The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[vb68]

 

I wonder when the saturation point will hit? When they'll find the movies encumbered with too many characters and too much baggage and too few fresh ideas. I kind of fear that Age of Ultron might be that point.

 

I feel confident that Ultron will do just fine.  I think Ant-Man will be more interesting from that standpoint. They changed directors.  It already has gotten a decidedly mixed reception in the press.  Marvel certainly didn't go out of its way to highlight it at their big press event a couple of months ago, etc.   I'm not saying it's going to flop, but man it does seem like the ugly stepchild.

.

And after that, Marvel will be competing more head on with all the DC films.  So yeah, interesting times ahead. 

[Danny Franks]

I feel confident that Ultron will do just fine.  I think Ant-Man will be more interesting from that standpoint. They changed directors.  It already has gotten a decidedly mixed reception in the press.  Marvel certainly didn't go out of its way to highlight it at their big press event a couple of months ago, etc.   I'm not saying it's going to flop, but man it does seem like the ugly stepchild.

.

And after that, Marvel will be competing more head on with all the DC films.  So yeah, interesting times ahead. 

 

I don't doubt that Age of Ultron will make a billion dollars at the box office. I think that's assured. But I'm talking more about the point where creativity starts to flag and come second place to commercial concerns. As I said, I think the amount of characters involve will leave many feeling shortchanged. I don't see how that many characters can be juggled effectively, especially when Joss didn't even really manage it in the first movie. Hawkeye was a glorified henchman (not that it bothered me, because Renner is so dull anyway). So if he's getting more to do, Natasha is getting more to do, the Maximoff twins are being introduced and the Vision is being introduced? Either the movie will have to be about three hours long, or something surely gets sacrificed somewhere.

 

As for the DC movies? I doubt more than three or four ever get made. They seem to have gone about it all the wrong way, and are building a house before they've even built the foundations. The only movie successes they've had, both financially and critically, were the Batman movies that aren't even a part of this new franchise. And as I've said before, using hacks like Zack Snyder to 'guide the vision' really isn't going to work out too well. Plus, DC already showed with their New 52 that they probably have a boardroom full of 15 year old boys guiding their creative direction.

[vb68]

 

As I said, I think the amount of characters involve will leave many feeling shortchanged. I don't see how that many characters can be juggled effectively

 

Well, they need to figure out how to handle many characters together with Infinity Wars I and II coming down the road.  I see Age of Ultron as a test for how those are going to look.

Edited December 21, 2014 by vb68

[Kel Varnsen]

 As I said, I think the amount of characters involve will leave many feeling shortchanged. I don't see how that many characters can be juggled effectively, especially when Joss didn't even really manage it in the first movie. Hawkeye was a glorified henchman (not that it bothered me, because Renner is so dull anyway). So if he's getting more to do, Natasha is getting more to do, the Maximoff twins are being introduced and the Vision is being introduced? Either the movie will have to be about three hours long, or something surely gets sacrificed somewhere.

 

 

I am wondering about that too. I mean this movie will have all the same characters as the last one except for Loki, the professor and maybe Coulson. But we are adding at least Vision, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Ultron, War Machine, the Hydra guy, and Klaw. Plus most of the returning characters will have more back story/baggage you will have to cover (since you can't really assume that everyone has seen all the solo movies. I am just not sure how they are going to have time for all those speaking roles.

[Kel Varnsen]

Anyone know when we can expect to see a trailer, or at least a teaser for Ant-Man? The Avengers trailer came out back in October and the movie is due in May. Ant-Man is due out in July so shouldn't we be seeing a trailer soon?

 

Also following up on my last post it looks like the professor (Selvig) and Loki are going to be in Avengers 2. So they are adding a bunch of new characters and the only character from the first one they won't be having is possibly Coulson. Also there is a quote in Wikipedia from Whedon about how the movie is being written based on the assumption that people haven't seen Iron Man 3, Thor 2 or Winter Soldier. Based on all of that back story they will need to fill people in on and all of those speaking roles, how long is this movie going to be?

[stealinghome]

Are people really going to need to know that much backstory, though? Don't get me wrong, I too am really nervous about all the new characters in Avengers 2 and how they're going to juggle the screentime--but I don't think Age of Ultron is going to need to give exhaustive backstory on the characters. "This is Bruce Banner. Don't make him mad" or "This is Thor. He's a really strong alien with real daddy/brother issues" is really all an audience member needs to understand the movie, and can be done with about two seconds of dialogue.

[Kel Varnsen]

Are people really going to need to know that much backstory, though? Don't get me wrong, I too am really nervous about all the new characters in Avengers 2 and how they're going to juggle the screentime--but I don't think Age of Ultron is going to need to give exhaustive backstory on the characters. "This is Bruce Banner. Don't make him mad" or "This is Thor. He's a really strong alien with real daddy/brother issues" is really all an audience member needs to understand the movie, and can be done with about two seconds of dialogue.

I was thinking more all of the backstory and things that have gone on since the last Avengers movie. I mean you have to assume people haven't seen Winter Soldier so you have to explain what Cap has been doing, some mention of if he found Bucky, explain the fall of SHIELD/who Hydra are and what Fury/Black Widow has been up to and that Maria Hill now works for Stark. Assuming people haven't seen IM3 you have to explain that Tony blew up all his suits and decided to rebuild them and some explanation of why. Maybe touch on his PTSD from the last one. Assuming that people haven't seen Thor 2 (and considering that Loki is supposed to be in this movie) might have to explain what is up with Odin. These are all little things but they could add up to a significant amount of exposition. Unless there is just a big "previously on the Marvel Cinematic Universe" at the beginning of the movie (which could be kind of hilarious).

[Bruinsfan]

Joss showed that he wasn't entirely opposed to using brief flashbacks to other movies in Avengers, so I suppose it's possible.

[stealinghome]

I was thinking more all of the backstory and things that have gone on since the last Avengers movie. I mean you have to assume people haven't seen Winter Soldier so you have to explain what Cap has been doing, some mention of if he found Bucky, explain the fall of SHIELD/who Hydra are and what Fury/Black Widow has been up to and that Maria Hill now works for Stark. Assuming people haven't seen IM3 you have to explain that Tony blew up all his suits and decided to rebuild them and some explanation of why. Maybe touch on his PTSD from the last one. Assuming that people haven't seen Thor 2 (and considering that Loki is supposed to be in this movie) might have to explain what is up with Odin. These are all little things but they could add up to a significant amount of exposition. Unless there is just a big "previously on the Marvel Cinematic Universe" at the beginning of the movie (which could be kind of hilarious).

Ha! I would love a "Previously in the MCU..." clip.

 

With that said, I still don't think most of the stuff you mentioned is necessary for an Avengers 2 audience. I don't think the events of Iron Man 3 will/need to be mentioned, and for Thor 2, literally all they have to say is "Thor came back and decided to stay on Earth for a while."* The only must-explains, imo, are the events of Winter Soldier: SHIELD's fall, HYDRA's rise, that Maria works for Stark, and what Natasha/Fury have been doing (depending on whether or not Sebastian Stan is in Avengers 2, they don't even have to cover the Bucky stuff). But I suspect the fact that the Avengers have basically privatized world security is going to become pretty obvious pretty quickly, so!

 

*I read that Heimdall, Loki, and Thor are appearing in just one scene together, so I don't think a full-on explanation of what's up with Loki is really necessary. I'm actually kind of annoyed that Loki is in the movie at all--Tom Hiddleston is a delight in the role but I'm just TIRED of Loki. Put him back on the shelf until Thor 3, at the earliest, Marvel.

[Kel Varnsen]

 

With that said, I still don't think most of the stuff you mentioned is necessary for an Avengers 2 audience. I don't think the events of Iron Man 3 will/need to be mentioned, and for Thor 2, literally all they have to say is "Thor came back and decided to stay on Earth for a while."* The only must-explains, imo, are the events of Winter Soldier: SHIELD's fall, HYDRA's rise, that Maria works for Stark, and what Natasha/Fury have been doing (depending on whether or not Sebastian Stan is in Avengers 2, they don't even have to cover the Bucky stuff). But I suspect the fact that the Avengers have basically privatized world security is going to become pretty obvious pretty quickly, so! 

It is a tough situation. On the one hand comparing the box office results of the movies there are a bunch of people who will probably see A2 who didn't see any of the solo movies so you don't want to bog them down and confuse them with too much backstory. On the other hand there are people who have seen all the movies who will want to know why Tony is building suits again or where Nick Fury went after he cleaned out his storage locker. If you have scenes that explain things to those guys, you have to make them detailed enough so that the guys who never saw those movies understand what is being talked about.

[ChelseaNH]

You don't have to give everybody everything they want.  At least not in the movie.  If Nick Fury's travels don't move the story forward, then don't include them.  People are still wondering what went down in Budapest, but they're not boycotting the rest of the movies until they get to find out.

[Joe]

Anyone know when we can expect to see a trailer, or at least a teaser for Ant-Man? The Avengers trailer came out back in October and the movie is due in May. Ant-Man is due out in July so shouldn't we be seeing a trailer soon?

Apparently the studios have a deal with the cinemas not to put out trailers earlier than six months before the movie, though they can have three exceptions a year. So my guess would be Feb.

[Danny Franks]

 

*I read that Heimdall, Loki, and Thor are appearing in just one scene together, so I don't think a full-on explanation of what's up with Loki is really necessary. I'm actually kind of annoyed that Loki is in the movie at all--Tom Hiddleston is a delight in the role but I'm just TIRED of Loki. Put him back on the shelf until Thor 3, at the earliest, Marvel.

 

Ugh. More Loki? Is that just to sate the Hiddleston fangirls? He could be a poster child right now for, 'characters who were great but were so overexposed that I never want to see them again'. I don't even want him in Thor 3 (and there's no reason he'd have to be, given all of Thor's other rogues), but I guess there would be tumblr riots if he wasn't.

 

I do want more Winter Soldier, because he's a great comic book character, and was so under-explored in Captain America 2 that I still want to know more about him. We've not seen how he's reacting to remembering himself, we've not seen how he's dealing with all the things he's done, and the memories of Cap and his other long-dead friends, and his family. I want to see how the MCU handles that stuff, because Ed Brubaker did an amazing job with it all in the comic books.

 

I want to learn more about him before I'm asked to invest in Dr. Strange (which I won't be watching regardless), Black Panther, Ant-Man or Ms. Marvel.

[Fukui San]

We've seen how they handle loose ends in the first Avengers movie didn't we?

"By the way, Thor. We moved Jane Foster to London."

"Oh. OK. Thanks."

[vb68]

 

I don't even want him in Thor 3 (and there's no reason he'd have to be, given all of Thor's other rogues),

 

 

I disagree there.  With the way Dark World ended, I honestly don't see how they could do it without him.  That twist will have to play out somehow.

 

I understand that he's been overexposed, but on the other hand,  I think he's unquestionably been the saving grace of The Thor films.  That has been the weakest series in the MCU to me.

[VCRTracking]

 

"By the way, Thor. We moved Jane Foster to London."

Actually it was an observatory in Tromsø, Norway. Don't blame them for Natalie Portman being too pregnant at the time to be in the movie!

[ChelseaNH]

Loki is also their only memorable villain.  Possibly excepting Obadiah Stane, but that's about it.

 

Okay, maybe the Red Skull, too, but really, that's it.

Edited December 24, 2014 by ChelseaNH

[Kel Varnsen]

You don't have to give everybody everything they want.  At least not in the movie.  If Nick Fury's travels don't move the story forward, then don't include them.  People are still wondering what went down in Budapest, but they're not boycotting the rest of the movies until they get to find out.

Except no one was asking about Budapest before the first Avengers movie. It will be a delicate balance I think. You don't want to spend a bunch of time catching up on what has gone down since all the other movies (although there are people who will want to know that). But at the same time, even casual movie goers will want to know why they aren't fighting Ultron from the deck of a helicarrier with the full resources of SHIELD. Some of the other stuff you can probably skip over, although considering there aren't going to be any more Iron Man movies, there will probably be enough people curious about why Tony got back into suit building. Like I said before it is tricky, since there are people who will want those answers, but there are also those who didn't even know about the questions.

[VCRTracking]

You can still have Thor 3 with half of the movie with Anthony Hopkins chewing scenery as Loki-as-Odin.

[stealinghome]

Loki is also their only memorable villain.

I think this is really it. The MCU is what, like 10 movies in, and Loki is the only even halfway decent/interesting/memorable villain the entire movie universe has been able to produce.* It doesn't surprise me that they keep going back to him, since he's the only one that's worked and Hiddleston's become a fan favorite. That said, however, the character could really use a break. He's become almost unbearably whiny.

 

*Even then, he's only interesting around Thor/in Asgard--take him out of either's orbit and he becomes almost as humdrum as the other villains. It's noticeable how generic he comes across in Avengers, and I don't think that's all--or even mostly--lack of script attention/airtime.

 

I understand that he's been overexposed, but on the other hand,  I think he's unquestionably been the saving grace of The Thor films.  That has been the weakest series in the MCU to me.

I find that the actors in general are the saving grace of the Thor films. Thor 1 is actually my favorite of the pre-Avengers films, but I'm the first to say that even that movie didn't have a great script. It was the actors that made that movie work. (Whereas The Dark World's script was just a complete and total mess, easily the weakest of the Phase 2 scripts--the actors REALLY elevated that movie and made it far better than it should have been.)

Edited December 26, 2014 by stealinghome

[Kel Varnsen]

I think this is really it. The MCU is what, like 10 movies in, and Loki is the only even halfway decent/interesting/memorable villain the entire movie universe has been able to produce.* It doesn't surprise me that they keep going back to him, since he's the only one that's worked and Hiddleston's become a fan favorite. That said, however, the character could really use a break. He's become almost unbearably whiny.

I would say Alexander Pierce was memorable, of course most of that is because he was played by Robert Redford. Ronan in guardians of the galaxy was also memorable I thought. Both those characters of course were dead by the end of their respective movies. Winter Soldier was kind of memorable, not sure if they plan to keep using his as a villain though.

[Jediknight]

I would say Alexander Pierce was memorable, of course most of that is because he was played by Robert Redford. Ronan in guardians of the galaxy was also memorable I thought. Both those characters of course were dead by the end of their respective movies. Winter Soldier was kind of memorable, not sure if they plan to keep using his as a villain though.

Don't forget Rumlow is still out there, waiting to pop up in Civil War.

[Bruinsfan]

Ronan in guardians of the galaxy was also memorable I thought.

I thought he was memorable too, but for horrible over-acting by an actor whose work I usually enjoy. I hope it was the director's fault that Pace shouted every line for the cheap seats.

[KatWay]

 

I would say Alexander Pierce was memorable, of course most of that is because he was played by Robert Redford.

 

Nobody in my group who watched the movie together even remembered his name, only referred to him as "bad guy Robert Redford" afterwards. I found him utterly generic and forgettable, even if Redford did a good job acting.

[vibeology]

Don't forget Rumlow is still out there, waiting to pop up in Civil War.

 

To me, he's probably one of the more successful villains so far in the MCU. Crossbones is an interesting character and Grillo was very memorable. He did a great job building up Rumlow with only a little screen time. I hate seeing them go back to Loki again and again, but only a few of the other villains have been good and of those very few made it out alive at the end of their films.

 

The MCU has great heroes but the best of the villains belong to other studios. Dr. Doom, Magento and Green Goblin are all great villains but they can't use them. And I think Fox owns The Skrulls which is a shame because it would be another interesting story.

 

They have done a good job building up Thanos. I'm excited to see if they can deliver after the hype but it does feel like a lot of the bad guys are just place fillers until they can get to the Thanos story.

[VCRTracking]

I really do think Marvel Studios not being able to use Magneto is probably what prompted this MAJOR retcon in the Earth 616 comics:

 

Magneto is no longer Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch's father and they are no longer mutants.

 

As you can imagine this change is not going well at all among fans.

 

I myself while surprised also think it's actually going back to a previous status quo. Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch had a 20 year history of being gypsies with no link to Magneto other than they were members of the Brotherhood of Evil mutants. I think though while the reveal of Magneto being Wanda and Pietro's father back in the early 80s seemed cool, the execution by various writers left something to be desired. More awful stories came out of it than good(at least in the comics). The only cool thing was Polaris and Pietro's sibling relationship in the (now cancelled) X-Factor by Peter David but even that happened when they decided about ten years ago to make Polaris Magneto's other daughter. They barely did a thing with that until Peter David's comics.

Edited December 26, 2014 by VCRTracking

[vb68]

I'm not surprised.  I have read before that the MCU is not even allowed to use the word "mutant".

[Bruinsfan]

Ugh, it would have been better if Marvel could have just negotiated the loan of Ian McKellen for a few scenes.

[Danny Franks]

While he's no longer a villain, I'd say the Winter Soldier himself was very memorable. Especially considering he was silent for nearly his entire time on screen. No scenery chewing or grand planning for him.

 

But let's look at the villains from each of the movies:

 

Iron Man - Obadiah Stane. I thought he was pretty effective as a villain. A betraying father figure, capable of both warmth and evil. But he got killed.

Thor - Loki. Already covered him in plenty of detail, I think. A good villain, but desperately over-exposed, now.

Captain America - The Red Skull. Another memorable one. Hugo Weaving going full Crazed Nazi Mastermind. But he's also dead, or otherwise incapacitated. Toby Jones was good as Zola (also good enough to return in the sequel. Sort of).

Iron Man 2 - Okay, Whiplash was crap, and Justin Hammer was a joke. But that movie's main villain really was Tony's self-destructive streak.

The Avengers - Loki again, and Hawkeye, I guess. They should have scrapped Hawkeye and used Taskmaster or someone, as a merc who could actually be a bad guy.

Iron Man 3 - Killian was okay, but I think people got too hung up on 'Oh, the Mandarin's fake! Movie ruined!' to pay much attention to the fact that he was the Mandarin. James Badge Dale was not given enough time to actually act, which was a shame, and Rebecca Hall was completely wasted.

Thor 2 - Malekith might have been more effective if he'd been given more time. Instead, they had to shoehorn... you guessed it... Loki into the movie.

Cap 2 - Yeah, the Winter Soldier was great, and Pierce was pretty good as a scheming mastermind. Crossbones was good as villainous muscle.

 

And for GOTG, Ronan was good as a threat, but I thought Nebula was the scene-stealer. Karen Gillan was great, and really sold her character as a sexy, unstable, dangerous badass.

 

So sure, Loki is the most memorable one, by virtue of having appeared in three movies while most of the others were killed off in their single appearances. Kind of stacking the odds in his favour, there.

 

As for the changes with the Maximoff twins? It's a legal requirement that they not use characters they don't have the rights to, and I'm pretty sure the idea of mutants is probably lumped in with the X-Men rights. Marvel retconning Magneto in the 616 universe? My response is, 'what, again?' They already tried turning him into a hero about half a dozen times, and I gave up on the X-Men completely during Mike Carey's determination to vicariously live through his favourite character, complete with getting to bone his favourite female character. So... Magneto is already long past being interesting, for me. And I used to really like the guy.

 

Linking them to the Inhumans makes sense, I guess. Pietro was married to Crystal, after all.

[Kel Varnsen]

 

The MCU has great heroes but the best of the villains belong to other studios. Dr. Doom, Magento and Green Goblin are all great villains but they can't use them. And I think Fox owns The Skrulls which is a shame because it would be another interesting story.

I once read an awesome comment on another message board about how it would be cool if Disney got back the Fantastic Four rights. Not because I like the Fantastic Four (who they could totally shelve as far as using them in movies), but because it would give them access to Dr. Doom, Latveria, Namor, Atlantis, The Skrulls, Galactus and the Silver Surfer. Any of those properties could be awesome if done in the MCU.

 

 

Ugh, it would have been better if Marvel could have just negotiated the loan of Ian McKellen for a few scenes.

At some point I imagine they are going to have to majorly retcon Magneto (at least in the movies) or recast him or something. I mean his back story has always been that he is a holocaust survivor and his powers first surfaced in a concentration camp. That is a huge part of his character. But how badass could Magneto be if the guy should be pushing 90 by now. Unless they retcon it so that his powers also slow down his aging.

 

While he's no longer a villain, I'd say the Winter Soldier himself was very memorable. Especially considering he was silent for nearly his entire time on screen. No scenery chewing or grand planning for him.

 

Cap 2 - Yeah, the Winter Soldier was great, and Pierce was pretty good as a scheming mastermind. Crossbones was good as villainous muscle.

Can we even say that Winter Soldier is not a villain any more. I mean sure he saved cap at the end and he is probably not linked to HYDRA anymore, but at the same time  70+ years worth of brainwashing might be hard to shake off. Actually when I first heard that Cap 3 was going to be Civil War and him against Iron Man, I was hoping that the division would be caused by Cap wanting to help Winter Soldier, and Tony wanting to punish him/bring him to justice (seeing as WS probably killed Tony's parents). That would be a hell of a lot more interesting than any kind of hero registration storyline. Especially since most of the heroes we have seen in the MCU aren't stopping bank robbers, or anyone who would appear before a court, but actual threats to world safety. Plus registration of people doling out vigilante justice without being arrested for it, seems like a pretty fair compromise to me.

 

Also in Cap 2 for villians we also saw that Hydra boss guy. Making HYDRA a really crazy old school take over the world NAZI sympathizer type could work I think as a villain. 

[Advance35]

I thought the best villains were Loki (though I agree he is WAY over-exposed), Zola and I think the Movie-verse has done a good job of giving HYDRA some Gravitas. Making them the orchestrator's of the murder of Tony Stark's parents was especially chilling and shocking.   I also really like Crossbones and think the character and actor could be a great value to the continued Marvel Universe on screen.

 

I think we should see some of the more prominent members of HYDRA (Madam Hydra since Viper can't be used). Baron Strucker and building up of others.  I think they should bring in Sunset Bain (who proved herself to be a very good villainess), Marvel does have some bad guys, they would just have to do a little retooling to make them work/threatening enough.   Maybe even make AIM more threatening than they came across.

 

Also didn't Marvel make a Short Film where we found out there really is a Mandarin out there and the Five Rings?

[MadyGirl1987]

Also didn't Marvel make a Short Film where we found out there really is a Mandarin out there and the Five Rings?

Yeah, the one-shot "All Hail the King." Think it was on the Thor 2 Blu-ray and digital extras.

[ChelseaNH]

I didn't count the Winter Soldier as a villain because he's more of a villain's tool.  We'll see what happens with him now that he's able to exercise his free will.

 

Loki is a good villain because his motivations are personal, rather than generic.  Also, he's a trickster, so he generally has interesting plans/ploys.  Of the others:

• Stane was a generic corporate bad guy distinguished by being a kind of father figure to Stark
• The Red Skull was a typical ubermensch villain
• Whiplash had a good motivation but couldn't deliver the menace; Justin Hammer was played for laughs
• Killian had a decent origin story but didn't seem particularly driven
• Malekith was just a hater, and the subtitles didn't help him connect with the audience
• Pierce was a bureaucrat, although he did have an interesting goal/philosophy
• Ronan was a Malekith redux who wasn't hampered by subtitles

 

Malekith could have been interesting if there had been a sense of him feeling displaced by the light in the universe, and seeing all the other worlds as interlopers, but we never got a good look at his motivations; most of his time was spent dealing with plot mechanics.  With Ronan, I think we needed more context of the Kree's history; otherwise, it's just "Well, you're a belligerent asshole and your ancestors were probably belligerent assholes who got what they deserved."

[Athena]

Loki is a good villain because his motivations are personal, rather than generic. 

 

For me, most villains in action movies are by nature generic and two dimensional. It's very black and white so you don't have time to really appreciate them. Their job is to be at minimum, menacing and hopefully entertaining. I would say Robert Redford and Guy Pearce acted well as villains, but Loki is exceptional. He's an actual character that's better written and acted than some heroes. Villains in these movies have as much depth as some supporting characters, but Loki's motivations and background give him more facets. Additionally, his playful way of doing things is fun to watch. He's not really that menacing, but he really hams it up. I can understand why he is overexposed now being in three films, but I still find him entertaining. I am biased though; I liked Tom Hiddleston pre-Thor.

[VCRTracking]

Age of Ultron promo art revealed. Really cool to see that the Vision is actually going to have his phasing powers in the movie. I have to say I have hopes for Ultron because they're making him the most human-like robot and allowing him to be even more expressive than the alien villains we've seen so far in the MCU. The revised origins of Ultron and Vision are interesting but it does make you go "Really Tony? You thought it would be a good idea to mess with that stuff and you're surprised things turned out badly?!"

 

Even more promo art.

Edited December 31, 2014 by VCRTracking

[Kel Varnsen]

  With Ronan, I think we needed more context of the Kree's history; otherwise, it's just "Well, you're a belligerent asshole and your ancestors were probably belligerent assholes who got what they deserved."

Yea that kind of bugged me about the movie. I mean other than a fake newscast at the beginning saying that after years of fighting or something the Kree and the Xandar are signing a peace treaty, they didn't really establish who the Kree were and why they were such badasses. 

[Jeebus Cripes]

I really do think Marvel Studios not being able to use Magneto is probably what prompted this MAJOR retcon in the Earth 616 comics:

 

Magneto is no longer Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch's father and they are no longer mutants.

 

As you can imagine this change is not going well at all among fans.

 

I hate that they're doing this because of the films. I love these movies, don't get me wrong, but in no way do I want them changing the comics to fit their movieverse. That's total bollocks. 

 

At some point I imagine they are going to have to majorly retcon Magneto (at least in the movies) or recast him or something. I mean his back story has always been that he is a holocaust survivor and his powers first surfaced in a concentration camp. That is a huge part of his character. But how badass could Magneto be if the guy should be pushing 90 by now. Unless they retcon it so that his powers also slow down his aging.

 

I've always wondered why the comics didn't have his powers slowing the aging process. Simple and efffective. Instead, they offer up convoluted nonsense about deaging him to an infant, then reaging him to his prime... or some crap like that. 

 

Age of Ultron promo art revealed. Really cool to see that the Vision is actually going to have his phasing powers in the movie. I have to say I have hopes for Ultron because they're making him the most human-like robot and allowing him to be even more expressive than the alien villains we've seen so far in the MCU. The revised origins of Ultron and Vision are interesting but it does make you go "Really Tony? You thought it would be a good idea to mess with that stuff and you're surprised things turned out badly?!"

 

Even more promo art.

 

Seeing Vision gives me a ladyboner. 

Edited January 1, 2015 by Jeebus Cripes

[Kel Varnsen]

I hate that they're doing this because of the films. I love these movies, don't get me wrong, but in no way do I want them changing the comics to fit their movieverse. That's total bollocks. 

The jerking around of the comics to fit the movies seems stupid (and I haven't read a new marvel comic book in probably close to 10 years). I also read awhile back that they would be cancelling the Fantastic Four series when the movie comes out because the movie is being put out by FOX. This makes no sense to me. I mean  monthly comic book readership is tiny. November 2014's Fantastic Four sold about 25,000 copies. With numbers like that those are your die hard fans, so why screw those guys over?  It is not like having the comic out is going to be promotion for the movie (not with those numbers). If anything (even if the movie is bad) it would be promotion for the comic book, which won't be available when the movie hits theaters. Or at minimum the people who read the comics are your die hard fans and might not go see the movie anyways.

[Chrissytd]

Anyone know when we can expect to see a trailer, or at least a teaser for Ant-Man? The Avengers trailer came out back in October and the movie is due in May. Ant-Man is due out in July so shouldn't we be seeing a trailer soon?

There's supposed to be a teaser shown during tonight's premiere of Agent Carter on ABC.

[Trini]

The poster for Ant-Man is kinda hilarious (and appropriate).

[calliope1975]

And here we go! I love Paul Rudd and Marvel owns my wallet so I'll be there opening night, but the trailer was a bit underwhelming. I do enjoy that they're going full on insect riding though.

 

[vb68]

That was OK.  It's hard to tell much from that.  I thought the best part was the last line.  I will also say as someone who never saw Paul Rudd as a super hero that he looks pretty damn good in the trailer.  The man truly does not age.

Edited January 7, 2015 by vb68

[Joe]

Yeah. I feel underwhelmed, though I'm not even sure what I wanted in a trailer. There was nothing wrong with it, just... I can't put my finger on what I do want to see.

[Danny Franks]

It's Ant-Man. What are you going to do? The powers he has have always been incredibly lame, except for that brief period where Eric O'Grady took the mantle, and Marvel turned in one of their better comedy comic books. If they'd done that version as a movie, I might be more interested.

 

As for Paul Rudd, I will turn to the sage words of Jeff Winger: "To me, religion is like Paul Rudd. I see the appeal and I would never take it away from anyone, but I would also never stand in line for it."

[Kel Varnsen]

It's Ant-Man. What are you going to do? The powers he has have always been incredibly lame, except for that brief period where Eric O'Grady took the mantle, and Marvel turned in one of their better comedy comic books. If they'd done that version as a movie, I might be more interested.

Just watched it at work with the sound off. Could be interesting I think, not sure. I wonder if they will do anything with the fact that if the powers can make you shrink, logically they should also be able to make you grow. I mean in the comics, Hank Pym was only Ant-Man for one issue of the avengers before he switched to Giant Man (yes I know he had his own series prior to that).

[VCRTracking]

All I'm hoping for at this point after watching the trailer is it's at least as fun Honey Shrunk the Kids.

 

I like Paul Rudd in general. My favorite moment ever from him was when he played John Lennon in the biopic spoof Walk Hard:

 

[Kel Varnsen]

So it looks like Marvel Comics is basically killing off their entire main universe and the Ultimate Universe, and starting over with something new. This is pure speculation, and I haven't read anything new from Marvel in years, but I would almost bet money that the new comics universe would be much more inline with what the cinematic universe is like. I can totally see them either phasing out or killing off any characters/concepts that Disney doesn't have the film rights too. My understanding is that they were already planning on cancelling Fantastic Four and kind of phasing out mutants. So just from a corporate synergy angle I can totally see them wanting things to be at least similar (making comics Tony like movie Tony and comics Cap like movie Cap) so that if someone sees Avengers 2 and goes into a comic store, there is an Avengers comic that is a lot like the movie.

 

Plus the number of people who buy comics is pretty tiny so it kind of dwarfs in comparison to how many people saw Guardians of the Galaxy for example. I mean the top selling comics maybe crack 100,000 issues sold. The number of viewers for Agents of Shield even is around 10 times that.  

[Danny Franks]

They tried to emphasise the Avengers over the X-Men for years, and it's never really worked. Fans are just more interested in the oppressed mutants than the celebrity superheroes.

 

Cancelling the Fantastic Four is an interesting move, and I say that as someone who has never bothered with that group (the only one of them I like is Sue Storm). When you have a comic book that sells 50,000 issues a month, why would you cancel it unless you think you can pick all those readers up with other books. And if those 50,000 are Fantastic Four fans, then there's no assurance that they'll read The Inhumans or whatever, instead. 

 

Trying out different characters and teams for books is nothing new, and Marvel have often tried over and over again to successfully launch new books, but nearly always they revert to the tried and tested after a year or so. I don't see this being much different, unless Disney are mandating that Marvel Comics will be little more than an extra merchandising avenue for Marvel Movies.

 

DC destroyed their universe and created a new version, and it has been horrible, so I'm not sure how wise it is for Marvel to do the same. If they could keep all the characters essentially the same instead of trying to make them 'gritty' and 'provocative', then that would be a start.

[Kel Varnsen]

Cancelling the Fantastic Four is an interesting move, and I say that as someone who has never bothered with that group (the only one of them I like is Sue Storm). When you have a comic book that sells 50,000 issues a month, why would you cancel it unless you think you can pick all those readers up with other books. And if those 50,000 are Fantastic Four fans, then there's no assurance that they'll read The Inhumans or whatever, instead. 

 

Trying out different characters and teams for books is nothing new, and Marvel have often tried over and over again to successfully launch new books, but nearly always they revert to the tried and tested after a year or so. I don't see this being much different, unless Disney are mandating that Marvel Comics will be little more than an extra merchandising avenue for Marvel Movies.

 

I am really wondering if that is happening. I mean I guess it would kind of make sense fro Disney's point of view, if they thing that the movie universe is the big deal and the comics are now just a secondary thing. I mean sure 50,000 readers is maybe a lot, but at $4 an issue retail, Disney probably makes more selling 30 seconds of commercial time for Agent Carter.

[Danny Franks]

It is sadly plausible, isn't it? The thought that Marvel's iconic comic books could become the equivalent of those licensed Star Wars comics from the 70s, a cash boost for a company already raking in money from their movies and TV shows, is really depressing.

 

But I don't think Marvel helped themselves by tossing away so much of their own past. I remember when they decided to reboot all their books a couple of years ago, I was so disappointed in them. They had Uncanny X-Men, Fantastic Four and others that were reaching 500 issues. Books stretching back 40 years or so, and the issue numbers reflected that longevity. But they thought a bunch of #1s would bring in loads of new readers, so just tossed it all away. DC did the same, with books even more venerable (Detective Comics volume 2, issue 1? Blech).

 

So beyond that, the thought of any new books being dictated by what movie or TV show is being plugged would be horrible. There are characters that mean a lot to people, who will probably never appear in a Marvel movie. The X-Men are easily the most popular group of characters Marvel has, but because they don't own the movie rights, they might can them? Spider-Man too? I don't see them doing that, because Joe Quesada would have to be physically torn away from his Spider-Man dolls and his Wolverine figures. But I could see them trying to realign their other comic book characters with the movie versions, which I don't think would go over that well with loyal readers.