock people up.
Because they do. And the one and only prisoner we saw in them was Leia, which already disproves your stance.

And even if you're correct...you're still trying to draw a false equivalence between Luke blowing up the Death Star with Thanos' Snap.
Luke blew up the Death Star to save the galaxy from it. Thanos killed half the universe because he believed it was the only way to save the other half. Again: if you asked Thanos, he is exactly like Luke. That's the point: a lot of times, heroes are presented as the ones who "make the hard choices," like Thanos did.

Edited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:18:16 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#96339: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:18:34 PM

[up]Except Luke didn't kill half the galaxy to save it.

Destroying a superweapon that was seconds away from blowing up another inhabited world?

That's not even close to what The Snap is.

Seriously, it's kind of disturbing how eager you are to claim that Thanos and Luke are the same.

Also...do we even know if those other cells had anybody in them? No. We don't. So you're making assumptions too.

Edited by M84 on Feb 6th 2019 at 3:20:46 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#96340: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:21:59 PM

Mere details. If someone is willing to kill one person to save one life, would they be willing to kill millions to save millions? Again, this is the argument that Thanos presents: he is trying to "save" the universe and the only way to do so is by killing half the population.

The movie never debates over whether or not it will work, only whether or not it's moral. But heroes in action movies often abandon morality when making "the hard choice," so, again, Thanos's plan is never refuted.

Seriously, it's kind of disturbing how eager you are to claim that Thanos and Luke are the same.
I never claimed Thanos and Luke were the same. I said Thanos would claim that he and Luke were the same. You are mistaking my argument for Thanos's argument.

Edited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:22:46 AM

slimcoder The Head of the Hydra Since: May, 2013
The Head of the Hydra
#96341: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:22:10 PM

I really don’t think you can compare Luke blowing up the Death Star to Thanos basically committing universal genocide.

....... Man this debate has gotten ridiculous.

Edited by slimcoder on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:23:11 AM

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."
MileRun Since: Jan, 2001
#96342: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:23:18 PM

No, I'm saying that by not having someone refute his plan, it leaves it open for interpretation whether or not it will work and, in doing so, whether or not it was right.

I think we're in a loop regarding this point. I'm saying the question of whether or not the plan will work as Thanos intended is irrelevant.

Most arguments against utilitarianism itself aren't rooted in the question over whether utilitarian acts will work. There's some arguments to be made over uncertainty, but the core arguments against utilitarianism are moral questions. Why should some people get to thrive while others suffer? Does the well-being of two people have more weight than the well-being of one? Who gets to decide how much each person's suffering and comfort are worth, and why do they get to decide that? Infinity War does address those questions and plants itself firmly on the side that says nobody should have to be sacrificed for the greater good.

They act counter to his philosophy, but that doesn't automatically make his philosophy wrong, especially since they lose.

...in part one of a two-part story. Moreover, their losing doesn't make them wrong; it was very clearly and unambiguously a tragic ending meant to surprise and horrify the audience.

It absolutely does. It shows us how he cares for Gamora and how killing her is tearing him apart. Hell, one of the last scenes is him saying that acheiving his plan cost him "everything." He isn't triumphant, he's sad.

That's not what "sympathetic" means. "Sympathetic" means we're supposed to feel sorry for him. We're not. Nobody we're supposed to identify with in the movie does.

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#96343: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:24:49 PM

That's not what "sympathetic" means. "Sympathetic" means we're supposed to feel sorry for him. We're not.
I know what sympathetic means. We are absolutely supposed to feel sympathetic to Thanos at times in the film. Hell, the directors counted on this:
“Some of what he’s looking for in the movie is actually very understandable. That, I think, is where it gets very uncomfortable and challenging. You find yourself empathising with him.”

Edited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:25:52 AM

MileRun Since: Jan, 2001
#96344: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:25:59 PM

When? Just because Thanos is sad doesn't mean we're supposed to feel bad for him. Everything bad that happens to him is his own fault, and the movie makes that perfectly clear.

Empathizing is not the same thing as sympathizing. Empathizing means understanding where Thanos is coming from. That's not the same as thinking he's right, or that he deserves better, or that we should feel bad when he doesn't get his way.

Edited by MileRun on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:27:08 AM

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#96345: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:35:52 PM

That's not the same as thinking he's right, or that he deserves better, or that we should feel bad when he doesn't get his way.

"Sympathizing" doesn't mean those things either.

It's fully possible - in fact, rather essential in many cases - for a sympathetic villain to be completely wrong, undeserving of a better lot in life, or worthy of what misfortune he gets at the same time. Because being able to understand where they have a point and being able to understand why that point is twisted are comprehension skills that are in no way diminished by one another.

The misconception that sympathizing with an antagonist means agreeing with them is something that I feel is actually rather dangerous, because a lot of classic literary and film antagonists and Villain Protagonists rely on being both sympathetic and despicable. You get enough of that, and you end up with people outright not understanding how characterization works.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:39:25 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#96346: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:43:05 PM

Sympathizing isn't the same as excusing. I think a lot of people don't get that.

Disgusted, but not surprised
MileRun Since: Jan, 2001
#96347: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:43:23 PM

If I wasn't clear, I'm saying that even though Thanos was written to be relatable, he isn't meant to be in any way right - we're not supposed to agree with him - nor is he meant to be sympathetic - we're not supposed to pity him.

We can empathize with Thanos, but we're not supposed to agree with him. Bad things happen to Thanos, but we're not supposed to feel sorry for him, except maybe in the sense that it's pitiful that he's so horribly misguided as to kill the only person he thinks he loves.

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#96348: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:44:58 PM

Again, you are confusing sympathy with agreement. You don't have to agree with someone to sympathize with them.

MileRun Since: Jan, 2001
#96349: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:47:37 PM

I'm saying that we're not supposed to agree with OR sympathize with Thanos. Those are two distinct things, neither of which we are meant to do.

Edited by MileRun on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:48:12 AM

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#96350: Feb 5th 2019 at 11:49:31 PM

But we are supposed to sympathize with him at times. Again, even the directors point this out.

Edited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:49:57 AM


Total posts: 186,763
Top