The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[Matt K]

From what I'm reading, for the Marvel Netflix shows Disney was taking a 60% cut (whereas other licensed shows take a 30% cut).  When Netflix started out they just needed content that was a big draw.  Now not so much.  It's a pretty interesting twitter thread about the whole thing (https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/1069649213498277889) in the end all it came down to was money or the lack thereof.

[Kel Varnsen]

I think I mentioned this in one of the show threads but it would have been really cool if netflix had done one or a few specials showing how their mcu people are dealing with life after the snap. Just to see who disappeared ( hopefully  Danny Rand) and who didn't. Just some day in the life episodes of who was left and how they are dealing with it could have been really cool.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Kel Varnsen

[Raja]

10 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I think I mentioned this in one of the show threads but it would have been really cool if netflix had done on or a few specials showing how their mcu people are dealing with life after the snap. Just to see who disappeared ( hopefully  Danny Rand) and who didn't. Just some day in the life episodes of who was left and how they are dealing with it could have been really cool.

I want to see the Cloak and Dagger New Orleans post snapture pre Endgame world. But I doubt if any show  beyond the opening act of Endgame shows us MCU life post snap 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Well done, Betty!

[VCRTracking]

A video essay by Patrick H Williams who says while he enjoys most of the MCU films and that the early ones were great at setting up and establishing characters, around Phase 2 there was only the  "illusion of change" and lack of consequences to actions.

[Wynterwolf]

Interesting, if true:

Quote

They describe the casting as an actor between the ages of 30-49 and looks like a superhero. They also say that the studio is open to any ethnicity for the role, but that they’re pursuing an openly gay actor.

[Bruinsfan]

Openly gay Hollywood actors who look like superheroes are a bit thin on the ground, though. You've basically got Luke McFarlane, Matt Bomer, and Luke Evans, and I think all of them would be horribly miscast if the role is Hercules (though Evans has played his dad well enough).

If they're talking about Ikaris instead, maybe Chris Evans could put his little brother up for the role.

[Wynterwolf]

The thing is though, "looks like a superhero" isn't any kind of qualifier, because literally anyone would look like a superhero, especially in the Marvel Universe.  Which frankly makes me a little skeptical of this specific rumor, and Hercules and Ikaris were just speculation.  But various PTB have talked enough about diversifying the MCU that it's likely true in general.  And if they are open to any ethnicity, then that's a wider net.  

[Raja]

I just took "looks like a superhero" to mean willing to live a body builders lifestyle that Chris Evans and Hugh Jackman  had to do for their roles. I don't see any lack of interest in the stereotypical gay community living that life. Now perhaps living that lifestyle of not enjoying food and time off in addition to acting at a high enough level is rare, but if Michael B. Jordan and Chris Evans did it why not.  I guess it comes down to young actors have have come out of the closet

[Wynterwolf]

The physical requirements, and putting in some measure of time at the gym for these movies is a given and doesn't need a qualifier of looking like a "superhero".  If they meant a 'bodybuilder' type, I feel like they would have been more specific that that's what they were looking for.  And an out queer actor should be able to be considered for any type of role, not just queer roles.  I'd actually find it really cool if they were looking for an out queer actor and the role wasn't necessarily a queer role.  

Edited March 3, 2019 by Wynterwolf

[Bruinsfan]

Agreed on that. If it turns out that they're just seeking an openly gay lead actor because it's past time to feature one and not because "only a gay actor could play this non-hetero role capably," I'm all for it.

If they are planning to introduce Hercules into the MCU, my dream casting would be Joshua Sasse. He's already played an oafish but noble and brave hero of yore quite well on Galavant, he looks the part almost perfectly, and he can handle the pseudo-Shakespearean English Marvel typically has its gods speak. He's not an openly gay actor, but he was engaged to Kylie Minogue for a year, which should have at least as much cred with the LGBTQ community. 😆

[Danny Franks]

Brian J. Smith could fit the bill here. He's got the physique, and the commitment to get bigger if necessary. And if he's not officially openly gay, he at least doesn't hide it.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Wynterwolf said:

The physical requirements, and putting in some measure of time at the gym for these movies is a given and doesn't need a qualifier of looking like a "superhero".

Legitimate question - if it doesn't need a qualifier, why qualify it?

Both Evans and Hemsworth have been candid about the difficulty they've had keeping in shape for these movies, and there was a point where Sebastian Stan put on so much muscle that I think they had to re-size the prosthetic arm so it would fit. Being super-fit isn't a terrible problem to have or anything, but I'm sure it's difficult to maintain full time. It just seems odd that the casting info would tack on what's obvious.

[Wynterwolf]

1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

It just seems odd that the casting info would tack on what's obvious.

The wording did seem odd to me (which is why I mentioned being skeptical of this particular rumor) not so much because it was obvious, but because it was meaningless.  What does a "superhero" look like?  They... look like anyone. 

As for the physical side, how much training is needed is going to depend on the character and the type of stunts they'd have to perform.  Brie Larson's physical requirements for Captain Marvel were pretty intense too.  But it was probably less so for RDJ or Mark Ruffalo.  But I'd say probably most of them spent a fair amount of time in the gym getting prepared.  And Sebastian Stan is a good example of someone who isn't that big (and wasn't that big in WS), but he ended up looking like a beast (because he overdid the training) in CW... now he's back to being his normal lean size.  People just seem to be assuming looking like a superhero means looking like Chris Hemsworth and are narrowing their speculation based on that, but I'm just not sure that's necessarily the case.  I'm mainly  just hoping the rumor of them actively looking for an out gay actor is true.  

[Silver Raven]

Any word on whether Monica Rambeau will be in Endgame?

[cambridgeguy]

On 3/3/2019 at 8:38 PM, Wynterwolf said:

The wording did seem odd to me (which is why I mentioned being skeptical of this particular rumor) not so much because it was obvious, but because it was meaningless.  What does a "superhero" look like?  They... look like anyone. 

A TV/movie superhero has to be conventionally good looking.  Obviously tastes vary but I don't think any of the heroes in the MCU (or DCEU, for that matter) would ever be classified as ugly by more than a small percentage of the population.   That being said, if your hero isn't relying on powered armor or some mutation then he or she has to be pretty solidly built.  If you're a guy it also helps if people don't think of you as short although camera tricks, lifts, short co-stars, etc. can help with that unless you're playing someone who is supposed to be smaller (i.e. Spiderman)

[Wynterwolf]

7 minutes ago, cambridgeguy said:

That being said, if your hero isn't relying on powered armor or some mutation then he or she has to be pretty solidly built.

What MCU superhero doesn't rely on tech or innate powers?

[starri]

2 minutes ago, Wynterwolf said:

What MCU superhero doesn't rely on tech or innate powers?

Hawkeye, Black Widow, and Gamora.  Punisher, if we extend to TV.

[Wynterwolf]

Hawkeye and Black Widow both have tech, and both have extensive training (and I think you could argue that Hawkeye has some uncanny ability, while Black Widow's training was... unusual) and both are fit, but neither are that "solidly built".  Out of their gear, they both look like 'regular (albiet very pretty) people'.  Gamora is an alien and I seem to recall she had super-human strength, at least... and tech.  

[starri]

I mean, their tech is arrows and firearms; that's not Extremis armor or vibranium claws in my mind.  Gamora is swords and space guns.

[Wynterwolf]

11 minutes ago, starri said:

I mean, their tech is arrows and firearms;

And their Stark-tech and talents/training served them well against the Chitauri, Ultron and others.      

14 minutes ago, starri said:

Gamora is swords and space guns.

Quote

Abilities:  Superhuman strength, speed, agility, and durability Skilled assassin Skilled hand-to-hand combatant

Per the wiki I did remember correctly that Gamora has super-human strength, and other attributes.    

But the original point was that the idea of looking "like a superhero" is essentially meaningless, because regardless of what they look like, they'll either have equalizing tech, or some super-human ability.  I think that fact that Peter Parker doesn't "look like a superhero" is an essential part of his character.  

[angora]

I agree that it's a weird note to include, since, like people have said, 1) it's kind of obvious and 1) lots of actors bulk up through superhero training.  It kind of makes me wonder if it's a way of specifying a conventionally-masculine gay actor without saying it.  In movies and on TV, "straight-acting" gay male characters are often portrayed as more jock-like, while more feminine gay male characters tend to be cast slighter/smaller.  An unspoken way of saying "no femmes"?

Edited March 10, 2019 by angora
fixing a typo

[Wynterwolf]

3 minutes ago, angora said:

An unspoken way of saying "no femmes"?

Yeah, I think that's exactly why it bothered me.  But even from a cis het perspective, it's problematic if that is what was being implied.  I mean, you can't tell if someone is queer just by looking at them.  You also can tell if someone is autistic just by looking at them, and... you can't tell if someone is a superhero just by looking at them.  There literally is no 'look'.  So if that was a genuine part of the casting guidelines, I hope it just means that they are looking for an out gay actor, who can literally look like anyone.  Anything else is just a (conscious or unconscious) bias or a preference.  

[Wishing Well]

Coulson 😉. That man is a superhero through and through.

[Danny Franks]

8 hours ago, Wynterwolf said:

Yeah, I think that's exactly why it bothered me.  But even from a cis het perspective, it's problematic if that is what was being implied.  I mean, you can't tell if someone is queer just by looking at them.  You also can tell if someone is autistic just by looking at them, and... you can't tell if someone is a superhero just by looking at them.  There literally is no 'look'.  So if that was a genuine part of the casting guidelines, I hope it just means that they are looking for an out gay actor, who can literally look like anyone.  Anything else is just a (conscious or unconscious) bias or a preference.  

That applies to some comic book characters, certainly - gay superheroes like Northstar, Wiccan or Anole could be played by anyone. But if they're looking to cast Hercules, then to say he "looks like a superhero" is underselling it.

The dude is just a shade smaller than the Hulk, and has always been portrayed so (in myth and movie, as well as in Marvel comics):

The idea that a superhero can look like anyone would apply to Thor and Captain America too, yet they cast the same body type for both roles.

[cambridgeguy]

7 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

The idea that a superhero can look like anyone would apply to Thor and Captain America too, yet they cast the same body type for both roles.

Maybe in the pre-internet age but not anymore.  Exhibit A would be Michael Keaton as Batman.  That casting causes a whirlwind of bitching and moaning, and imagine that dialed up to a ludicrous degree.  Something similar happened with Ben Affleck as Batman.  The MCU is arguably the biggest cash cow in entertainment these days and they are going to play it as safe as possible, so no unconventional choices.

[Shannon L.]

Sorry to interrupt the present conversation, but can someone who has followed these films from the beginning (and by that, I mean, reads all the stories about the writing and the filming, etc) answer something for me?  In both Captain Marvel and Homecoming, I (and others) noticed some continuity/timeline issues.  My son and I were talking about them last night and we were wondering if maybe in the beginning, they had no idea that the franchise would become this big and therefore didn't have an exact timeline/outline set in place?  I would think that there would be some sort of reference book that the writers of the new movies could look at when determining certain aspects of their stories.  Has anyone ever addressed the continuity issues in the phase 3 movies?

Don't get me wrong--I can hand wave them because I'm still loving the movies and not even close to giving up on them, but it is curious to me that these issues exist.

[Wynterwolf]

7 hours ago, cambridgeguy said:

The MCU is arguably the biggest cash cow in entertainment these days and they are going to play it as safe as possible, so no unconventional choices.

5 years ago,, or even 2 years ago... I probably would have agreed with that.  But I think that they realize that "safe" is starting to get a bit repetitive (i.e. boring) for them, so I feel like with all their talk about diversity (and the ridiculous success of Black Panther, Aquaman,  Into the Spiderverse and Captain Marvel), they are at least open to stepping a little ways out of the 'typical' box.  (and Michael Keaton is still far and away the best Batman :-D)

Edited March 11, 2019 by Wynterwolf

[Morrigan2575]

21 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

Sorry to interrupt the present conversation, but can someone who has followed these films from the beginning (and by that, I mean, reads all the stories about the writing and the filming, etc) answer something for me?  In both Captain Marvel and Homecoming, I (and others) noticed some continuity/timeline issues.  My son and I were talking about them last night and we were wondering if maybe in the beginning, they had no idea that the franchise would become this big and therefore didn't have an exact timeline/outline set in place?  I would think that there would be some sort of reference book that the writers of the new movies could look at when determining certain aspects of their stories.  Has anyone ever addressed the continuity issues in the phase 3 movies?

Don't get me wrong--I can hand wave them because I'm still loving the movies and not even close to giving up on them, but it is curious to me that these issues exist.

what timeline or continuity issues did you see?

[Fukui San]

Also, you can't get more like the comics than introducing timeline and continuity issues. It's not a bug, it's a feature!

[Shannon L.]

5 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

what timeline or continuity issues did you see?

Well, one was what I call the "traveling tesseract", but someone else explained that to me.  Things like, in Homecoming, the timing of the story, vs. Tony supposedly still building the new compound up north vs. the rebuilding of NYC.  The next is regarding Captain Marvel, so I'll put it in spoiler tags. If you haven't seen it yet, feel free to ignore this part and answer me some other time

Spoiler

In The Avengers, Fury told everyone that Thor was the reason for the advanced weaponry--that until the attack in NY, they didn't know that there were other beings in the universe that would be a threat to them, but in CM, he met all kinds of aliens--good and bad.  Also, in IM, Coulsen made it sound like SHIELD was a new idea they were putting together, but in CM, Fury announced himself as a SHIELD agent.

Anyway, like I said, it's not enough for me to get too bothered by--it's just something I've been noticing and it's slightly annoying, that's all.

3 hours ago, Fukui San said:

Also, you can't get more like the comics than introducing timeline and continuity issues. It's not a bug, it's a feature!

So, the comics do it, too?  I guess I can try to ignore it in the movies, then  :)

[Fukui San]

9 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

So, the comics do it, too?  I guess I can try to ignore it in the movies, then  🙂

Oh, you poor, sweet, innocent lamb!

"Hey guys! I have an idea! What if the Spider Man we've been following for the last 20 years was actually a clone! The real one was trapped somewhere and he comes out and now there are two Spider Men!"

"Hey, how about like 20% of our heroes were actually Skrull spies! That would be cool!"

"Hey, Stan. Is it OK with you if Gwen Stacy and Norman Osborne actually had a love child 20 years ago? You good?"

Probably plenty in DC too. I'm just more of a Marvel guy.
And those are just the egregious flaunting of continuity, not the commonplace errors of trying to keep track of many decades of interlocking stories.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Fukui San

[Shannon L.]

16 minutes ago, Fukui San said:

Oh, you poor, sweet, innocent lamb!

lol! Oh, you have no idea.  Before these movies, the only thing I knew about super heroes were the names of the major ones and how they got their powers (or in Superman's case where he came from).  If you had told me 10 years ago that I'd become hooked on super hero movies, I'd have said that you obviously don't know me very well.  Awesome!  I'll just ignore it all from now on and enjoy them for what they are. 

[JessePinkman]

39 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

  Hide contents

In The Avengers, Fury told everyone that Thor was the reason for the advanced weaponry--that until the attack in NY, they didn't know that there were other beings in the universe that would be a threat to them, but in CM, he met all kinds of aliens--good and bad.  Also, in IM, Coulsen made it sound like SHIELD was a new idea they were putting together, but in CM, Fury announced himself as a SHIELD agent.

That I can chalk up to Fury being a spy AKA an excellent liar. I take everything he says with a grain of salt. The only thing I believe are his actions, he's very good at not telling the truth for the greater good so I'm assuming there's some reason he didn't bring up his alien history.

Of course the biggest reason is that Marvel hadn't conceived of the Captain Marvel movie yet lol.

[Shannon L.]

2 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

That I can chalk up to Fury being a spy AKA an excellent liar. I take everything he says with a grain of salt. The only thing I believe are his actions, he's very good at not telling the truth for the greater good so I'm assuming there's some reason he didn't bring up his alien history.

Of course the biggest reason is that Marvel hadn't conceived of the Captain Marvel movie yet lol.

Good points!  And, in regards to CM not yet being conceived, yet, that's why I wondered if there was some sort of reference book the writers could look at.  I hear that JK Rowling had one when she started writing further on into the Harry Potter series and I thought it was great idea. 

[Proclone]

2 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

That I can chalk up to Fury being a spy AKA an excellent liar. I take everything he says with a grain of salt. The only thing I believe are his actions, he's very good at not telling the truth for the greater good so I'm assuming there's some reason he didn't bring up his alien history.

Of course the biggest reason is that Marvel hadn't conceived of the Captain Marvel movie yet lol.

Monica says something like, "Green shapeshifting aliens don't exist," and Fury replies, "Of course they don't.  Because if they did we would want to keep that to ourselves," with a pointed look at Carol.  You could take that scene as evidence of him purposely keeping the existence of Skrulls on the down low.  Which could also explain why Sheild seems like a new organization in Iron Man.  They simply don't advertise and they don't want to advertise how long they've really been around.

[AimingforYoko]

MCU passes $18B.

You figure $4B for the purchase of Marvel and an average production+marketing cost of around $300m per picture, that's a nice little $8B profit in 10 years. Not too shabby. And that's before Endgame.

In other news: Noah Hawley talks Doctor Doom.

[starri]

And The Merger becomes official on 3/20 at 12:02 AM.

I imagine we'll hear about plans for the FF and X-men at 12:03AM.

[Bruinsfan]

5 hours ago, Fukui San said:

Oh, you poor, sweet, innocent lamb!

Don't tell her about the Summers/Grey kids or Hawkman's history, her head might explode!

[JessePinkman]

1 hour ago, AimingforYoko said:

MCU passes $18B.

You figure $4B for the purchase of Marvel and an average production+marketing cost of around $300m per picture, that's a nice little $8B profit in 10 years. Not too shabby. And that's before Endgame.

In other news: Noah Hawley talks Doctor Doom.

The premise sounds interesting and I am 100% the idea of a villain's first appearance being in his own movie. But this will never be made. Kevin Feige has no interest in pre-Disney acquisition FOX plans (minus Deadpool).

[JustaPerson]

[Morrigan2575]

13 hours ago, Proclone said:

Monica says something like, "Green shapeshifting aliens don't exist," and Fury replies, "Of course they don't.  Because if they did we would want to keep that to ourselves," with a pointed look at Carol.  You could take that scene as evidence of him purposely keeping the existence of Skrulls on the down low. 

Yeah, i don't really think that's a continuity issue, more like a Fury/Shield lying to the public.  

Quote

Which could also explain why Sheild seems like a new organization in Iron Man.  They simply don't advertise and they don't want to advertise how long they've really been around.

This one i do think is a continuity error, not that SHIELD was brand new in Iron Man because it really wasn't.  It was more the fact that they kept using SHIELD because that was a running gag in Iron Man that Coulson referred to the agency as Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division.  It wasn't until the very end that Coulson said we go by SHIELD now.

However, i let that one slide because it was just easier to say/hear SHIELD than Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division LOL

[Morrigan2575]

12 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

Don't tell her about the Summers/Grey kids or Hawkman's history, her head might explode!

I use to read comics, nothing worse than coming back to an X-Men comic and not knowing WTF is going on.  Wait, Vulcan is the lost Summers Brother?  No, that was Adam X!  

[Sakura12]

Maybe only Coulson called it the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division. And everyone else called it SHIELD because its easier to say. 

[VCRTracking]

17 hours ago, Proclone said:

Monica says something like, "Green shapeshifting aliens don't exist," and Fury replies, "Of course they don't.  Because if they did we would want to keep that to ourselves," with a pointed look at Carol.  You could take that scene as evidence of him purposely keeping the existence of Skrulls on the down low.  Which could also explain why Sheild seems like a new organization in Iron Man.  They simply don't advertise and they don't want to advertise how long they've really been around.

The biggest leap though was SHIELD had been set up in Iron Man as this secret organization not that many people know about, yet in Captain America: Winter Soldier, their headquarters is THIS building in Washington D.C., which we saw in Ant-Man was being built in 1989!

20 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

That I can chalk up to Fury being a spy AKA an excellent liar. I take everything he says with a grain of salt. The only thing I believe are his actions, he's very good at not telling the truth for the greater good so I'm assuming there's some reason he didn't bring up his alien history.

His "because of him!" and pointing to Thor did seem a little OTT!

Edited March 13, 2019 by VCRTracking

[Wynterwolf]

42 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

The biggest leap though was SHIELD had been set up in Iron Man as this secret organization not that many people know about, yet in Captain America: Winter Soldier, their headquarters is THIS building in Washington D.C., which we saw in Ant-Man was being built in 1989!

I think present day SHIELD had is origins in the SSR from Agent Carter days, but sometime after WWII changed it's name to SHIELD, but given the top secret type things they were working on (i.e. Howard's Super Soldier serum, the Pym Particle), they purposely kept a low profile (size of their building notwithstanding... it was probably just dismissed as a Big Government Building) and didn't make the existence of enhanced or extra-terrestrial beings public knowledge until after Thor very publicly showed up (Enhanced!Steve was always believed to be a one-time-thing and I don't think the general public really knew just how enhanced he was), so they were still trying to keep a low-ish profile when Tony basically blew the lid off things in the first Iron Man.  Hydra obviously knew they existed before that.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Wynterwolf

[BetterButter]

Marvel's 'Shang-Chi' Sets Director Destin Daniel Cretton

[Dee]

Destin Daniel Cretton Marvel’s Choice To Direct ‘Shang-Chi’

Quote

This is in keeping with the studio’s goal to take Shang-Chi in a direction like Black Panther and populate it with Asian-American talent. When Deadline first revealed the project late last year, the studio had set Chinese-American scribe Dave Callaham to write the screenplay.

Black Panther provided a watershed template for how to do this, making a film that tied into African and African-American cultures and the sensibilities of its nearly all-black cast, with a black director in Ryan Coogler and writer in Joe Robert Cole. The film got a Best Picture Oscar nomination and won three Oscars, in addition to grossing $1.3 billion worldwide. It is clear that after Marvel Studios’ unparalleled decade of success following Iron Man, Kevin Feige’s next iterations of superhero franchises will distinguish themselves with ethnic diversity and inclusion, in front of and behind the camera.

[Anduin]

Who does the voiceover after Tony? Sounds like an English woman, but not one I know.

Did any of Natasha's shots actually hit the target? They all looked like misses to me.

Great. Thor likes Carol. Wasn't the point of her movie that she didn't need to be liked by men? Though I suppose it's good to get along with your teammates.

[Vera]

Just now, Anduin said:

Who does the voiceover after Tony? Sounds like an English woman, but not one I know.

 

I think it's Tony, Peggy, Thor, Steve, Natasha, Steve, Clint, Natasha, Tony.

Quote

Did any of Natasha's shots actually hit the target? They all looked like misses to me.

Dead center of the middle target.