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
Because it wasn't important that Sitwell was Sitwell, it was important that he was a ranking SHIELD Agent that was part of HYDRA. You don't need to have watched the short or seen Ao S to know that Sitwell is a SHIELD agent. That's literally all you need to know about him, and they tell you that in the film.
Hell, Sitwell is in Avengers. As far as the average cinema goer knows, this is a minor character who keeps appearing in limited roles, and this was A Death in the Limelight.
Feige had said they wanted to keep a select few characters in the Avengers movies rather than giving them spin-offs so I imagine that's part of the reason.
Surely not just the Avengers movies, if Black Widow can play a major role in the Winter Soldier.
Oh God! Natural light!
Hm...I like the stuff about Scott Lang and Yellowjacket, but...
Not sure how I feel about this. That said, if I had to judge by this article and what little we've seen from the trailers, then I think we can count on her having a prominent role. And if it mirrors Scott's arc then we're probably good there as well.
Oh God! Natural light!
At least her major role isn't finding a romantic relationship.
Kinda wish they were using Janet instead of Hank, because I literally cannot remember a single superhero movie with a mother/daughter relationship being the crux, but I guess when both the mentor and the new guy have to have the word "Man" in their superhero names there's only so much you can do.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.Oh, right, I forgot about Watchmen.
By choice.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.I liked parts of the movie.
The times they are a-changin' bit mostly.
About the worst thing I can say is that I don't really remember the movie - or I can't really remember if I'm remembering the book or the movie and I've never really felt the need to go back and rewatch it.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersI really don't think any type of effects work is superior to any other.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.To an extent. Practical effects are better for things that can actually exist in our world, such as scenery, explosions, etc.
That being said, CGI is just better at depicting the impossible. I don't care how good you make your rubber suit dragon, it is still a rubber suit, not a dragon. The rubber suit looks plenty real, but that's a problem because it's supposed to look like a dragon.
edited 8th Jan '15 1:31:52 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.They have their advantages and disadvantages. it's jsut sometimes it feels a little too obvious when I'm looking at a cartoon sometimes so I feel a mite jaded towards CGI on occasion.
And Mostly ninja'd by the Drake who put exactly what I was thinking into words.
edited 8th Jan '15 1:32:55 PM by MousaThe14
The Blog The ArtWow, they're actually using ant sized sets for Ant-man? That's bloody marvellous. If you guys are asking for practical effects, you can't get any more practical than that.
Saying that; I get the sense that people mean something different from me when they resort to the term CGI; I picture a being made entirely within a computer, using live actors only as a reference point; you know, like Azog in the Hobbit. But then people refer to legolas dancing on Dwarf heads in barrels as being CGI and I can't help but think 'No, you're legitimately looking at Orland Bloom dancing and you're legitimately looking at Graham Mc Tavish in a barrel, the only trickery is that they took two events which happened in different locations at different times and allowed you to see them both at once. Sure it's literally a Computer Generated Image, but all editing is done digitally these decades. Every image in every recent major movie not made by Wes Anderson is a computer generated image.
Generally people consider models to be a practical effect; showing a live action Paul Rudd super imposed into a live action hyper focused carpet isn't functionally different from showing an A-Wing model super imposed over a live action tundra.
(Sorry for going off track with my exmple, I just have a hard on for the fact Peter Jacson filmed thirteen actors in barrels in a lake, and then built an automated green screen set so Orland Bloom could dance on articulated green screen limbs set to match the movement of dwarven bald caps.)
Don't get me wrong I expect to see tonnes of CGI in Ant-man. CGI ants, CGI men, CGI Men-Ants. I'm just blown away that they're ballsy enough to take the central concept of the original Ant-Man story (That the common world is monstrous and terrifying on a minute level) and attempt to portray that literally rather than cooking it up in a rendering engine.
I'm definitely going to have to see this in 3D.
edited 8th Jan '15 4:36:04 PM by Whowho
To an extent. Practical effects are better for things that can actually exist in our world, such as scenery, explosions, etc.
That being said, CGI is just better at depicting the impossible. I don't care how good you make your rubber suit dragon, it is still a rubber suit, not a dragon. The rubber suit looks plenty real, but that's a problem because it's supposed to look like a dragon.
I was going to post something to this effect earlier, but it wouldn't go through. Oh well.
Anyway, I just watched the Agent Carter premiere. Loved it. Easily superior the Agents of SHIELD pilot, in my humble opinion. I'd have to say it has to do with the focus being on a character we already care a great deal about (Coulson's popularity aside, his brief appearances don't really have much of arc...unless someone's noticed something that I missed?) Of course, it might also have to do for my love of Period Pieces, especially those taking place in the time period depicted here. It's probably similar to the reason (or at least one of many) for my recent enthusiasm towards Baccano, although that's set during the early 1930's.
...Actually, that'd be a neat crossover. I mean, it takes place in New York, and 15 years wouldn't really age the cast that much - most of them are fairly young, and several of them don't age at all. It has it's share of outlandishness, to be sure, but so does the MCU. Of course, whether the two would match tonally is a different story, and most, if not all of the cast are one the opposite side of the law of Peggy Carter, but's that's arguably part of the fun (and let's face it, Peggy's breaking several laws at the moment).
edited 8th Jan '15 10:55:11 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!
Tone really isn't the issue with that crossover— Baccano has an intense energy and a just plain fun atmosphere. The issue is more to do with content. Baccano is a bit too bloody and gory for the MCU, I think. To my knowledge, nobody in the MCU has suffered a fate as grisly as "death by being ground against railroad tracks".
CGI and practical effects both have their own advantages and flaws. I think the Winter Soldier for instance benefited from the use of as much practicality as possible and the Russos said that was something they were going for because they didn't want too much of it to be obviously fake.
I think that's a risk you run in with human characters. You've still got the uncanny valley effect so unless you get the shots just right you risk having people notice that your "hero" is a creepy looking CGI mannequin.

Sitwell appeared in Thor, actually.
"It's so hard to be humble, knowing how great I am."