The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I SWORE I wouldn't add anything more, but one last thing: in the 70s, Steve grabbed a handful of the Pym time travel thingamajigs.

That's how he got to the bench.

Okay, shutting up for real, because, like you, I can't believe we're all still debating over this. And I still love Steve!

Even if he didn't grab a handful of he lived his life in an alternate universe, alt-Hank Pym or Howard Stark could have surely hooked him up.

As for Pym particles, the real plot whole is how Scott had any left to turn into Giant Man at the end of the movie.

[festivus]

I meant in the general sense that we still have to debate something that it seems that even the writers and directors didn't agree on. Like, I think it should have been one vision.  Communicate! 

I do remember him taking the vials, and I guess even if they used them he'd be able to get more from Hank in his new timeline.

Quote

Even if he didn't grab a handful of he lived his life in an alternate universe, alt-Hank Pym or Howard Stark could have surely hooked him up.

My slow posting strikes again. 

[FnkyChkn34]

40 minutes ago, festivus said:

I meant in the general sense that we still have to debate something that it seems that even the writers and directors didn't agree on. Like, I think it should have been one vision.  Communicate! 

Hopefully this is what the Loki show will correct/clarify?  Let's cross our fingers!

[Abra]

Remember before Endgame was released and people were joking that Thanos could be destroyed by Scott going Ant-Man sized, flying up Thanos's butt, and then turning into Giant-Man? I would have happily accepted an entire movie where the whole team brainstormed how to make that happen, rather than what we ended up with (and not just because of Steve's ending, I hated most of Endgame).

Also, I want another reference to the fact that Sebastian Stan the actor exists in the MCU. It would be way too meta, but also hilarious if The Falcon and the Winter Soldier had a parallel plotline to Sam pretending to be "Smiling Tiger" where Bucky has to impersonate HTTM actor Sebastian Stan.

And finally, a question: does anyone know specifically how Sharon is Peggy's niece? Since both have the last name Carter they should be related by blood, right? In Agent Carter, Peggy had a brother Michael who was supposedly killed during WWII before Peggy joined the SSR, and I remember having the sense the show was going to have that be a lie in the future seasons they never got. So he could have been Sharon's grand/great-grand father.

[scarynikki12]

It wasn’t broken down but Sharon is her grandniece. Since it was implied her brother was still alive I assumed he’d have returned in a season 3 of Agent Carter or that Peggy would learn he’d married before dying and her pregnant sister in law would come to visit and end up staying with her. 

[festivus]

38 minutes ago, Abra said:

And finally, a question: does anyone know specifically how Sharon is Peggy's niece? Since both have the last name Carter they should be related by blood, right? In Agent Carter, Peggy had a brother Michael who was supposedly killed during WWII before Peggy joined the SSR, and I remember having the sense the show was going to have that be a lie in the future seasons they never got. So he could have been Sharon's grand/great-grand father.

Yeah, I thought the same that they were going to do something with the brother. It's a damn shame that show got cancelled. The second season wasn't as good as the first but I think they could have turned it around. I still say they could reboot it. Just set it to like 5 or so years later to the mid 50s.

[Danny Franks]

6 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Did he grab a handful though?  I thought Smart Hulk said something about only having enough for him to go put the stones and Mjolnir back, and return...  but I could be confusing that with when they only had enough for their first trips to get the stones.  I'll buy it though that he had the ability to time travel to return.  It's really the only logical answer IMO at this point.

He didn't need to grab them in the past, though. By the time Steve is ready to go and return the stones, Hank is back and would have made more of the Pym Particles.

I can't remember the actual dialogue but I don't think Hulk said anything about the particles being limited, for that trip, just that Steve had to make sure he returned the Stones to the exact moment they were taken. Steve was probably well equipped with all the particles he'd need, and then some.

Edited April 8, 2021 by Danny Franks

[Perfect Xero]

The Steve and Peggy ending would have worked better for me if Peggy had been an actual character in the film rather than just someone Steve is looking at a picture of and watching through a window, have her get pulled into the future with Steve and Tony somehow and join the rest of the plot of the film.

[Brn2bwild]

I'm seeing all kinds of stuff about the multiverse, and can't tell whether I should take it seriously or not:

Spoiler

The latest is that Toby Maguire was on the set of Dr. Strange 2 (alternately, I've seen "hints" that he is in Spiderman: No Way Home) as an alternate Spiderman.  Another thing I read was that Evan Peters was on the set of Dr. Strange 2. Is Marvel screwing with fans?  Are fans reading too much into things?

 

[FnkyChkn34]

29 minutes ago, Brn2bwild said:

I'm seeing all kinds of stuff about the multiverse, and can't tell whether I should take it seriously or not:

  Reveal spoiler

The latest is that Toby Maguire was on the set of Dr. Strange 2 (alternately, I've seen "hints" that he is in Spiderman: No Way Home) as an alternate Spiderman.  Another thing I read was that Evan Peters was on the set of Dr. Strange 2. Is Marvel screwing with fans?  Are fans reading too much into things?

 

Any chance that:

Spoiler

those actors are playing different roles?  If Tobey Maguire is not in Spiderman 3, but is just in Dr. Strange 2, he could be someone entirely different? 

I think Evan Peters has now been established as a character in the MCU though.  Since Wanda is confirmed to be in Dr. Strange 2, he could easily be playing his WandaVision character - which I guess could either be Ralph Bohner or FauxPietro.  Interesting.

 

[Raja]

1 hour ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Any chance that:

  Reveal spoiler

those actors are playing different roles?  If Tobey Maguire is not in Spiderman 3, but is just in Dr. Strange 2, he could be someone entirely different? 

I think Evan Peters has now been established as a character in the MCU though.  Since Wanda is confirmed to be in Dr. Strange 2, he could easily be playing his WandaVision character - which I guess could either be Ralph Bohner or FauxPietro.  Interesting.

 

After Marvel got some pushback for trolling would Sony do the same?

[FnkyChkn34]

9 hours ago, Raja said:

After Marvel got some pushback for trolling would Sony do the same?

Sorry, but please remind me what Sony has to do with it?  Do they still own Spiderman?  This whole thing is confusing... 🤔

[Raja]

19 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Sorry, but please remind me what Sony has to do with it?  Do they still own Spiderman?  This whole thing is confusing... 🤔

Yes Sony owns the movie rights to most things related to Marvel's most popular character. So Feige has to deal with them as it is the only pushback from him having total control over live action Marvel. Since Sony wants the shared universe money from their Spider-Man related projects they do make demands upon Disney/Feige and was about to take their goose laying the golden eggs back, leaving Feige without his superstar 

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

Yes Sony owns the movie rights to most things related to Marvel's most popular character. So Feige has to deal with them as it is the only pushback from him having total control over live action Marvel. Since Sony wants the shared universe money from their Spider-Man related projects they do make demands upon Disney/Feige and was about to take their goose laying the golden eggs back, leaving Feige without his superstar 

Interesting.  But that would be fine with me.  While I like Tom Holland, Spiderman is far from my favorite Marvel character; definitely doesn't even  make my top 10.  They can go ahead and stop making his movies, I wouldn't care. 😄

[Jazzy24]

14 hours ago, Raja said:

Yes Sony owns the movie rights to most things related to Marvel's most popular character. So Feige has to deal with them as it is the only pushback from him having total control over live action Marvel. Since Sony wants the shared universe money from their Spider-Man related projects they do make demands upon Disney/Feige and was about to take their goose laying the golden eggs back, leaving Feige without his superstar 

Spider-Man might be Marvel’s most recognizable and popular character but it haven’t been movie wise in a long time. 
 

Feige doesn’t need Spider-Man he wanted him. Nor does the MCU need Spider-Man. Feige has taken B, C, and even D list Marvel characters and turned them into household names while Other superhero franchises have counted on one or even two characters for decades to make movies. 
 

Now Feige is not the be all when it comes to movies but he is the one that gave Sony their biggest box office ever(Spider-Man Far From Home) Feige does not need live action Spider-Man at all.  

[Danny Franks]

On 4/8/2021 at 3:55 PM, Raja said:

Yes Sony owns the movie rights to most things related to Marvel's most popular character. So Feige has to deal with them as it is the only pushback from him having total control over live action Marvel. Since Sony wants the shared universe money from their Spider-Man related projects they do make demands upon Disney/Feige and was about to take their goose laying the golden eggs back, leaving Feige without his superstar 

It might all end up being academic if Tom Holland decides he doesn't want to do any more Spider-Man movies after his current contract is up. The MCU won't want a rebooted Sony Spider-Man to fit into their next phase, they'll stop featuring him altogether.

Which would play into Sony's hands, as they do want to keep the rights, and want this shared universe (which will suck, if Venom is any indicator). It won't matter too much to them if they have to reboot Spider-Man for a third time, and they'll be able to create a version that fits their vision of a Spider-verse even better.

But it won't make as much money, or be as sustainable, as the MCU. No other superhero franchise has been, nor will be. Feige's vision and ability to bring in the right people at almost every turn has outstripped anything that studios have done before with franchises.

Having said that, I think it truly sticks in Marvel's craw that they don't own the rights to all their characters, and that they can't put the Bendis Avengers on screen (not that I'd want them. Wolverine is already in too many things). Spider-Man and his supporting cast are the only ones they haven't been able to get back and, after the X-Men, Spidey has been Marvel's franchise character for a long time. This agreement to share him seems to be the closest they can get unless Disney buy Sony Studios.

I suspect they'll end up saying, 'sure, Spider-Man can appear in your shitty Venom movie, or with Black Cat and Silver Sable, but we're not going to have any of the MCU characters appear in them, and we don't want your versions of these characters in the MCU either.'

 

[Morrigan2575]

30 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

This agreement to share him seems to be the closest they can get unless Disney buy Sony Studios.

Don't be surprised if that's the next step. 😂

[swanpride]

I actually think that the MCU can get away with recasting Holland. It is not ideal, but if they "age up" the character, they could use a different actor without too much fuss around it.

[xaxat]

From the legal beat on twitter.

 

[scarynikki12]

Courtesy of Lord Mesa:

 

[Matt K]

On 4/9/2021 at 12:31 PM, Morrigan2575 said:

Don't be surprised if that's the next step. 😂

Funny enough, before Fox went up for sale, Sony was considering selling off it's movie studio.  Sony Pictures had been doing terribly before Homecoming.  That said, I believe Sony Pictures still isn't doing great financially so I wouldn't be surprised to see it sold eventually. 

[Captain Carrot]

4 hours ago, Matt K said:

Funny enough, before Fox went up for sale, Sony was considering selling off it's movie studio.  Sony Pictures had been doing terribly before Homecoming.  That said, I believe Sony Pictures still isn't doing great financially so I wouldn't be surprised to see it sold eventually. 

I doubt that Disney would buy it. (There's a point where you're competing with yourself). However, they would almost certainly use the opportunity to buy back the rights to Spider-Man.

[Matt K]

3 minutes ago, Captain Carrot said:

I doubt that Disney would buy it. (There's a point where you're competing with yourself). However, they would almost certainly use the opportunity to buy back the rights to Spider-Man.

Agreed.  Besides Spider-man there's little worth buying for Disney plus I'd imagine the rights to Spider-man revert no matter what if the studio is sold.  That said, all Sony has moviewise is Ghostbusters, Jumanji and Men in Black plus a couple animated movies (mainly Hotel Transylvania and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs).  So it's possible they might just sell the ip's.  The only real buyers for the studio would probably be Comcast or Disney.  WB is mess right now due to AT&T losing a ton of money and CBS/Viacom isn't doing much better.  I guess there's Netflix or some smaller company picking the rights up.  

 

That said, Sony Pictures is looking at a promising year with Spider-Man and Ghostbusters.  Plus Venom which the first movie did decent enough.  2022 has some potential hits as well (Spiderverse, Hotel Transylvania 4) plus Sony starting to use their video game IP's for movies which has potential.  So it's possible they could float around for a while.  

[Spartan Girl]

Rewatched The Avengers and Age of Ultron and knowing what we suspected all along about Whedon makes me side eye the hell out of the choices to have Natasha fight off those goons interrogating her in the little black dress and sticking Pepper in the Daisy Dukes. 

Ultron does get points for the sarcastic “I’m glad you asked that because I wanted to take this time to explain my evil plan.” Thank you, that trope is so stupid and contrived.

[anna0852]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Rewatched The Avengers and Age of Ultron and knowing what we suspected all along about Whedon makes me side eye the hell out of the choices to have Natasha fight off those goons interrogating her in the little black dress and sticking Pepper in the Daisy Dukes. 

Glad I'm not the only one. Though I suspect Whedon behaved himself (at least for Avengers) as there were certainly larger and more powerful names attached to this project that carried more clout than JW did at the time. Avengers was a gamble and I doubt Kevin Feige was going to put up with any BS.

Edited April 12, 2021 by anna0852

[Captain Carrot]

8 hours ago, Matt K said:

That said, all Sony has moviewise is Ghostbusters, Jumanji and Men in Black plus a couple animated movies

Sony owns all of the Columbia movies. I recently got the Columbia 4k collection volume 1. (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Dr. Strangelove, Lawrence of Arabia, Gandhi, A League of Their Own, and Jerry Maguire). And that's just a sampling of the library that anyone buying Sony would acquire.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Captain Carrot

[Guest]

4 hours ago, anna0852 said:

Glad I'm not the only one. Though I suspect Whedon behaved himself (at least for Avengers) as there were certainly larger and more powerful names attached to this project that carried more clout than JW did at the time. Avengers was a gamble and I doubt Kevin Feige was going to put up with any BS.

I think this is true. It also seems like Whedon was trying to prove critics of Age of Ultron wrong with Justice League. Ray Fisher has said the Whedon immediately brought up that people didn’t “get” Ultron. The JL actors had to deal with Whedon at his worst because he cared more about redeeming himself and proving the critics wrong than about making a good movie or the actors as people. 

[swanpride]

8 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

“I’m glad you asked that because I wanted to take this time to explain my evil plan.” Thank you, that trope is so stupid and contrived.

Sure, but it has been pointed out that it is stupid for ages. Of the top of my mind, I can only think of one scene where the villain lays out his plan to the hero, and that is Zemo in The Winter Soldier. And there it makes completely sense because Zemo is stalling for time.

[VCRTracking]

21 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Rewatched The Avengers and Age of Ultron and knowing what we suspected all along about Whedon makes me side eye the hell out of the choices to have Natasha fight off those goons interrogating her in the little black dress and sticking Pepper in the Daisy Dukes. 

I always thought he had Pepper in  shorts and bare feet because she wouldn't look taller than RDJ. 

Marvel is really canny about turning weaknesses into strengths. For years there's been complaints about how in the movies certain characters were underutilized and talented actors wasted. Now they have streaming shows where these characters explored in depth and actors giving Emmy worthy performances!

 

[Bruinsfan]

Oh, the barefoot thing was well known in Whedon fandom long before all the really awful stuff started coming out. I remember noting when The Avengers was in theaters that Natasha AND Pepper were both shoeless in their introductory scenes. I was almost surprised Maria Hill kept her boots on the whole movie.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Bruinsfan

[Danny Franks]

22 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Rewatched The Avengers and Age of Ultron and knowing what we suspected all along about Whedon makes me side eye the hell out of the choices to have Natasha fight off those goons interrogating her in the little black dress and sticking Pepper in the Daisy Dukes. 

The "fall on top of her and shove your face between her boobs" shot was always uncomfortable, and is even more so now we know he forced Gal Gadot to replicate that shot in Justice League.

I'd also put money on either Xander or Wesley falling over and shoving their face between Cordy's boobs on Buffy or Angel. Probably more than once.

I guess it's supposed to convey sexual tension but it always comes off as incredibly juvenile and pathetic. Especially when it's grown adults in their thirties doing it.

21 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

Oh, the barefoot thing was well known in Whedon fandom long before all the really awful stuff started coming out. I remember noting when The Avengers was in theaters that Natasha AND Pepper were both shoeless in their introductory scenes. I was almost surprised Maria Hill kept her boots on the whole movie.

Yeah, Whedon has been open about that for a while. There were lots of lingering shots of Summer Glau's bare feet, in Firefly and Serenity. I used to think that Whedon was just a fan of the motif and the symbolism of it. Now I don't.

[FnkyChkn34]

Gwyneth Paltrow strikes me as someone who won't take crap from anyone else, and won't wear something she isn't comfortable wearing.  She was probably fine with the shorts and bare feet; they were billionaires living on a cliff overlooking the ocean in Malibu (I think it was Malibu), after all.  It would have been weirder if Pepper was wearing a snuggie and bunny slippers.

[Raja]

Am I bad for noticing Karen Page's bare feet in Punisher season 2?

[Ohiopirate02]

7 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Gwyneth Paltrow strikes me as someone who won't take crap from anyone else, and won't wear something she isn't comfortable wearing.  She was probably fine with the shorts and bare feet; they were billionaires living on a cliff overlooking the ocean in Malibu (I think it was Malibu), after all.  It would have been weirder if Pepper was wearing a snuggie and bunny slippers.

The character was at home getting ready to have some champagne with her man.  Barefoot works in that situation.

[swanpride]

...honestly, what is the deal with bare feet? They are only feet. Granted, the daisy dukes are maybe a little much, I would expect a professional women like Pepper to wear some sort of comfortable slacks instead, especially while being in New York working on a building project.

[Smad]

31 minutes ago, swanpride said:

...honestly, what is the deal with bare feet?

Maybe Whedon has a foot fetish?

On another note, I don't get why everyone is so gung-ho about that super soldier serum on TF&WS and wanting to get their hands on it. Just find yourself a witch and have her fashion a bracelet or necklace with whatever superpower you want. This way you avoid any nasty side effects (your body/psyche won't be effected even though the power isn't inherently yours) and you can probably take it off and put it on whenever you want.

[Morrigan2575]

3 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

Oh, the barefoot thing was well known in Whedon fandom long before all the really awful stuff started coming out. I remember noting when The Avengers was in theaters that Natasha AND Pepper were both shoeless in their introductory scenes. I was almost surprised Maria Hill kept her boots on the whole movie.

Wow, I honestly didn't know that. I actually liked the Natasha scene only because it showed that she was always in control/charge and, it setup the Nat/Loki later on.

 

3 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

The "fall on top of her and shove your face between her boobs" shot was always uncomfortable, and is even more so now we know he forced Gal Gadot to replicate that shot in Justice League.

I hated that. Then again I pretty much hated everything about Nat's storyline in Ultron. With the possible exception of Auntie Nat.

[stealinghome]

Quote

Wow, I honestly didn't know that. I actually liked the Natasha scene only because it showed that she was always in control/charge and, it setup the Nat/Loki later on.

This. I also like the first Natasha scene because the first time you watch it, it suckers you, the audience member, into thinking she's in dire straights...only to reveal to you that you've underestimated her too. We, the audience, are the idiot sexist Russians in that scene, and we deserve to get bopped on the nose for it. (At least if you don't see the role reversal coming, which I would guess most general audience members didn't--probably many posters here did, but we tend to be way more genre-savvy than the GA.) I love that.

I didn't mind Pepper being in shorts in her first scene in Avengers, either. It's like 7-8pm in the evening and she and Tony were about to have a "quiet night in." Why would she be dressed like she's heading off to a board meeting? It's not like she's dressed down in the scene later on the plane, when she clearly is off on official SI business.

Whedon is a scumbag, but that doesn't mean every little thing he's done with every female character ever is wrong or weird somehow. Frankly, in Avengers, I think way more offensive to Natasha's character is the scene where the Helicarrier is blowing up and after she escapes from the Hulk, she apparently just...sits around for 10 minutes because she's so shaken from what just transpired. Instead of, you know, going and helping stop the Helicarrier from blowing up. I hated that (and it was easily avoidable to boot--when you want her back in play to go after Hawkeye, just cut back to Natasha finishing tying some sort of impromptu bandage/support for her injured foot, making clear that she's been sidelined not by fear but because she couldn't physically go until that moment).

[Raja]

3 hours ago, swanpride said:

...honestly, what is the deal with bare feet? They are only feet. Granted, the daisy dukes are maybe a little much, I would expect a professional women like Pepper to wear some sort of comfortable slacks instead, especially while being in New York working on a building project.

It could be the more narrow foot, the generally longer hair. More fat in the breast.. The more exaggerated differences gain notice. Even in shoes women's dress exposes more of the foot than men's fashions worn to the same event. Any time I search for celebrity images  the option of their feet comes up.

[swanpride]

True. Also, I have to add, I actually don't mind some sexy shots of females in the Marvel movies because, well, it's just fair play in a movie series which seems to be set on giving the female audience a lot of shirtless well-built men to ogle. What bothers me more are things like it always having to be females who calm down the Hulk and the one time a man does it, it is played for laughs. Or that until Shuri came along, none of the female scientists in the MCU were actually allowed to contribute with their science. And don't get me started on the nonsense of Selvig thinking that he has any right to butt into Jane's private life or the Vulture claiming that he wants to do the "Dad talk" to Peter, and that being accepted as an acceptable thing by his daughter. I mean...really? (At least MJ would have reamed him a new one for that one).

Thankfully those missteps have become less over time.

[Ailianna]

If you're a sixteen year old girl, a boyfriend getting the dad talk is pretty normal. A parent telling a date/significant other not to break their child's heart isn't out of lube. Its a weird line between child and adult where parents are still supposed to protect their kids while letting them start stretching their wings. What's should be wrong is not looking out for some the same way. 

[swanpride]

From my perspective, this is not normal. Normal is to prepare your children early on for what it means to be dating and then leave them to it. Like, when I was 15, I was travelling without my parents the first time, and they gave me a package of condoms on the way, just in case. THAT is normal, The dating life of your children is not your business, unless they come to you and want to talk about it. Granted, I am not an American, but that doesn't change the fact that the "Dad talk" is inherently sexist. Especially since there isn't some sort of "mom talk" for the girlfriend of your son to balance it out.

Edited April 14, 2021 by swanpride

[Kel Varnsen]

6 hours ago, swanpride said:

Or that until Shuri came along, none of the female scientists in the MCU were actually allowed to contribute with their science

Even though she wasn't really on screen in the first movie, they made it clear that Janet Van Dyne was Hank Pym's partner in the first movie. They even say she helped design the Wasp suit in the post credits scene. So she was contributing.

[Spartan Girl]

One of the great things about Thor Ragnarok is how Thor was just 100 percent done with Loki’s crap by that point. Don’t get me wrong, I love Loki, but his playing the victim, along with Thor repeatedly giving him chances only to be betrayed had gotten real old by that point. So I loved how Thor was finally able to turn the tables on another betrayal and stuck the shock tag on him. 

On the flip side, I feel like that was when Loki FINALLY started to realize that he’d been an asshole to his family. His reaction to Odin’s parting “I love you, my sons” was priceless, as was his face when Thor agreed that they should probably never see each other again because “it was what (Loki) always wanted.” Through all the movies, Thor, Frigga, and even Odin** told Loki over and over that he had always been loved, adopted or not, but he was too angry and entitled to listen. It was only when Thor finally seemed to give up on him for good that it finally sunk in.

**Yeah, yeah, Odin wasn’t Father of the Year, with his countless secrets and extreme approach to “tough love”, but still.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Spartan Girl

[FnkyChkn34]

I thought Vulture's "dad talk" was part of the schtick of him knowing that Peter is Spider-Man.  I think it was supposed to be cheesy and was the character's way of just buying time to figure out if he was right or not.  Did I read too much in to it?

[Abra]

10 hours ago, swanpride said:

until Shuri came along, none of the female scientists in the MCU were actually allowed to contribute with their science

I know a lot of us want to forget Age of Ultron, but this is Dr. Helen Cho erasure. (I wish she hadn't been a one-off character, I liked her.)

[SeanC]

On 4/12/2021 at 2:09 PM, Matt K said:

Agreed.  Besides Spider-man there's little worth buying for Disney plus I'd imagine the rights to Spider-man revert no matter what if the studio is sold. 

There’s be no reason such a clause would exist. Contractual rights of this sort are generally transferrable, and if the contract is with Sony’s film studio then there wouldn’t be anything being transferred anyway; it would be the studio itself changing hands.

Edited April 14, 2021 by SeanC

[swanpride]

…honestly, I never even perceived Hope as a scientist before the second movie, and even then I saw her more as an CEO which has vast scientific knowledge than as an inventor in her own right. Because it wasn't framed that way.

The closest we get to a scientist who is successful in their own right without some guy constantly holding her hand and without being shoved aside for a male scientist before Shuri is dr. Cho, and she only had a very minor role. Beforehand we had:

Betty Ross, who is apparently good enough to work with Bruce on the super soldier project, but not good enough to look for a cure for him. Like, she didn't even try in all the years he was on the run.

Jane Foster, who is apparently unable to survive without some older male scientist who looks out for her.

Darcy, who isn't even an actual scientist but supposedly majored in politics, not that any of her knowledge was at any point relevant in the Thor movie.

Thankfully the tune changed since Feige has control of the company, but man, did they drop the ball in that regard beforehand.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 minute ago, swanpride said:

honestly, I never even perceived Hope as a scientist before the second movie, and even then I saw her more as an CEO which has vast scientific knowledge than as an inventor in her own right. Because it wasn't framed that way.

I was talking about Janet her mom played by Michelle Pfeiffer. At the end of the first movie is when they say she helped design the Wasp suit for the daughter. But yea Hope is a CEO type who knows science from being in labs and such. 

[swanpride]

Yeah, but Janet is jet another female scientist who comes in tandem with another male character who holds her hand. Granted, that is another thing they fixed in the sequel (meaning after the Feige takeover) by showing her actively sciencing with Hank, showing her as an equal partner. But in the first movie, she was portrayed more as an attachment to him and the suit was completely credited to him.