The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[swanpride]

The spider-man situation is annoying, but honestly, I am very relaxed about it. I really would love to see this spider-man grow up and go through all the stages of adulthood (down to having a daughter eventually), and I really hope that this will happen, but there is actually very little reason why it shouldn't. The whole deal is a win/win situation for the two studios. Sure there will be negotiations and sure, sony will try to do their own thing by the side, but I am pretty sure they got more money out of Spider-man Far from home than out of Venom, even though they had to share. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

It does seem like a odd deal. I'm rather curious about it. I know it's not just Spider-Man on Disney+ the deal covered other movies that would start streaming on Hulu. 

It’s really not that unusual of a deal. Most of the focus was on Spider-Man and Disney+ but it’s a deal giving Disney the rights to Sony’s library. The complicated thing with movie deals is that the window is different for each movie based on its release date.

[Morrigan2575]

6 hours ago, Dani said:

It’s really not that unusual of a deal. Most of the focus was on Spider-Man and Disney+ but it’s a deal giving Disney the rights to Sony’s library. The complicated thing with movie deals is that the window is different for each movie based on its release date.

It's weird to me because they didn't get primary right to stream, they're behind Netflix which gets the movies first. Maybe they were more interested in the back catalog? 

Personally, I wish they'd add more stuff to Disney+ than Hulu, I don't have Hulu 😁

[Danny Franks]

Sony are riding a high on the Tom Holland movies, which were as successful as they are, in my opinion, because they're part of the MCU and share that aesthetic and lore.

If they choose to go their own way again, I have very little faith in anything they do with these characters, considering what Venom was. It felt very much like a throwback to early 2000s approached on comic book movies - overly serious and an attempt to say 'this isn't really like those comic books for kids.'

And none of the characters they have really work in isolation from Spider-Man, particularly the villains who are memorable because of the things they did to Spider-Man. They want to do a Kraven movie? Okay. Who gives a shit about Kraven as anything other than the villain who actually beat Spider-Man (after trying for about thirty years)?

What next? A Rhino movie? Green Goblin but without Spider-Man? I know they want to do Black Cat, but without Spider-Man she's just another woman in a black catsuit, fighting crime. And it seems like the only ways they can have Spider-Man to give these characters meaning is to cut ties with Marvel or to give Marvel control over them.

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

It's weird to me because they didn't get primary right to stream, they're behind Netflix which gets the movies first. Maybe they were more interested in the back catalog? 

Personally, I wish they'd add more stuff to Disney+ than Hulu, I don't have Hulu 😁

I don’t think it’s because Disney didn’t want the movies sooner but because Sony has a lot of power with the current streaming model. They are the largest studio without a streaming service so there was a lot of interest once their Starz deal ended. 

It’s just like when movies would premiere on HBO for awhile and than movie to other cable channels. Now streamers are buying those rights instead. 

5 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

Sony are riding a high on the Tom Holland movies, which were as successful as they are, in my opinion, because they're part of the MCU and share that aesthetic and lore.

If they choose to go their own way again, I have very little faith in anything they do with these characters, considering what Venom was. It felt very much like a throwback to early 2000s approached on comic book movies - overly serious and an attempt to say 'this isn't really like those comic books for kids.'

And none of the characters they have really work in isolation from Spider-Man, particularly the villains who are memorable because of the things they did to Spider-Man. They want to do a Kraven movie? Okay. Who gives a shit about Kraven as anything other than the villain who actually beat Spider-Man (after trying for about thirty years)?

What next? A Rhino movie? Green Goblin but without Spider-Man? I know they want to do Black Cat, but without Spider-Man she's just another woman in a black catsuit, fighting crime. And it seems like the only ways they can have Spider-Man to give these characters meaning is to cut ties with Marvel or to give Marvel control over them.

 

I agree. I’d loved to proven wrong but it seems like they are rushing forward on movies that don’t have a lot of interest. Personally, I think they should have used Into the Spiderverse to launch an animated Marvel franchise and then spin that into live action. 

[swanpride]

Small reminder that while Sony failed with their Spider-man live action projects lately, they have a nearly perfect track record when it comes to animated shows and movies (well, movie) featuring him. And they certainly could do a Spidergwen movie and people would be interested. There is room for Sony to expand while also grabbing the MCU money. 

[Tenshinhan]

11 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

And none of the characters they have really work in isolation from Spider-Man, particularly the villains who are memorable because of the things they did to Spider-Man. They want to do a Kraven movie? Okay. Who gives a shit about Kraven as anything other than the villain who actually beat Spider-Man (after trying for about thirty years)?

What next? A Rhino movie? Green Goblin but without Spider-Man? I know they want to do Black Cat, but without Spider-Man she's just another woman in a black catsuit, fighting crime. And it seems like the only ways they can have Spider-Man to give these characters meaning is to cut ties with Marvel or to give Marvel control over them.

 

Actually I think that all of the Sony villains can work in isolation from Spider-Man, especially Venom, Morbius, and Black Cat.  They don't need Spider-Man to function as can be seen in the comic books.  They are all great protagonists in their own right.  Also mainstream movie audiences won't care about any kind of Spider-Man connections in their backstories.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Tenshinhan

[Guest]

1 hour ago, swanpride said:

And they certainly could do a Spidergwen movie and people would be interested. There is room for Sony to expand while also grabbing the MCU money. 

There’s already a Spidergwen animated movie planned. 

[swanpride]

See? I didn't even know this, but it doesn't surprise me. There is a lot of room for Sony to play around...it is just that in the past they kept insisting on such nonsense as an Aunt May movie, instead of really thinking about which characters work in isolation if handled correctly and which don't. 

[Morrigan2575]

https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/marvel-movies-delayed-blade-captain-america-4/

Looks like Blade is pushed back to October 2023? Nothing specific announced but Blade being an October release does make sense

[swanpride]

Frankly, I am not in a hurry. I won't be able to go to the cinema before August. Black Widow and Eternals are more than enough to tide me over for this year. 

[Matt K]

On 5/27/2021 at 2:20 PM, cambridgeguy said:

They'll want to hedge their bets.  Sure, right now anything with Marvel associated with it turns into box office gold but sooner or later that bubble will burst.  Spiderman (Miles Morales version if they don't want to recast Peter) could easily be the future and is a much surer bet than another obscure character, especially if they're coming off a loss.

Man, I would be so excited for a Miles Morales movie.  It would actually fit in nicely with what the MCU is doing with Cap's and Iron-Man's legacies.  Plus being able to do more Spider-Man movies without having to do a reboot.  

[swanpride]

...I first want to see Peter grow up properly before killing him off....

[Morrigan2575]

2 hours ago, swanpride said:

...I first want to see Peter grow up properly before killing him off....

They don't have to kill him off to have Miles. Last I looked with the collapse of the Ultimate Universe, Miles Morales exists alongside Peter (I briefly read that title...or it might have been the Spidey- Pool title that featured both Miles and Peter (can't remember)).

Since Peter "died" and, we already had Miles in the Universe (name dropped in Homecoming) you could easily have Miles and Peter in the MCU...problem is they'd bother be teen spider-man LOL

Although at this point, unless Son agrees to renew the deal again it's all moot.

[Tenshinhan]

I doubt we'll ever see Peter Parker "grow up properly" in the MCU with Tom Holland in the role.  They seem committed to doing the "youthful" thing with him and the others without any regards to an adult Parker.  Maybe if they decided to recast with another actor in the future.  Otherwise I see a Miles Morales situation occurring more likely.

[Captain Carrot]

2 hours ago, Tenshinhan said:

I doubt we'll ever see Peter Parker "grow up properly" in the MCU with Tom Holland in the role.  They seem committed to doing the "youthful" thing with him and the others without any regards to an adult Parker.  Maybe if they decided to recast with another actor in the future.  Otherwise I see a Miles Morales situation occurring more likely.

I think we would get an adult Tom Holland Spider-Man in the MUC; IF he wanted to remain in the role long enough and Marvel owned the rights to Spider-Man. However, I don't see the partnership with Sony lasting long enough for it to be a possibility.

[Chyromaniac]

I suppose we'll have to see how things pan out.  Personally, I feel like all parties have to know how great a deal this is for everyone.  They've managed to give us a Spider-Man that can interact with the rest of the MCU - separating them would only diminish both.  This way, Sony gets to sell that MCU connection to audiences for whatever spin-offs they want to make.  Tom gets to keep being the star of a billion dollar franchise.  And Disney gets to retain access to arguably their most iconic - and merchandisable - Marvel character.

Along those lines, I think they must have some long term investment in Tom as Spider-Man that goes beyond just movies.  Specifically, they're about to open a new Avengers themed area of their California park, and the featured attraction is a 3-D shooter ride where guests "sling webs" with Spider-Man at virtual targets.  Presumably, that means that the ride will at least feature Holland's voice - but I wouldn't be surprised if he's actually on "screen" as well.  I guess it's possible that at some point they could rerecord whatever scenes they need with some other actor, or rework the ride around a different character (that's how they got a Guardians ride there after all).  Still, I can't imagine they'd do this if there was a chance for Tom or Sony to pull the rug out on them after only a couple years.

[AimingforYoko]

Thor: Love and Thunder wraps filming.

[Guest]

Will Spider-Man Ever Connect With Sony’s Other Marvel Movies? ‘There Actually Is a Plan,’ Says Exec

Quote

Panitch understands that the inherent tension in this convoluted nexus of intellectual property has engendered confusion and frustration among fans. While he remains circumspect about any details, Panitch is also candid that he expects that tension will soon be resolved…somehow — and that greenlighting “Kraven,” a character who’s also tussled with Venom in the comics, fills in another piece of that puzzle.

“There actually is a plan,” he says. “I think now maybe it’s getting a little more clear for people where we’re headed and I think when ‘No Way Home’ comes out, even more will be revealed.”

One of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood is that “No Way Home” will be diving headfirst into the multiverse, and incorporating characters from Sony’s earlier “Spider-Man” movies that starred Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield. Alfred Molina, for example, told Variety in April that he will be digitally de-aged in “No Way Home” to look like he did as the villain Doc Ock at the end of 2004’s “Spider-Man 2.”

 

[Racj82]

On 5/28/2021 at 7:28 PM, Tenshinhan said:

Actually I think that all of the Sony villains can work in isolation from Spider-Man, especially Venom, Morbius, and Black Cat.  They don't need Spider-Man to function as can be seen in the comic books.  They are all great protagonists in their own right.  Also mainstream movie audiences won't care about any kind of Spider-Man connections in their backstories.

I don't agree with that at all but I'm sure Sony thinks that.

[Bruinsfan]

12 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

Thor: Love and Thunder wraps filming.

I REALLY hope this doesn't mean that Watiti has upgraded his insufferable comic relief character to second lead...

[Morrigan2575]

5 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

I REALLY hope this doesn't mean that Watiti has upgraded his insufferable comic relief character to second lead...

What in the picture made you think Corg will have a big role? Did I miss something?

[Trini]

23 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

Thor: Love and Thunder wraps filming.

 

Dang -- was Helmsworth that big for the previous movies?

[AimingforYoko]

29 minutes ago, Trini said:

 

Dang -- was Helmsworth that big for the previous movies?

Well, he was in Endgame, just distributed differently.

[Bruinsfan]

19 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

What in the picture made you think Corg will have a big role? Did I miss something?

Just that I'm seeing a behind-the-scenes photo of Watiti geared up for his acting role before seeing one for, say, Natalie Portman. Or Tessa Thompson. Or Jamie Alexander.

[swanpride]

...he is the director. If I had the choice between a picture of the director and the main actor and one with both of them and the director is somehow dressed up for something, I would pick the latter. 

[Starfish35]

1 hour ago, Bruinsfan said:

Or Jamie Alexander.

Wait.  Somehow I think I missed that Sif was coming back in this one.  Or else I forgot.   But yay! More Sif!

[FnkyChkn34]

Hemsworth was posting a picture to announce that filming has wrapped.  Makes sense to me to pick one of the director, thanking him.  I don't think it means Taika has a huge role as an actor in the film. 🤷‍♀️

[AimingforYoko]

1 hour ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I don't think it means Taika has a huge role as an actor in the film. 🤷‍♀️

Maybe not, but it was a pic of him in his mo-cap suit, as opposed to his director's chair.

[Bruinsfan]

20 hours ago, Starfish35 said:

Wait.  Somehow I think I missed that Sif was coming back in this one.  Or else I forgot.   But yay! More Sif!

Let's just hope she's not summarily executed to make room for more jokes by Korg.

[FnkyChkn34]

18 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

Maybe not, but it was a pic of him in his mo-cap suit, as opposed to his director's chair.

According to the caption, Chris liked how he looked in the photo.  Pretty sure it was just Hemsworth's vanity on display here. 😉 

[Guest]

On 6/3/2021 at 8:50 AM, Bruinsfan said:

Just that I'm seeing a behind-the-scenes photo of Watiti geared up for his acting role before seeing one for, say, Natalie Portman. Or Tessa Thompson. Or Jamie Alexander.

There have been photos of all three woman on set released earlier. 

[Bruinsfan]

I'm glad to hear that; I haven't seen any, however. All I've seen is that pre-filming photo of Portman holding up Mjolnir with an arm about as thick as its handle, so that must have been taken at least a year ago.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

I'm glad to hear that; I haven't seen any, however. All I've seen is that pre-filming photo of Portman holding up Mjolnir with an arm about as thick as its handle, so that must have been taken at least a year ago.

There are a lot of set pictures and clips online. That is the first I’ve seen of Taika as Korg. 

This photo of Portman was getting a lot of attention a few months ago.

I haven’t seen set photos of Jamie Alexander but she spent 2 months filming in Australia so her role should be pretty significant. 

If your interested that Twitter account has a lot of set photos but many of them are spoilers. 

 

[Anduin]

Buff Portman looks like a bad photoshop job. Like, her head is on someone else's body.

[tv echo]

What will they think of next?...

Edited June 5, 2021 by tv echo

[Spartan Girl]

Watching the first Thor on TV, and I have to appreciate Loki’s “look at me, I’m so innocent” face when they’re investigating the Frost Giants crashing the coronation. Also the way he makes a big show of being exasperated at Thor’s half-assed invasion plan; you can just tell he’s laughing on the inside because he played him like a fiddle.

[swanpride]

Loki is easily the thing which rescues the movie. Thor's story is actually generic as hell, but seeing Loki struggling with his identity always makes it worth watching. 

[Spartan Girl]

6 hours ago, swanpride said:

Loki is easily the thing which rescues the movie. Thor's story is actually generic as hell, but seeing Loki struggling with his identity always makes it worth watching. 

On one hand, you do feel sorry for Loki. On the other hand, he used that revelation to project insecurities that already existed (i.e. feeling like everyone loved Thor more), ignoring the family’s numerous attempts to convince him that he is loved and trying to talk him out of it, and using it as justification to be an asshole.

People complain that Odin was “too rough” on Loki in The Dark World, but in fairness he murdered a bunch of people and tried to take over the Earth**. Plus, like I said before, he spent most of the first movie telling Loki that he was his son, regardless of birth, only to be rebuffed numerously. Can you blame him for hitting the roof with Loki long before Thor decided he had enough.

**Yes, Odin’s hands aren’t exactly clean of bloodshed and attempted domination but that’s beside the point.

[stealinghome]

Yeah, I've never gotten the "Odin is a terrible father, poor little lamb Loki!!!!" thing. From what I can tell, Odin's worst "sin" as a father was seeing that Loki wasn't leadership material (which he wasn't, as Loki himself went on to demonstrate in spades), and therefore not making Loki his heir. What a mean dude, who didn't want to make his crazy, betraying, psychopathic son the ruler of his land after he was gone!

[Bruinsfan]

On 6/4/2021 at 7:30 PM, Anduin said:

Buff Portman looks like a bad photoshop job. Like, her head is on someone else's body.

It really does, but props to her for the dedication to working out that must have taken. Based on those photos I think she added a higher percentage of her body mass as muscle than Hemsworth did.

[swanpride]

Eh...Odin did a little bit more than that. He never told Loki that he was adopted, he encouraged an environment in which Thor's abilities were celebrated and Loki's were put down and, worst of all, he taught his sons that Jotuns were savage beasts (or he allowed others to taught them that without ever countering the notion in any way). Loki is pretty much crazy, but he is crazy because he has been taught that his ancestry makes him automatically a monster. That doesn't make him innocent, but he is so messed up because of the way he was raised, and putting him in prison and throwing away the key would have never changed that. He needed therapy. 

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, swanpride said:

Eh...Odin did a little bit more than that. He never told Loki that he was adopted, he encouraged an environment in which Thor's abilities were celebrated and Loki's were put down and, worst of all, he taught his sons that Jotuns were savage beasts (or he allowed others to taught them that without ever countering the notion in any way). Loki is pretty much crazy, but he is crazy because he has been taught that his ancestry makes him automatically a monster. That doesn't make him innocent, but he is so messed up because of the way he was raised, and putting him in prison and throwing away the key would have never changed that. He needed therapy. 

Loki spent most of his childhood using his powers to stir up shit, as evidenced by Thor’s story about him turning him into a snake just to do a sneak attack and stab him. That kind of behavior shouldn’t exactly be praised. Not saying that Odin didn’t mess up in he taught Thor and Loki that the Jotuns were monsters, etc. Was it natural for Loki to feel betrayed when found out the truth? Of course. Is it an excuse to turn on the family that loved and raised you? Hell no.

2 hours ago, stealinghome said:

Yeah, I've never gotten the "Odin is a terrible father, poor little lamb Loki!!!!" thing. From what I can tell, Odin's worst "sin" as a father was seeing that Loki wasn't leadership material (which he wasn't, as Loki himself went on to demonstrate in spades), and therefore not making Loki his heir. What a mean dude, who didn't want to make his crazy, betraying, psychopathic son the ruler of his land after he was gone!

Yeah, Loki went on and on about how he’d be a much better king than Thor, but look how fast Asgard went to crap when he posed as Odin! Too busy stroking his ego with statues and dramatized plays glorifying his “death” to actually do the job!

[swanpride]

Sure, and Thor thought that this behaviour was funny. 

Loki is a complex character, which is exactly what makes him so interesting. 

[Guest]

Personally, I think Odin worst sin as a parent was saying thinks like, “Only one of you can ascend to the throne. But BOTH of you were born to be kings!” It’s not surprising Loki felt you could or should be King when he was raised being feed shit like that. 

[Kel Varnsen]

1 minute ago, Dani said:

Personally, I think Odin worst sin as a parent was saying thinks like, “Only one of you can ascend to the throne. But BOTH of you were born to be kings!” It’s not surprising Loki felt you could or should be King when he was raised being feed shit like that. 

I am pretty sure Odin's worst sin was going on an intergalactic murder rampage with his daughter. Then when he gets tired of it, locking her up and zero mention of it to her sons until his death. And then leaving them to clean up his fuck up.

And I think if two out of your three kids try to wipe out entire planets (even when they don't even know each other exist) then you are a crappy parent.

[Anduin]

12 minutes ago, Dani said:

Personally, I think Odin worst sin as a parent was saying thinks like, “Only one of you can ascend to the throne. But BOTH of you were born to be kings!” It’s not surprising Loki felt you could or should be King when he was raised being feed shit like that. 

ITA. Here's a better thing to say. "Thor will be king, but he needs a good advisor." If you teach Loki to be backup right from the start... well, it'd probably cause different problems. But at least it's an attempt.

[stealinghome]

8 hours ago, swanpride said:

Eh...Odin did a little bit more than that. He never told Loki that he was adopted, he encouraged an environment in which Thor's abilities were celebrated and Loki's were put down

I've never gotten that at all from the films. The Warriors Three might have given Loki a hard time for being a magician more than a warrior (though I've always thought that was more about big brother's friends teasing tag-a-long little brother than anything else), but that's very different than Odin "encourag[ing] an environment" in which Loki was habitually put down. I mean...Loki learned his magic from Frigga. I highly doubt Odin walked around encouraging everyone to put Frigga down. And Odin, as others on the thread have said, raised Loki telling him he was just as worthy of being king as Thor. I don't see Odin encouraging an environment where Loki was made to feel inferior at all.

I also don't think not telling Loki he was adopted automatically makes Odin a bad parent. Because there are a lot of parents who don't do that, and I'm super uncomfortable labeling them all "bad parents" with such a broad brush stroke.

8 hours ago, swanpride said:

Loki is pretty much crazy, but he is crazy because he has been taught that his ancestry makes him automatically a monster. That doesn't make him innocent, but he is so messed up because of the way he was raised, and putting him in prison and throwing away the key would have never changed that. He needed therapy. 

Loki was crazy, had inferiority issues, and was party to murder, all before he found out he was a Jotun. Nor did finding out he was a Frost Giant change any of his plans in Thor 1. His issues stem from being jealous/resentful of Thor, resentful enough to kill--which is HIS problem, not his parents'--and upset that Odin correctly pegged him as not king material (and in Loki's heart, he knows that Odin was right. It's why it bothers him so much).

DO agree Loki needs a huge helping of therapy. But he also deserved the prison time like whoa.

[swanpride]

Frigga is a women. The movies have been very clear about healing, magic aso being mostly the job of the women, while men draw their worth out of being warriors. Plus, it is pretty telling that the warrior three are Thor's friends, but not really Loki's. Which means that Loki has basically no friends of his own, he is just allowed to hang around the "cool gang" because his brother allows him to. (And yes, considering that there were Valkeries in the past the attitude towards women in Asgard makes zero sense, but we can thank a string of male writers who apparently never got the idea that in Asgard there might be a thing like gender equality for this one.).

I also don't think that it was Loki's intention to kill the guards. He said himself that they were killed because they didn't do their job properly. It's a typical "didn't think through the possible consequences" move from Loki. (That doesn't make it right, but he only became a mass murder after he learned of his heritage, and the readiness to kill the whole Jotun race was mostly born out of a desire to erase his true heritage and proof to be "better" than them. And that kind of thinking is completely due to his upbringing). 

[FnkyChkn34]

20 hours ago, swanpride said:

Eh...Odin did a little bit more than that. He never told Loki that he was adopted, he encouraged an environment in which Thor's abilities were celebrated and Loki's were put down and, worst of all, he taught his sons that Jotuns were savage beasts (or he allowed others to taught them that without ever countering the notion in any way). Loki is pretty much crazy, but he is crazy because he has been taught that his ancestry makes him automatically a monster. That doesn't make him innocent, but he is so messed up because of the way he was raised, and putting him in prison and throwing away the key would have never changed that. He needed therapy. 

Wait... I'm confused.  If Loki never knew he was adopted, then he didn't know is ancestry.  So if he learns that these other beings are monsters, but he doesn't know or have reason to think that he's one of them, how does that affect him? 

Loki is crazy because Loki is crazy - I'm pretty sure he was raised just like Thor.  I think it's an argument for nature vs. nurture, but Loki didn't learn all those "bad things" from Odin if he didn't know he was one of them.