The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Dear Joss Whedon,

It turns out your take on Natasha is not as bad as it could have been.

[SimoneS]

I don't care about Bautista's or any of the cast's outrage over Gunn's firing. However, I am glad to get confirmation that Disney has put the Guardians movie on hold. I didn't like the second movie and think that the franchise could use a breather. 

Edited September 2, 2018 by SimoneS

[stealinghome]

I’m like the one person on the Internet who has never been all that impressed with the Guardians movies and find them quite overrated, so I too welcome Disney putting GotG3 on hold until they have a solid plan. There is a lot of potential with the characters if they can get the right script/director for the next film.

[HunterHunted]

8 hours ago, stealinghome said:

I’m like the one person on the Internet who has never been all that impressed with the Guardians movies and find them quite overrated, so I too welcome Disney putting GotG3 on hold until they have a solid plan. There is a lot of potential with the characters if they can get the right script/director for the next film.

Vol 1 had two writers. Vol 2 had one writer--James Gunn. Vol 2 is a bit messier than vol 1. In vol 2, I felt like a bunch of the comedic bits just lingered a bit too long, especially the Taserface bit. Gunn could and should have cut that one in half because it was way too long. There were other jokes that just didn't land either, like a bunch of the Sovereign jokes, all of the bodily humor about turds and whatnot, and also the gag with Groot trying to locate the Yondu's fin betrayed the rule of 3. Maybe another director might not think all of those jokes in Gunn's script as precious jewels and edit them accordingly.

Edited September 2, 2018 by HunterHunted

[Joe]

1 hour ago, SimoneS said:

I don't care about Bautista's or any of the cast's outrage over Gunn's firing. However, I am glad to get confirmation that Disney has put the Guardians movie on hold. I didn't like the second movie and think that the franchise could use a breather. 

I actually thought I was the only one!

[Athena]

18 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

Vol 1 had two writers. Vol 2 had one writer--James Gunn. Vol 2 is a bit messier than vol 1. In vol 2,I felt like a bunch of the comedic bits just lingered a bit too long, especially the Taserface bit.

I liked Vol. 2 and found that the emotional notes and the father themes worked well, but I agree that it is messier than Vol 1. Vol 1 is tighter movie overall and comedy wise, Vol 2 missed the mark in a few areas.

[HunterHunted]

I know that the Black Widow/Banner relationship is deeply unpopular. However, I think it highlights some of the fundamental issues with the MCU:

1. The MCU has a very solid grasp of comic book canon, including canonical relationships, and likes to follow canon as much as possible.
2. Marvel thinks romances are essential elements of the MCU regardless of whether they work or not (Steve and Sharon) on screen and has continued to stick with them even into phase 3.
3. Ike Perlmutter is nakedly disdainful of female characters.
4. From the moment Jensen Ackles turned down the role of Hawkeye, Marvel has been struggling with what to do with Black Widow and to a lesser extent, Hawkeye.

Renner and Johansson have no romantic chemistry; they have the chemistry of good friends. The MCU's insistence on romances is the reason we have 2 movies with the supremely underwhelming Thor and Jane romance, 1 film with the non-starter romance between Stephen Strange and Christine Palmer, and the downright weird and unpleasant Sharon Carter and Cap romance. 

In Winter Soldier, Widow spends her time being flirty with Cap and Falcon, kicking ass, and trying to convince Cap to hook up with every other woman instead of herself. Of course this was done because the MCU was still wedded to this idea of Cap and Sharon regardless of whether they have chemistry (they did not) or if they had sufficient build up of their feelings for each other (they did not). It might have made much more sense to lean into Johansson and Evans' natural chemistry; it might have also drawn a parallel to Steve and Peggy's relationship while avoid the creep factor of Sharon Carter. Peggy and Natasha are both highly skilled, self-possessed women, who are never damseled. But you can tell that TPTB want to keep her off the board because they still like the idea of Nat and Clint even though it doesn't really work in the MCU. Age of Ultron was right around the time when TPTB realized that it would be nearly impossible to cross the film/TV divide, which left Clint's other canonical love interest, Bobbi "Mockingbird" Morse, stuck on TV.  

To that end, I think Joss forced the issue by making MCU Clint as much like Ultimate Clint, which left Sam, Rhodey, Bruce and Natasha without love interests. And I think Ike Perlmutter is too much of a small minded bigot to allow Natasha to be in an interracial relationship. This is kinda how we ended up with Bruce and Natasha.

Edited September 2, 2018 by HunterHunted

[Wynterwolf]

52 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

To that end, I think Joss forced the issue by making MCU Clint as much like Ultimate Clint, which left Sam, Rhodey, Bruce and Natasha with love interests. And I think Ike Perlmutter is too much of a small minded bigot to allow Natasha to be in an interracial relationship. This is kinda how we ended up with Bruce and Natasha.

That makes a lot of sense.  I think it's a shame too, because especially after the "How you doin'" line in CA:WS and the rooftop scene, and because of their relative personalities (Nat playing her genuine emotions close to the vest and being very low key in contrast to Sam being so much more emotionally open and not afraid to show it), I've read a lot of really good explorations of Sam and Natasha as a romantic couple (it's a frequent co-pairing in SteveBucky fic).  And especially after they've presumably spent so much time together in close quarters after CW, that could have been something interesting to explore in IW/A4.  

[Dee]

1 hour ago, HunterHunted said:

I know that the Black Widow/Banner relationship is deeply unpopular. However, I think it highlights some of the fundamental issues with the MCU:

1. The MCU has a very solid grasp of comic book canon, including canonical relationships, and likes to follow canon as much as possible.
2. Marvel thinks romances are essential elements of the MCU regardless of whether they work or not (Steve and Sharon) on screen and has continued to stick with them even into phase 3.
3. Ike Perlmutter is nakedly disdainful of female characters.
4. From the moment Jensen Ackles turned down the role of Hawkeye, Marvel has been struggling with what to do with Black Widow and to a lesser extent, Hawkeye.

Renner and Johansson have no romantic chemistry; they have the chemistry of good friends. The MCU's insistence on romances is the reason we have 2 movies with the supremely underwhelming Thor and Jane romance, 1 film with the non-starter romance between Stephen Strange and Christine Palmer, and the downright weird and unpleasant Sharon Carter and Cap romance. 

In Winter Soldier, Widow spends her time being flirty with Cap and Falcon, kicking ass, and trying to convince Cap to hook up with every other woman instead of herself. Of course this was done because the MCU was still wedded to this idea of Cap and Sharon regardless of whether they have chemistry (they did not) or if they had sufficient build up of their feelings for each other (they did not). It might have made much more sense to lean into Johansson and Evans' natural chemistry; it might have also drawn a parallel to Steve and Peggy's relationship while avoid the creep factor of Sharon Carter. Peggy and Natasha are both highly skilled, self-possessed women, who are never damseled. But you can tell that TPTB want to keep her off the board because they still like the idea of Nat and Clint even though it doesn't really work in the MCU. Age of Ultron was right around the time when TPTB realized that it would be nearly impossible to cross the film/TV divide, which left Clint's other canonical love interest, Bobbi "Mockingbird" Morse, stuck on TV.  

To that end, I think Joss forced the issue by making MCU Clint as much like Ultimate Clint, which left Sam, Rhodey, Bruce and Natasha with love interests. And I think Ike Perlmutter is too much of a small minded bigot to allow Natasha to be in an interracial relationship. This is kinda how we ended up with Bruce and Natasha.

I don't think the issue is that the MCU is wedded to romance is the problem (chemistry issues aside), so much as it didn't properly plan on how to incorporate love interests into their various stories/character arcs until Phase 3, which is why most Marvel Phase 1 & 2 love interests have failed and/or prematurely ended. Pepper has stuck around largely because the Iron Man stories are about her almost as much as they are Tony, and the only reason Peggy hasn't played a larger part in the Cap films, is because of the constraints of Steve's initial story.

It's no coincidence that Valkyrie was so seamlessly paired with Thor or Nakia and T'Challa possess such an immediate bond without having to waste a lot of narrative space establishing their connection. Their form compliments their function. Whereas the Thor franchise wasted nearly an entire film just to get Thor & Jane (literally) on the same wavelength, that the film's overarching story largely suffered.

It also doesn't help that Black Widow wasn't allowed a solo vehicle, and, (up until the very end of Phase 2), has the unlucky issue of being the only female Avenger; so the writers were trying to avoid making her the 'just' the girlfriend, leaving her to float from franchise to franchise (except Thor strangely enough).

My issue with Bruce and Nat is that the MCU, post-Avengers, has largely pigeonholed Bruce as a comedic relief, which undercuts Bruce/Nat as a pairing IMO. It's like watching When Harry Met Sally-era Billy Crystal hit on Girl Interrupted-era Angelina Jolie. Compare them to the intensely earnest Vision/Wanda pairing, who also suffer from similar airtime and development issues, yet remain a believable couple and it's like night and day.

A better pairing for Natasha would've been Bucky/Nat, given Sebastian's intense desire to work with Scarlett, and Bucky/Nat's extensive history in the comics, but the MCU blew that by waiting too long to allow Nat to headline her own franchise.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Dee

[SimoneS]

I like the Banner/Nat romantic pairing and had no idea that they were "deeply unpopular." They totally work for me. The only MCU romance I don't like is Steve and Sharon because I love Peggy and Steve hooking up with her niece is just gross. I don't care if it is comic canon book. It is gross in the comics too.

 

3 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

1. From the moment Jensen Ackles turned down the role of Hawkeye, Marvel has been struggling with what to do with Black Widow and to a lesser extent, Hawkeye.

 

If it is true that Ackles turned down the role of Hawkeye (I find it difficult to believe he was offered the role much less that he turned it down, but okay), it confirms that Marvel is favored and loved by the movie god. Just about everything goes its way including lucky escapes from bad casting decisions (yes, I am looking at you DCEU). Ackles would have been horrible as Hawkeye, worse than Renner who I don't like. 

Edited September 2, 2018 by SimoneS

[festivus]

2 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

From the moment Jensen Ackles turned down the role of Hawkeye, Marvel has been struggling with what to do with Black Widow and to a lesser extent, Hawkeye.

He did? Why in the HELL would he do that?

 

2 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Renner and Johansson have no romantic chemistry; they have the chemistry of good friends. The MCU's insistence on romances is the reason we have 2 movies with the supremely underwhelming Thor and Jane romance, 1 film with the non-starter romance between Stephen Strange and Christine Palmer, and the downright weird and unpleasant Sharon Carter and Cap romance. 

Those Thor movies would have been so much better without the forced romance and don't get me started on the utter lack of chemistry with Steve and Sharon. I have some hope for Dr. Strange and Christine though if they do decide to go down that road. I think Rachel McAdams took the bit part she had and made the best of it, I liked Christine. They may be able to do something interesting there. (She says without a whole lot of hope. I think everyone knows my stance on MCU romances)

 

I think I could get behind a Sam and Nat relationship if I could have faith that the writers could pull it off. As it is, the only romantic relationship I care about in the MCU is Tony and Pepper.

1 hour ago, Wynterwolf said:

I've read a lot of really good explorations of Sam and Natasha as a romantic couple (it's a frequent co-pairing in SteveBucky fic). 

I've read some good Sam and Nat fanfics which is why my headcanon is that they've totally been together until A4 comes and proves me wrong. ETA: Their tiny little 10 second flirty scene in WS had more chemistry to it than Thor and Jane in two whole movies.

Edited September 2, 2018 by festivus

[cambridgeguy]

2 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Marvel thinks romances are essential elements of the MCU regardless of whether they work or not (Steve and Sharon) on screen and has continued to stick with them even into phase 3.

That's not just an MCU issue, romance is part of pretty much every superhero movie, regardless of who makes it.  I don't see that going away anytime soon, even though there's a LONG history of this dragging a film down.

[Wynterwolf]

1 hour ago, festivus said:

He did? Why in the HELL would he do that?

Heh, I think it takes a special kind of person to want to join the media circus around these movies, and he's got a totally sweet gig with SPN.  Plus he did the voice work for Red Hood and I think that's really more his style as far as 'actor lifestyle' goes.  

 

1 hour ago, SimoneS said:

I like the Banner/Nat romantic pairing and had no idea that they were "deeply unpopular." They totally work for me.

Yeah, I don't dislike them at all, and while there's not a whole lot there (and hopefully what ever they do, if anything, in A4 will still be fairly subtle) I think what is there is has an element of understated sweetness to it that works for both those characters because of the extreme violence of their respective superhero personas, it's an interesting contrast.

 

1 hour ago, festivus said:

Their tiny little 10 second flirty scene in WS had more chemistry to it than Thor and Jane in two whole movies.

Ha!  Yes, I'd agree with that too.    

[HunterHunted]

3 hours ago, festivus said:

He did? Why in the HELL would he do that?

My understanding is that he auditioned for Cap, but clearly didn't get it. A little later, Marvel contacted him because they thought he might be good as Hawkeye and he had a bit of a snit because Hawkeye didn't have any solo projects like Iron Man, Thor, or Cap planned. He rejected it because he didn't think the Hawkeye role could take him to the next level.

I am also a person who doesn't really have a problem with Bruce and Natasha.

[ChromaKelly]

Thor and Jane were just so bleh. IDK if it's Natalie Portman, maybe she just shouldn't do superhero/action movies (see: the Star Wars prequels). Having no Jane around was part of what made Ragnarok so good. Chris Hemsworth had a lot more chemistry with Tessa Thompson, even though I don't really ship Thor and Valkyrie.
I don't *hate* Bruce/Natasha, but it felt like it came out of nowhere in Ultron. Maybe if there was more buildup I could have gotten on board with that. I would like to see Bucky/Natasha explored in the upcoming Black Widow movie. I don't ship them for present day MCU, but I'm interested to see what kind of past they have. I can also get behind Sam/Nat.
Count me in as another one who wishes they would have skipped Steve/Sharon. Just awkward and cringey. 
ETA - I'll also add that pairing Natasha with everyone also highlights the lack of female characters at least in the core Avengers. Just look at how many female characters got introduced in Black Panther for contrast. I'm not super aware of all the comic canon, but I would think there would be some female characters that could have been included so it's not basically Nat/(every Avenger except Tony since he's got Pepper).

Edited September 3, 2018 by ChromaKelly

[Dee]

[Cobalt Stargazer]

10 hours ago, SimoneS said:

If it is true that Ackles turned down the role of Hawkeye (I find it difficult to believe he was offered the role much less that he turned it down, but okay),

I have an online friend who is a longtime Supernatural fan, and I feel certain I'd have heard about it if Ackles had been offered a role of any sort in the MCU.

 

11 hours ago, Dee said:

My issue with Bruce and Nat is that the MCU, post-Avengers, has largely pigeonholed Bruce as a comedic relief, which undercuts Bruce/Nat as a pairing IMO. It's like watching When Harry Met Sally-era Billy Crystal hit on Girl Interrupted-era Angelina Jolie. Compare them to the intensely earnest Vision/Wanda pairing, who also suffer from similar airtime and development issues, yet remain a believable couple and it's like night and day.

Character-wise, I think Bruce had to be a bit of comic relief, if only because most of the other male characters are so brooding and/or intense. We've got Tony and Steve with their similar forms of manpain, Bucky's angst over his bloody past, Loki's pointless competition with Thor, who never even realized they were competing, etc. 'Course, it was Banner who said he could strangle Wanda when no one else was openly threatening her. Maybe if they had kept that Bruce around, the pairing might have worked better for other people, meaning people who are not me? I know it's popular to think Natasha and Barnes could work, but aren't they too similar where she and Bruce are too different? I'm genuinely asking, because it seems like between their matching histories (Hydra, killed a bunch of people, mostly reformed) it'd be unfeasible for different reasons. You could just as easily pair him up with Wanda and get the same similarities, except that Wanda doesn't have a long trail of casualties behind her. I think maybe if they hadn't had Banner Hulk out (thanks to Loki, but whatever) in The Avengers and nearly chase Nat down, there'd be fewer roadblocks in "fandom's" mind about the pairing. Fine to shoot her (twice) but anything else is off limits.

 

As for Vision/Wanda, that AoU managed to tie her to his origin within the movies is one of the things that made it work for me in Infinity War. I was okay with them before, and I've said this in the main thread, but there was an extra hurt in having to watch her destroy him, only to have her efforts reversed once she (should have been) finished. For all intents and purposes, she helped create him, and though by the time we catch up with them again they've been on their proverbial honeymoon, their affection and care were completely believable. I'm not sure where the difference lies in that they work where  many MCU couples don't.

[SimoneS]

3 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

As for Vision/Wanda, that AoU managed to tie her to his origin within the movies is one of the things that made it work for me in Infinity War. I was okay with them before, and I've said this in the main thread, but there was an extra hurt in having to watch her destroy him, only to have her efforts reversed once she (should have been) finished. For all intents and purposes, she helped create him, and though by the time we catch up with them again they've been on their proverbial honeymoon, their affection and care were completely believable. I'm not sure where the difference lies in that they work where  many MCU couples don't.

I forgot about Vision and Wanda's romance which was actually quite sweet.

About Bruce: I don't think that he is merely comic relief. We see his darkness in Avengers where we learn that that he had tried to kill himself and that he was always angry. In Thor, we see that he has been lost in the Hulk for two years and is terrified that he will never come back if he ever becomes the Hulk again. In Infinity War, we witness his ongoing struggle with the Hulk. None of the movie creators allow him to wallow because as @Cobalt Stargazer pointed so many other characters have their own emotional drama going on and besides MCU doesn't own the film distribution rights to the Hulk so it isn't going to make a movie to focus on his romance with Natasha. I still like them a couple. Hopefully, they get a chance to hash things out in Infinity War 4.

Edited September 3, 2018 by SimoneS

[festivus]

9 hours ago, ChromaKelly said:

I would like to see Bucky/Natasha explored in the upcoming Black Widow movie. I don't ship them for present day MCU, but I'm interested to see what kind of past they have. I can also get behind Sam/Nat.

Yeah I feel the same. I think past Bucky and Nat could be interesting but there's nothing there that I want to see explored in the present day. I haven't seen anything on screen yet that would make me think that Bucky is ready for a relationship and the idea of Sam and Nat is more interesting to me. I think they could be good for each other.

[Wynterwolf]

3 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I know it's popular to think Natasha and Barnes could work, but aren't they too similar

That's actually the biggest issue I have with the MCU versions of Bucky and Nat as a romantic couple, because they are essentially the same character (with very similar emotional backgrounds and similar personality traits) and I tend to respond more to the relationship between characters that are complementary to each other, and who fit together more like puzzle pieces rather than are carbon copies of each other. 

I think that's why I like Nat with Hawkeye (if he were't married), because he's more of an idealist while she a supreme pragmatist, with Bruce, because he's sciency/dealing in facts, while she's all about manipulating other's emotions, or Sam (for reason's previously stated).  Or even Tony (if Pepper weren't in the picture), with him being so wildly erratic, while she's all about control.  And I've seen some interesting fic explorations of Nat with Sharon (which I actually thought worked really well), and if we did have more women characters that actually interacted more with each other, there would probably be a few more viable opportunities.  I think Nat works with Steve too, but they spent so much time developing them as a platonic friendship, and that works so well for me both because of how so much of Nat's relationships are based on her using her sexuality that she's been 'taught' from such a young age to her advantage, and because Steve comes across to me as more Asexual/Demisexual and I love that version of him, that I'm good with what canon has given me with them and I don't feel any urge to extrapolate further. 

54 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

I forgot about Vision and Wanda's romance which was actually quite sweet.

 I thought so too, and I think that shows that they can do better, if they want to, since in Vision and Wanda's case, they needed the 'romance' to work for actual story purposes...  

59 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

About Bruce: I don't think that he is merely comic [r]elief.

Oh, yeah... I don't either.  And I'm actually really interested to see how they bring his story to it's conclusion after Ragnarok and IW.  Bruce's arc has been one of the one's I've been most caught up in, and I think that's another reason why the Bruce/Nat thing works for me, to see how his relationship with her might help him come to terms with his 'monster' the way that she has.  

[SimoneS]

I am confident that Disney isn't crying about Bautista not wanting to do any more of its films. The Warriors Three were killed off in Raganok without a second thought and we still don't know the fate of Lady Sif. Drax will just join them on the list of the dead/missing.  Bautista is lucky that he has wrestling to fall back on because he just narrowed his potential acting jobs.

[anna0852]

I like the guy but I agree. 

Actually I was thinking that because Drax requires the portrayer to be in full body make-up, that role can be recast. All they need is someone with the same build and decent voice skills. I wouldn't recognize Dave Bautista on the street since I don't follow wrestling at all.

[KatWay]

it's funny cause I actually thought Bruce and Natasha had a lot of chemistry in Avengers 1, and I think they were even somewhat popular in fanfiction etc., although most seemed to go for Clint/Natasha (before we knew he was married) since their connection was so much more established. But Ultron didn't handle them well. I can't even pinpoint what they did, cause individually some of the scenes worked for me, but it felt like too much too soon and not organic. Maybe if they'd only hinted at it, but stronger and kept it platonic for the second film they could have explored it more later.

Romance remains a weak point for the MCU tbh. Pepper & Tony work, but also because of the actors really selling it, and Peggy & Steve were really great too. I could even get on board with Peter & Gamora. Other than that...eh.

[ChromaKelly]

1 hour ago, SimoneS said:

I am confident that Disney isn't crying about Bautista not wanting to do any more of its films. The Warriors Three were killed off in Raganok without a second thought and we still don't know the fate of Lady Sif. Drax will just join them on the list of the dead/missing.  Bautista is lucky that he has wrestling to fall back on because he just narrowed his potential acting jobs.

Agree. Depending on what happens in A4, they could have an easy way of writing Drax out by having him choose to stay with his family in the soul stone realm/other dimension/whatever. 

I mean I like Drax and all, but he’s not the main character. Guardians can go on without him. I get why Bautista is so loyal to Gunn and if that’s his choice, more power to him. But Disney will make the next movie without him once all this dies down.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Maybe this should go in the Unpopular Opinion Thread, but if they were able to bring over that ARSEHOLE Ross, then I want to see Betty! I’ve always loved Bruce/Hulk and Betty since the ‘toons in the late ‘70s. Sue Me.

[SimoneS]

12 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

Agree. Depending on what happens in A4, they could have an easy way of writing Drax out by having him choose to stay with his family in the soul stone realm/other dimension/whatever. 

I like this. It is probably too late to re-edit Infinity War 4, but I bet they could easily do this as they set up next Guardians movie. Just have the Guardians say that they will miss Drax, but am glad that he is able to be with his family. The positive is that this will allow them to expand Nebula's role and have her join the Guardians full-time.

[Spartan Girl]

15 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Maybe this should go in the Unpopular Opinion Thread, but if they were able to bring over that ARSEHOLE Ross, then I want to see Betty! I’ve always loved Bruce/Hulk and Betty since the ‘toons in the late ‘70s. Sue Me.

Yes! Who better to take down Ross than his own daughter? I would love it if the post credits scene of Avengers 4 had her giving Fury or Rhodey a flash drive of evidence of his involvement in Abomination, etc, and getting him deposed faster than you can say "court martial."

[starri]

51 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

I like this. It is probably too late to re-edit Infinity War 4, but I bet they could easily do this as they set up next Guardians movie.

I believe the Russos have said there won't be a final edit for another six months.

[Wynterwolf]

7 minutes ago, starri said:

I believe the Russos have said there won't be a final edit for another six months.

Yeah, they scheduled the reshoots for September.  

[SimoneS]

1 hour ago, starri said:

I believe the Russos have said there won't be a final edit for another six months.

 

1 hour ago, Wynterwolf said:

Yeah, they scheduled the reshoots for September.  

In that case, it should be easy to write out Bautista. All the Guardians dusted can reunite with Rocket except for Drax who they can say decided to stay with his family, end of.

Edited September 3, 2018 by SimoneS

[Kel Varnsen]

5 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I am confident that Disney isn't crying about Bautista not wanting to do any more of its films. The Warriors Three were killed off in Raganok without a second thought and we still don't know the fate of Lady Sif. Drax will just join them on the list of the dead/missing.  Bautista is lucky that he has wrestling to fall back on because he just narrowed his potential acting jobs.

I hope they don't write out Drax. He is my favourite Guardian. His comic moments are always hilarious. Plus he is way more important to the Guardians' story than the Warriors 3 were to Thor's. An equivalent character to those guys in Guardians would be like John C. Reilly's character.

2 hours ago, SimoneS said:

 

In that case, it should be easy to write out Bautista. All the Guardians dusted can reunite with Rocket except for Drax who they can say decided to stay with his family, end of.

Why would he be with his family? They were killed and he was dusted. Has anyone said that dead people and dusted people go to the same afterlife. Or that there even is an afterlife?

[Vera]

5 hours ago, KatWay said:

I can't even pinpoint what they did, cause individually some of the scenes worked for me, but it felt like too much too soon and not organic.

 

I'm not going to speak for you, but for me, it was the:

1) Boob-face plant

2) The creepy Hulk lullaby. 

3)) The Monster/sterilization conversation

4) The Damseling of Natasha all so Bruce could show up. 

5) Bruce not wanting to turn into Hulk and Natasha forcing him into it

I may be forgetting some too.

Oh, you can add the 17 year age gap between SJ and MR too.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Vera

[Wynterwolf]

15 minutes ago, Vera said:

I'm not going to speak for you, but for me, it was the:

Oh yeah, I would definitely agree there were a lot of execution issues in AoU, but I have tended to put those down to Joss (especially the boob face plant and the "monster" conversation, because just ugh) and not the pairing itself (particularly since I have seen it handled well in fic).  And I'll admit that age difference between characters like Shuri and Bucky or some of the other ones are a definite no-go for me too, but if either or both are over early-ish 20s, that doesn't really bother me and it's more about maturity and whether I feel like personalities are compatible.  

[Cobalt Stargazer]

14 minutes ago, Vera said:

Oh, you can add the 17 year age gap between SJ and MR too.

I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything, unless your point is that at fifty Ruffalo is geriatric.

And I disagree that Nat was damseled, since she's the one who assembled the parts from one of Ultron's clones to tell the others where he'd taken her. If anything, you should fault Clint for picking up on her signal and informing everyone she was in Sokovia, not Bruce, who was busy trying to help Tony unfuck what they'd so spectacularly fucked up. She took an active part in trying to be rescued instead of sitting back and waiting for "the boys" (read: Stark and Rogers) to stop yelling at each other over what should be done next.

[ChromaKelly]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I hope they don't write out Drax. He is my favourite Guardian. His comic moments are always hilarious. Plus he is way more important to the Guardians' story than the Warriors 3 were to Thor's. An equivalent character to those guys in Guardians would be like John C. Reilly's character.

Why would he be with his family? They were killed and he was dusted. Has anyone said that dead people and dusted people go to the same afterlife. Or that there even is an afterlife?

Eh, I was just guessing that dusted people go to the afterlife or some soul dimension. It's just speculation.

[stealinghome]

10 hours ago, Wynterwolf said:

and if we did have more women characters that actually interacted more with each other, there would probably be a few more viable opportunities.  I think Nat works with Steve too, but they spent so much time developing them as a platonic friendship, and that works so well for me

Natasha/Maria Hill is the hill I will die on (pun very much intended!). The ultimate spy and the ultimate soldier.

I agree that Natasha has more chemistry with Steve than with any other male character, but also that I want them to remain best bros and nothing else. If I had to pick a guy for Natasha in the current MCU, I'd probably go for Sam.

9 hours ago, KatWay said:

it's funny cause I actually thought Bruce and Natasha had a lot of chemistry in Avengers 1, and I think they were even somewhat popular in fanfiction etc., although most seemed to go for Clint/Natasha (before we knew he was married) since their connection was so much more established. But Ultron didn't handle them well. I can't even pinpoint what they did, cause individually some of the scenes worked for me, but it felt like too much too soon and not organic. Maybe if they'd only hinted at it, but stronger and kept it platonic for the second film they could have explored it more later.

I put a lot of the weakness of Natasha/Bruce in Ultron down to Mark Ruffalo's acting, tbh. Scarlett Johansson tried her hardest to sell the romance and generate chemistry but there was zero coming from Ruffalo's end, and having Nat pursue Bruce so hard when he seemed fundamentally uninterested was just not organic to Natasha's character. I also agree that they felt rushed as a couple. It's one of the weaknesses of the MCU--you don't really get that long-form storytelling that you can do in comics or TV, where you have months/years of build-up--but I also don't see Bruce and Natasha as characters that would enter into a romance with each other without being, like, 1000% sure that they are in love and want to be together. I could see both of them casually dating other people, don't get me wrong, but I think they'd both be aware of how much is at stake if they dated each other, and would have to be quite sure to take the leap. And I don't think either of them was there in Ultron.

[SimoneS]

17 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Why would he be with his family? They were killed and he was dusted. Has anyone said that dead people and dusted people go to the same afterlife. Or that there even is an afterlife?

Nothing is stopping MCU from claiming that the dusted people were with people who have died. It is merely one possible explanation for Drax's absence.

I don't see Drax as an indispensable character so I won't miss him. Disney is not going to bow to Bautista's whinging so if he keeps this up, it will just do the film without him. Unfortunately, his fans will have to accept his absence from future films.

Edited September 4, 2018 by SimoneS

[anna0852]

I think it's also important to remember that Scarlett was pregnant while filming Ultron and that some of the script choices had to be made to accommodate her condition. Such as being kidnapped by Ultron. What we saw involved needing three different stunt doubles and CG-ing her belly. I'm not sure we could have had a much more active Natasha in that movie.

[Silver Raven]

Quote

Nothing is stopping MCU from claiming that the dusted people were with people who have died. It is merely one possible explanation for Drax's absence.

Nobody died in Ant Man and the Wasp.

[cambridgeguy]

I'm sure Disney wants to make Guardians 3 and rake in the cash but the truth is they still have Spiderman, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Captain Marvel, and Dr. Strange to carry the ball into the next decade.  If the cast really draws a line in the sand it would probably be easier for them to just scrap the entire thing.

It's ironic that rather than following the usual playbook (we're very concerned, we're looking into it, etc.) and dragging their feet in the hope that everything would just blow over they decided to take decisive action and may have ended up causing themselves more damage.

[Raja]

1 hour ago, cambridgeguy said:

I'm sure Disney wants to make Guardians 3 and rake in the cash but the truth is they still have Spiderman, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Captain Marvel, and Dr. Strange to carry the ball into the next decade.  If the cast really draws a line in the sand it would probably be easier for them to just scrap the entire thing.

It's ironic that rather than following the usual playbook (we're very concerned, we're looking into it, etc.) and dragging their feet in the hope that everything would just blow over they decided to take decisive action and may have ended up causing themselves more damage.

Not to mention probably the primary long term planning of how to integrate the X-Men and Fantastic Four into the story  Even if they don't get the third movie during the year when they hoped to Guardians Vol III in the theatres.

[stealinghome]

Quote

Not to mention probably the primary long term planning of how to integrate the X-Men and Fantastic Four into the story  Even if they don't get the third movie during the year when they hoped to Guardians Vol III in the theatres.

Word--Marvel now has an absolute embarrassment of riches with the X-Men and Fantastic Four. They might actually welcome a new space on their upcoming slate to help get those movies off the ground.

I just don't see Marvel sitting around crying that GotG 3 is put on hold/may never happen, tbh. At this point Marvel has proven it can roll pretty much anything out there and still make a boatload of money and generally please the fans. Do I think they'd like GotG3 to happen and the Gunn outcry to die down? Of course. Do I think Marvel thinks it's some big tragedy or disaster if GotG3 ultimately doesn't happen? Fuck no. The Guardians franchise (and a good chunk of the cast) need(s) Marvel way more than Marvel needs the Guardians franchise/actors.

[Wynterwolf]

3 hours ago, cambridgeguy said:

It's ironic that rather than following the usual playbook (we're very concerned, we're looking into it, etc.) and dragging their feet in the hope that everything would just blow over they decided to take decisive action and may have ended up causing themselves more damage.

Disney is a global company who's brand is about providing entertainment to children, they have to look at how this plays worldwide, not just in the US.  

eta: Also, as soon as the first Captain Marvel trailer airs, I don't think this will be news anymore.  

Edited September 4, 2018 by Wynterwolf

[VCRTracking]

Since there's not going to be a GOTG 3(in the foreseeable future) I want Mantis to join the Avengers, just like she did in the comics.

[JessePinkman]

Hey, then maybe no one will call her ugly in a series of stupid subpar jokes.

Edit: Not that I think anyone thinks that Mantis or Pom is ugly, just that those jokes were grown inducing!

Edited September 4, 2018 by JessePinkman

[Cobalt Stargazer]

18 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I don't see Drax as an indispensable character so I won't miss him. Disney is not going to bow to Bautista's whinging so if he keeps this up, it will just do the film without him. Unfortunately, his fans will have to accept his absence from future films.

Whether Drax (or Bautista, for that matter) is indispensable or not, it's not like he's complaining that they haven't been paying him enough or that his name isn't higher up in the credits. Let's at least admit that Disney knew that Gunn made those remarks when they hired him, and either they didn't give a shit or....they didn't give a shit. Because that's really the only answer, that they knew and didn't care until they decided that they did care. I don't excuse the things Gunn said, but I don't pat Disney on the back either, not when the higher-ups had full knowledge and still said, "Yeah, let's give this guy a job."

 

4 hours ago, Wynterwolf said:

Disney is a global company who's brand is about providing entertainment to children, they have to look at how this plays worldwide, not just in the US. 

"Quill, your ship is filthy."

"Oh, she has no idea. If I had a blacklight, this would look like a Jackson Pollock painting."

Just saying.

[SimoneS]

20 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Whether Drax (or Bautista, for that matter) is indispensable or not, it's not like he's complaining that they haven't been paying him enough or that his name isn't higher up in the credits. Let's at least admit that Disney knew that Gunn made those remarks when they hired him, and either they didn't give a shit or....they didn't give a shit. Because that's really the only answer, that they knew and didn't care until they decided that they did care. I don't excuse the things Gunn said, but I don't pat Disney on the back either, not when the higher-ups had full knowledge and still said, "Yeah, let's give this guy a job."

Bautista is threatening not to fulfill his contract which by any measure is worse than his whinging about Gunn's firing. I keep seeing some fans claiming that Disney knew about Gunn's tweets when it hired him, yet that hasn't been reported by any media source as far as I can tell. Regardless I am not crying for Bautista, Gunn, or Disney. I only care about how this impacts the production of Marvel films. 

Edited September 4, 2018 by SimoneS

[Wynterwolf]

3 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Let's at least admit that Disney knew that Gunn made those remarks when they hired him,

I think it depends on who specifically you mean by "Disney".  I don't think we'll ever know exactly who knew what or when.  My suspicion is that this is partly related to the 'cultural difference' between 'Marvel Studios' and 'Disney' at the time JG was hired, and that 'Disney' is a lot more hands on now than they were then.  

[festivus]

58 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Whether Drax (or Bautista, for that matter) is indispensable or not, it's not like he's complaining that they haven't been paying him enough or that his name isn't higher up in the credits. Let's at least admit that Disney knew that Gunn made those remarks when they hired him, and either they didn't give a shit or....they didn't give a shit. Because that's really the only answer, that they knew and didn't care until they decided that they did care. I don't excuse the things Gunn said, but I don't pat Disney on the back either, not when the higher-ups had full knowledge and still said, "Yeah, let's give this guy a job."

You know, there's no way I believe they didn't know about those tweets. I know I've read that Gunn has said that working on these Guardians movies made him a better person even if he didn't exactly apologize specifically for the tweets* and I don't think he made any since he was hired. I think Disney handled this badly, they let a twitter witch-hunt by a right wing nut influence their decision. I think what would have been a better idea would have been just to roll with it, not bow down to pressure and use the whole thing to say, "look how working for us has changed this guy". I know I'll probably get dogged out for this opinion and it's not like I'm okay with those tweets but I think Disney made a knee-jerk wrong move here. Unless someone comes out and says something different, the guy is not an actual rapist or a pedophile. Everyone is free to not read offensive crap on Twitter. I don't. Also unless Gunn has actually harassed or assaulted someone in the workplace or anywhere else then this has nothing to do with #MeToo. I'm absolutely fine with Dave Bautista saying what he thinks about it. Also I think we're defeating the purpose of change if we can't allow people to change and keep holding them to what they said years ago. If Gunn still keeps tweeting that kind of stuff then yeah I'll reverse my opinion of him just like I would anyone else.

 

*I think he didn't apologize before the firing but after he did https://www.indiewire.com/2018/07/james-gunn-responds-disney-fired-guardians-of-the-galaxy-1201986202/

 

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist-rights/people-are-questioning-disneys-inconsistent-values-james-gunn-was-fired-over-tweets-john-lasseter-is-still-employed-162146.html

after reading stuff like this it remains my opinion that Disney can suck it. Hypocrites.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Wynterwolf said:

I think it depends on who specifically you mean by "Disney".

I don't think being specific matters. If the reason behind Gunn's firing is that Disney is a global company who provides entertainment for children (see above quote from the first Guardians movie) then it doesn't matter who decided to pull the plug on him directing their movies or when they knew about the tweets. The first Guardians movie came out in 2014. Disney acquired Marvel in 2009. Gunn posted those tweets something like a decade ago. At the very least, they had five years during which they could have done some vetting or had a discovery process or something, not all of a sudden somebody just 'found' those tweets in the quagmire that is the internet. Disney, as you say, is global, and I'm sure they've got lawyers and investigators and bean counters by the dozens. But sure, it takes some goon who wants to see him publicly shamed because of his politics and not the army of suits behind the Mouse House. It's just not believable to me.