Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

DollEyes

By DollEyes
in Movies

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

tennisgurl
tennisgurl

I had this conversation with my mom today, when we were talking about her seeing Infinity War soon: Me: "Yeah, not everyone makes it out, so be ready for that." Mom: "I mean, Spiderman will

VCRTracking
VCRTracking

And the "Award for worst way to find out your dad really loves you" goes to.......Gamora!

Dee
Dee

Okoye's "Why was she up there all this time?!" after Wanda finally entered the fray had me on the floor.

Posted Images

Bruinsfan

Bruinsfan

23 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

This is my hope too. I really think that it was intended to be in Heimdall's possession because of his ability to see every person in the 9 realms, but Marvel did a bit of pivot at some point in phase 2 because it seemed too obvious. I would prefer it to not be in Wakanda. Give it to the Sovereign or someone random.

Since the whole Infinity Gems/Stones thing was introduced via Adam Warlock, I'd really like the Soul Stone to be in his possession. We saw what appeared to be his MCU origin at the end of GotG 2 thanks to the Sovereign.

Asgard appears to have had two of the stones in its possession, the Reality Stone which it squirreled away in a pocket dimension 5,000 years ago and only became available once those portals between the Nine Worlds were opening, and the Space Stone which it hid on Earth for safekeeping. Not that farfetched for a star-spanning empire that's been in power for thousands of years. The Time Stone has been on Earth for at least thousands, possibly millions of years in the keeping of Sorcerers Supreme. The Mind Stone only came to earth recently thanks to Loki; Thanos apparently found it first.

Kel Varnsen

Kel Varnsen

20 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I am about 95% sure that Ant Man and Wasp takes place before Infinity War, and instead deals with the direct aftermath of Civil War, with Hope and Hank laying low, and Scott on house arrest after taking Caps side in the conflict. Maybe something happens with them that being in Infinity War trailers would spoil, and they're waiting for their movie to come out to say more of what they're up to by the time Thanos shows up?

Or maybe they've been in all of the trailers, and are just so small we dont see them!

I wonder if there will be some kind of framing device to explain that Ant man and the wasp takes place before IW. Like will Scott have a flashback or will they just expect the audience to know what is going on.

On 20/03/2018 at 10:15 AM, SnoGirl said:

I hope its not on Earth. The galaxy is massive, whoever hid the stones clearly wasnt thinking if they’re all in one spot.

Having multiple stones on earth would explain why it was of any interest to Thanos. I mean why did he, through the Chautari, try to invade earth if not to find them?

On 20/03/2018 at 10:42 AM, Wynterwolf said:

Whatever Zola did to Bucky also worked, as well as what Howard later developed for the other 5 supersoldiers.  Both of those successes were possibly activated/energized by the Space stone, while Steve was activated by Howard's VitaRay.  But I wouldn't think Howard's VitaRay was related to the Soul Stone.

Maybe Thanos already had the Soul Stone and that's what got him starting to actively go after the rest of them, starting with the Space Stone and his ploy with Loki.  Or it is Heimdall and he uses it's power to send Bruce back to Earth and lands him on Dr. Strange's doorstep, and Thor splatting on the Guardian's windshield.  

Thanos already had the mind stone at some point. There is a shot in Avengers where his goon hands the sceptre off to Loki. If he had the soul stone too I suspect he would be a lot more powerful.

Also speaking of stones, did they ever explain how Starlord knew where the Power Stone was at the beginning of Guardians, especially at the same time Ronan's goons find it? I think I have seen that movie at least 3 times and I am still not sure.

  • Love 1
HunterHunted

HunterHunted

4 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Also speaking of stones, did they ever explain how Starlord knew where the Power Stone was at the beginning of Guardians, especially at the same time Ronan's goons find it? I think I have seen that movie at least 3 times and I am still not sure.

I don't think we're ever told how anyone knows that the stone is on Morag. Peter knew it was on Morag. As did Korath and Yondu. I choose to believe that Cosmo the (telepathic) spacedog implanted it into their brains after  reading it in the mind of someone else on Knowhere. But yeah, there is literally no indication of how people knew where the power stone was.

JustaPerson

JustaPerson

This does not bode well for our faves: the Infinity War writers were given permission to kill off any heroes they wanted 

Quote

"I know nothing about deaths," screenwriter Christopher Markus teased to the Toronto Sun, "but if there's a good story reason for it, they were open to anything. We didn't want to [...] cut off a flower just as it's beginning to bloom. But a nice big flower? Maybe."

"Marvel allowed us big swings," co-writer Stephen McFeely clarified. "So there wasn't a mandate that everything had to get tied up in a neat bow so that they could continue with another one and another one.

"These movies are the most successful when the characters undergo big changes and in certain cases when some are escorted off the stage."

A lot of people could have guessed that people were dying, but this is especially ominous..

Joe

Joe

1 hour ago, JustaPerson said:

This does not bode well for our faves: the Infinity War writers were given permission to kill off any heroes they wanted 

A lot of people could have guessed that people were dying, but this is especially ominous..

It's not going to be Game of Thrones. I'm sure there will be a couple of deaths, but it won't be a bloodbath. And half the cast have further MCU movies coming up anyway.

  • Love 1
cambridgeguy

cambridgeguy

42 minutes ago, Dee said:

Could they kill off Black Widow perhaps?

I think most of the heroes will be temporarily killed to drive home the threat level, then resurrected using some Infinity stone hand waving.  I'd actually argue that BW is the least likely of the original Avengers to be permanently killed off unless SJ has sworn she never wants to play the part again.

However, I do think that Cap and Tony are done.  They'll make a heroic sacrifice and the actors will ride off and enjoy their hundreds of millions of dollars.  Rhodes can continue Tony's work while either Bucky or Falcon follow the comics and take up the Captain America mantle.

  • Love 7
rmontro

rmontro

23 hours ago, starri said:

Well, in the original Infinity Gauntlet, Thanos wiped out half of the universe.  But everyone got better.

Yeah, I mean with the nature of these celestial level forces at play, anyone could conceivably get killed and end up returning.

I wonder if we might see Quicksilver return somehow, if only as a dark zombie type pawn in Thanos' army.  For that matter, now that Disney owns the X-Men again, what do they do with Quicksilver?  He was a popular part of the X-Men movies.  They recently killed a strange version of The Whizzer on Jessica Jones.  I don't know what these people have against heroes with super speed.

VCRTracking

VCRTracking

9 hours ago, Joe said:

Hemsworth is an idiot. Ragnarok was unwatchable.

I liked it and it's by far the most popular Thor movie. Chris was great as a comedic Thor. I get wanting that to continue that Thor but even in that movie, when it wasn't on Grandmaster's planet and it was on Asgard and Hela taking over it was played fairly seriously. Despite Hela's campy performance her killing the Warrior's Three and the people of Asgard hiding from her was not played for laughs. Now with the remaining Asgardians wiped out and Loki either giving or forced to give Thanos the Tesseract, now wouldn't be the time for goofy Thor antics and back to the more serious Thor of the Avengers movies. I do think teaming Thor with both Rocket Raccoon and teenage Groot can't help but have funny moments.

  • Love 15
tennisgurl

tennisgurl

Every clip that comes out of this thing is amazing. 

17 hours ago, Joe said:

Hemsworth is an idiot. Ragnarok was unwatchable.

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but critics liked the movie, it made tons more money than the previous Thor movies money, and was considered by many to be the thing that saved the Thor franchise, and made his character more interesting, especially as he was on the back burner for both the previous Avengers movies, and even in his own movies, which were filled with subplots and lots of time spent on supporting characters. To me, while Ragnarok was definitely hilarious and off the wall, his character development was actually the best of all his movies so far, as it was really about him. The character dynamics between him and his family, and Thor eventually becoming a real leader, were all played very seriously. I can totally see why CH wants to play this side of his character more, as he is clearly a talented comedic actor, and is finally playing the character as dynamic and interesting. And the majority of film goers seemed to agree. So, I dont think he is an "idiot" for wanting to play a developed version of his character, a version that most people have enjoyed. 

  • Love 20
  • Popular Post
tennisgurl

tennisgurl

  • Popular Post
(edited)
1 hour ago, Joe said:

The trailers made it look like a rainbow threw up on an action comedy. I didn't bother to actually see it. And if that's the direction they're going in this time, I fully expect to hate it too.

So...you hated a movie you never saw? And deemed the main actor from it an idiot for liking the way his character was written? Well, if its not to your taste thats fine, but I would never call a movie unwatchable and or call its actors stupid for enjoying working on it without seeing a second of the actual film, especially if the majority of the people who watched it found it to be a good movie. 

I imagine Infinity War will be much darker in tone, and the character work will be similar. By the end of Ragnarok, Thor and company were heading for Earth to find somewhere to go after their whole society was destroyed, and it was played quite seriously, so I think we will probably be on that note when we see Thor again. With some Guardians humor thrown in. 

Edited by tennisgurl
  • Love 25
SnoGirl

SnoGirl

(edited)
6 hours ago, SimoneS said:

Teen Groot being snarky. Bwah! I love that the whole team now understands Groot.  

OMG. Groot cussing is HILARIOUS. Their faces when he says “I am Groot” from behind his cell phone/game are insane. Gah. Teen Groot is going to be the death of me. Can you just imagine him running around and getting in trouble and all the Guardians trying to keep him safe?? I really want a Ladies Avenger movies, but now can we have a Teen Adventure movie too? Groot, Shuri and Peter off causing a rukus??

Editing to say, I hope Nebula is the adult in charge of this teen adventure. Or Bucky and Sam. Or all three.

Edited by SnoGirl
  • Love 8
Dandesun

Dandesun

20 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Visually, Thor: Ragnarok is probably the most faithful to the source material. It's probably the most Kirby looking movie in the MCU.

How did Honest Trailers describe it? "We forget that this comic was created by nerds on acid. It's supposed to look weird."

Yeah, the Sakaar stuff was full on Kirby.

  • Love 9
JessePinkman

JessePinkman

 

Quote

 

To the greatest fans in the world,

We’re about to embark on the Avengers: Infinity War press tour. We will be visiting fans all over the world screening only a limited amount of selected footage from the film in order to avoid spoiling the story for future viewers.

We will not screen the film in its entirety until the Los Angeles premiere shortly before the film’s global release. Everyone involved with the film has worked incredibly hard for the past two years maintaining the highest level of secrecy. Only a handful of people know the film’s true plot.

We’re asking that when you see Infinity War, in the coming months, that you maintain the same level of secrecy so that all fans can have an equal experience when they watch it for the first time. Don’t spoil it for others, the same way you wouldn’t want it spoiled for you.

Good luck and happy viewing.

The Russo Brothers

#ThanosDemandsYourSilence

 

What is going to happen in this MOVIE??? A movie shouldn't give me this much anxiety.

  • Love 8
wingster55

wingster55

(edited)

Ragnarok had Thor lose multiple IQ points just for "comedy". And it couldn't even decide the tone. Wacky over the top bits where Goldblum and the actor who played that rock guy tried to be funny but just weren't, coupled with Hela destroying Asgard (and killing the Warriors Three in a all to brief scene). Uneven. The first two had humor but knew how to keep an even tone. 

Similar to Black Panther most recently. 

Critics loved it because of their massive MCU bias (see the reactions to the very similar BvS and Civil War). 

Edited by wingster55
HunterHunted

HunterHunted

3 hours ago, wingster55 said:

Critics loved it because of their massive MCU bias (see the reactions to the very similar BvS and Civil War). 

2 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

Yeah, there is so much bias. Like Wonder Woman got only a 92% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes! Bastards.

Thor has 77% on Rotten Tomatoes. Thor: The Dark World has a 66% on Rotten Tomatoes. Iron Man 2 has a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes, which really rated far too high because it's terrible.

2 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

Yes BVS and Civil War were similar but pretty much every critic pointed that out and those who gave it a positive review said Civil War was better executed.

This. It's not fair to Batman v Superman to compare the conflict and relationship in Civil War to Batman v Superman because even if the conflict is a bit contrived in both, Civil War spent 3 movies establishing the relationship between Cap and Bucky and 4 films with Tony and Rhodey. We've had 2 full films depicting how Cap and Tony work with each other--hint there's always been tension. Whereas, Batman v Superman has a conflict that basically comes out of nowhere and is resolved over nonsense. In fact, the conflict is such nonsense that they basically give it Superman's amnesia kiss in order for the motivation to recruit the League in Justice League to make any amount of sense. Batman v Superman is fairly inept in its execution.

  • Love 7
Dandesun

Dandesun

1 hour ago, HunterHunted said:

Thor has 77% on Rotten Tomatoes. Thor: The Dark World has a 66% on Rotten Tomatoes. Iron Man 2 has a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes, which really rated far too high because it's terrible.

 

I have a fondness for original Thor. The Dark World... look, I tried, but it is a subpar flick. I did like the fight with all the portals and Mjolnir careening it's way through space and all that... there were *things* I liked but, overall... yeah, not great.

And, personally, I prefer IM3 to IM2. I feel that IM3 actually does focus on Tony's PTSD in a way that the rest of the movies never did. Plus, I thought that the way they handled the Mandarin was kind of awesome. That is a villain that is so wildly problematic in so many ways that having him be an actor named Trevor that AIM hired as a red herring was kind of brilliant. Also, I thought that IM3 was one that dealt with Tony's manpain in a way that worked. IM2 not so much. Jesus the Daddy issues in IM2 were just too much. I mean, at least Tony got to see Howard's video (which was a hilarious knock off of Walt Disney's 'Florida Project' film) where he told Tony that he was his greatest accomplishment or what not. Of course, that got flushed down the toilet when Steve appeared. 

Tony's just jealous that he never made anything that beautiful. (To be fair, Erskine had more to do with it than Howard but Howard helped. A lot.)

The point is that for as much derision as IM3 gets, I really enjoyed it and I thought it contributed to Tony's story in a much more meaningful way than, say, IM2.

And Thor: Ragnarok, I felt, got Thor right in a lot of ways. It really felt like he stepped out of the ancient eddas. He was so much bigger than life on a stage that was already huge. Yes, he was goofy in some aspects but that's not entirely far off from the gregarious god of thunder and fertility that he's portrayed as in the Norse myths. There's a reason Thor was beloved by the regular guys and Ragnarok got a lot of that. And the fact that it was so fucking WEIRD on Sakaar? Even better. Kirby all over the place. (Though they've never been able to replicate the Kirby dots. Alas.)

  • Love 11
Shannon L.

Shannon L.

43 minutes ago, Dandesun said:

The point is that for as much derision as IM3 gets, I really enjoyed it and I thought it contributed to Tony's story in a much more meaningful way than, say, IM2.

I really liked IM3 and all three Thor movies.  In fact, the only three that I could not care less if I ever watched again, are CA: The First Avenger (although, if I catch it in the beginning, I'll watch until he turns into the super soldier), IM2 and GOTG2.  All the others, if I'm channel surfing and they're on, I'll watch them. 

But then again, like I said somewhere else in the movie threads (maybe even this one a page or two ago), I know nothing about the comics, so I don't have to worry if they are following them or not.  I can enjoy (or not) each movie as it is.

  • Love 1
tennisgurl

tennisgurl

To me, there has never been a full on awful MCU movie. I find Thor and Iron Man 2 to both be pretty meh, and I am truly baffled by some of the choices made in AoU but even they had some good, memorable scenes, and nothing in it that killed the movie or anything. None have reached the levels of bad that other superhero movies so clearly have, or have had absolutely nothing to offer. Like, I would take Thor 2 over BvS any day of the week. 

8 hours ago, wingster55 said:

Critics loved it because of their massive MCU bias (see the reactions to the very similar BvS and Civil War). 

Well, to each their own, but I (and most critics, and many fans I know) found Civil War to be the superior movie, and that BvS is an absolute mess of a movie that tries to crush three movies into one and has characters with motivations that make so little sense you need to headcannon almost everything based on stuff that happened in comic books 20 years ago, and was all resolved because people have the same names as other people. I dont think its a bias, unless that bias is towards movies that are well constructed and interesting.

  • Love 10
wingster55

wingster55

For a movie titled "Captain America" we sure didn't get as much as one expected. There was always tension, but not much friendship. The viewer was supposed to be sad at the rift between Cap and Iron Man...but unlike the comics there was no strong friendship to be sad about. Unlike say, Steve and Nat. 

And most of the other characters that were in that big airport battle scene...what was their motivation? Scott Lang was just thrown in because...of reasons. Same with Peter and Clint. Why were they there? Peter didn't even seem to know what the issue was. 

Finally Steve was way too calm about Bucky's decision to go into stasis in Wakanda. 

BvS was built off a lot of the public's fear and distrust of Superman. It's logical for people to be wary of that in this day and age and want him to have...restrictions/be accountable (oh snap). Especially as his arrival was followed by Zod. The "Martha moment" was silly, yes. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...