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 keep thinking Terry Gilliam was also connected to Monty Python.
I think I'm wrong about that and might be thinking of someone else, but no matter what he needs to zip his lips before someone slaps his yap.
One Strip! One Strip!...Thanks for tainting Monty Python then Terry!
Dammit. As usual, people ruin things I like by being themselves. Especially famous people.
One Strip! One Strip!listen, I love the Black Knight Skit, and the Parrot Skit and a lot of other stuff, but now when I watch them, I gotta remember what this dude said.
I'm sick of that.
One Strip! One Strip!This is one of those moments when I really have to separate art from the artist, because Brazil is still seriously one of my favorite films and one I think everyone should watch at least once.
![]()
![]()
![]()
To be fair, aside from the Spanish Inquisition sketch, I dont think Gillam ever had many notable roles in any of the more well-known sketches (and now I want to see a "Summarize the MCU sketch"). Speaking of British stuff, has Marvel ever made any comments about a future series involving Captain Britain (there's so much Marvel stuff coming the the MCU and theaters it's hard to remember whats next)?
It never really works, but I predict that The Eternals will be set somewhere during Avengers: Endgame's Time Skip. As well, I think the Black Panther sequel will take place a year after the first film—that is, sometime before Thor: Ragnarok.
I hope that means that it actually takes place over thousands of years, and it's not a situation where the movie starts thousands of years ago for one scene, then has a Flash Forward and the rest of the movie is set in modern-day.
Plenty of movies do that, including the first two Thor movies, and while I don't mind it, if you're going to promise that the film takes place over thousands of years, I expect the majority of the film to not even be set in the same era as itself most of the time. That's a cool idea, and I want that to be the case, but it might not be.
I'm hoping for something more like this: the first few scenes are set 15,000 years ago, the net few scenes are set 14,500 years ago, the end of Act 1 takes place 13,500 years ago. Act 2 starts 8,000 years ago. The middle of the film is 7,000 years ago. The end of Act 2 is 5,000 years ago. Act 3 starts 2,000 years ago. The climax takes place 1,000 years ago. The end of the movie is set 6 years ago, to explain why they couldn't help during Infinity War. The first post-credits scene takes place 1 year ago, to explain why they couldn't help during Endgame. The second post-credits scene is modern-day, setting up for a sequel.
![]()
![]()
Is there a particular reason you think that's likely? The Wakanda we saw in Infinity War is a logical continuation of the Wakanda we saw at the end of Black Panther.
Because of this, any hypothetical interquel in that era would have to leave Wakanda more or less in the same state as it got it, which greatly restricts the kind of stories that can be told. Plus it would mean mostly sacrificing the ability to drive the story forward, which isn't something that should ever be scarified too readily.
I'd probably prefer it if Act 3 occurs in modern day in it's entirety, and the reason they didn't help during any of the previous crises is implicit within the transition between Acts 2 and 3. The less time they spend explaining why they didn't intervene in any individual crises (Avengers 3/4 included) the better imo.
Edited by Falrinn on Dec 22nd 2019 at 1:15:48 AM
Old white dude hates Black Panther because it "gives young black kids the idea that this is something to believe in"?
Okay, boomer.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Yeah, and that they need to focus on reality, not fantasy. The fear of the young overindulging in fantasy has been a constant worry since time in memorial.
And the refrain from the old guard has been pretty clear. Your capeshit movies will always be inferior to even our schlock.
I dunno, I always think about Tarentino and other directors who were inspired by kung fu films, blaxploitation, and so on, and how many times they must have been told that all that was trash and not a path to true cinema. Or worse, no one told them that, but because the young people today like it, they’re worthless.
Do you think somewhere, the next Tarentino saw Black Panther and decided he wanted to spend the rest of his life making movies?
Edited by Beatman1 on Dec 23rd 2019 at 10:25:42 AM
I'd go with "the next Coogler" rather than Tarantino, but sure.
Also, if some random on the internet focuses their (out of nowhere) critique on black-, brown-, or woman-led films, there's like a 90% certainty that they're white, male, and a butthurt bigot. Plenty of other shit that they could complain about, but let someone different get one moderately successful anything, and it's all 'well, in my completely objective opinion, it wasn't *THAT* good.'
Come to think of it, it's weirdly refreshing that he's so up-front about his bigotry. Most people try to couch their criticism under something more reasonable-sounding.
"I just don't like adaptations, which I am only holding against this LGBT film."
"I just don't like reboots, which I am only holding against this female-led film."
"I just don't like superhero movies, which I am only holding against this black-led film."
Etc. etc.
Gilliam just comes out and says it. Black Panther offers an afrofuturist fantasy meant to inspire black kids rather than the typical European fantasy meant to inspire white kids, and this dude is not okay with that.
Bonus points for, "Have they even BEEN to Africa?"
Has Peter Jackson ever been to England? Because I promise you that real English architecture looks nothing like the Mines of Moria.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Dec 23rd 2019 at 9:22:37 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

From the Indiewire interview
:
When asked if he felt that critical praise for “Black Panther” was a politically correct response that ignored aesthetics in favor of identity politics, Gilliam said, “It makes my blood boil.” The conversation pivoted to controversial remarks he made back in 2018 amid the Harvey Weinstein fallout and the wave of voices that responded to form the #Me Too! movement. “We’re in the era of the victim. We are all victims. It’s all somebody else, abusing us, taking advantage of us. We are powerless, except except that we go out and do other things,” he said.
I like to wonder what exactly he means what "bullshit" Black Panther is teaching. The fantasy of an African country untouched by colonialism? I mean, that's the whole point of the movie.
Granted, like many who've criticized the MCU, he brought up the whole "studios not supporting mid-budget films" issue and that's a fair point. Still though, the way he phrased his criticisms for Black Panther strikes me as a bit tone-deaf.
Edited by chasemaddigan on Dec 21st 2019 at 5:31:08 AM