|
zoux posted:I haven't seen a bad review yet. One small indie blog posted a "C" review but they were inundated so bad they had to close the comments and issue an explanatory editorial. Man, I hate that poo poo. Who cares if someone gives something you like (or assume you like since I bet a lot of those people haven't even loving seen it) a bad review?
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
qntm posted:Be sure to stay in your seat during the credits after Civil War, because the music is good and a whole lot of people worked really hard on the film so they deserve to have you at least glance at their names. They are faceless drones whose lives and goals are meaningless to me. 
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
That was a pretty good movie. My largest complaint is that I really had no real sympathy for Captain America. He basically handwaved about "we have to take our own responsibility, what if they don't let us do stuff?!" which felt pretty weak and it kind of fell into the Civil War trap of having Tony Stark do more and more lovely stuff to distract from that. Him turning out to be 100% correct and right felt sort of eh, alright? I guess the Avengers really shouldn't have any oversight but also Tony Stark was right but only if he doesn't actually try to enforce his law against the right people? The airport fight scene was tops though.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
I like how Black Panther is the dude who gets the thematic and personal closure in the film. Cap and Tony just beat the poo poo out of each other and Zemo wins while T'challa is the only dude who actually learns something and develops.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:It's not verbatim, but reframing it as a response to institutionalised sexism is a way of salvaging what comes across as a pretty stubborn and short-sighted POV. Plus the lead-in is different. "Compromise where you can.... and where you can't? Don't." My only problem with the reframing is that it ends up making Cap go "Hm, this woman had difficulties and troubles related to sexism. What does that mean for me, the Man, and my own issues?" Which is unintentional but a little goofy.. Also yes Young Tony Stark was frigging eerie. I really thought they were reusing old footage or something for a minute.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Tom Holland is really an excellent Spider-Man. He's the right mix of snarky and dorky without being either a sadsack like Raimi's or a weird rear end in a top hat like Amazing. He's absolutely more along the lines of Ultimate than classic but that isn't really a big issue.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Picklepuss posted:See, for me a good Spidey wouldn't side with Iron Man. I'll admit though I've only seen three Marvel movies (Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, and the first Captain America) so I don't know if Cinematic Iron Man is the same fascist bastard that Comic Book Iron Man is. So I could be totally wrong. Wait, you chose a side based off a character you've literally never seen in the film? 
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Honestly, Iron Man isn't really fascist in CW. He's arguing fairly reasonably that maybe the people with immense superpowers who freely travel between nations should have some form of oversight rather than being trusted to do things on their own even when that has proven to backfire. He presents it in a bad way due to his own issues and beyond a certain point is determined to keep himself in check more than anyone else. Unlike in Civil War he arrests people for committing actual real crimes and is disgusted that that the Raft is used. He does have his hands tied about going after Zemo... except that turns out to be completely right and going after Zemo without any oversight is exactly what he expected and lead to the final fight. Captain America on the other hand is basically going for Libertarian with the argument that the law doesn't apply to him and shouldn't apply to him because he knows he's doing the right thing and they have no right to stop him. Even though almost everything he does in the film is a mistake. The climax of the film is both Captain America and Iron Man playing directly into Zemo's trap in a way that wouldn't happen if either of them had been willing to compromise. The climax of the film is both sides beating the poo poo out of each other while T'challa, who is the only one able to move beyond his own issues, actually resolves the Zemo plot without being 'beaten' by Zemo. The answer to Civil War is "wow, Tony and Steve are both kinda shitheads, shame for everyone they dragged into it."
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Of course government oversight didn't stop Zemo from getting to Bucky in the first place, either. As Steve said, all it did was shift the blame. The UN isn't better than the Avengers. They aren't worse. They are just a different group of people making their own judgement calls. Ultimately Steve wants to be the one making the call for himself, and so does Tony. That's why he goes after Zemo. The Accords were always going to be a failure, because other than maybe Rhodes and Vision nobody really believed in them. They just believed that things would get worse if they didn't sign them. Steve wasn't willing to pretend, and Tony was willing to pretend to get leverage. Two different mindsets that were always going to be in conflict. Tony did believe in the accords. He didn't believe that they were perfect but that it was better to start with something imperfect that was necessary and work to make it better. He even says as much in the film. He does argue that if they don't sign it will get worse but he also argues heavily in favor of what they represent.The one who is "I don't really believe at all but thinks they have no choice is Black Widow. His biggest mistake in the film is actually ignoring what he was arguing himself (and for well-foreshadowed reasons.) Tony admits that part of his reason for pushing for the Accords is that he knows himself that without them he'll gently caress up. And he does. The climax of the film is Tony and Cap both doing things Cap's way which turns out to be exactly what the villain actually intended. The major problem with Cap is that he doesn't have answers and he admits as much. He just wants to deal with the consequences as they come without acknowledging that the consequences exist. He saves Bucky's life but it comes at the cost of what appears to be a dozen other people's lives. Part of that is the failure of the system but part of it is also his own inability to accept consequences. That is the big reason why the climax happens. Captain America never actually told Tony who killed his parents because the consequences were too hard to deal with so he just let it keep going until it exploded. Tony is acting out of guilt and shame while Cap is ruggedly determined to believe he did the right thing regardless. Neither side actually is in the right and that's the issue Zemo exploits. His entire plot would have collapsed if either side had been more willing to compromise but neither was. Early on Tony seriously tried to get Cap to compromise and Cap was unwilling and then by the airport fight Tony wasn't willing to listen even as Steve tried to explain that Bucky was being controlled. Cap ends up being 'in the right' only in that Tony is given more wrong moments rather than Steve actually being right. Both sides gently caress up hard and kinda-sorta acknowledge it by the end but in the end all they did was gently caress up.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:Just to be clear, unless I'm misinterpreting something Cap did not know who killed Tony's parents. He merely knew that they were murdered, which Tony did not even know until he saw the video. It was new to Cap as well that it was Bucky. Cap knew they were murdered and while he didn't know it was Bucky he seemed to have a fairly good idea which is why he got worried as soon as the video popped up. Even knowing his family was murdered and not telling Tony is a pretty poo poo thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:The absolute second they meaningfully get in his way and he can't just bluff his way around oversight he just fucks off and does what he wants. He doesn't believe in them. He just doesn't believe in himself either. That's the only difference between him and Captain America going into it. Tony is filled with guilt over what their actions have cost people, and Cap is more of a soldier and rationalizes loss as a thing that sometimes happens in the line of duty. Tony can't rationalize loss, so he clings to the idea of accountability. He just doesn't actually believe in that accountability when it comes time to be accountable to it. He just wants some authority figure to say what he's done is ok, that he's not a monster killing people's babies, and that he can put on his suit and help people with his conscience clean. And that's a perfectly noble and rational desire, it's just not particularly conductive to being a super-hero. And at the end of the day he is a super-hero. Tony does believe in them. The fact that he goes against them is because he is (unsubtly) an addict. MCU Iron Man is addicted to Iron Man instead of alcohol. IM3 and Civil War both emphasize this and the fact that he is literally unable to put down the suit even when it ruins his relationship with Pepper is a pretty critical thing. He is acting like an addict where he knows one thing and can't stop himself from the other. The Accords are his version of AA but that doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it when he falls off the wagon. Tony knows he isn't trustworthy. That's his flaw. He can see what he needs to do but also can't trust himself to do it. He even says as much in the film. He blew up all his suits and them promptly kept getting back into the suit because he can't stop himself even though he knows he should. Boogaleeboo posted:Again, he absolutely was. He wanted a bit of oversight into how it would work, but he was absolutely willing to start to compromise until he heard about Wanda. Right, but he had no idea what to do about Wanda or any plans at all. He was just angry because he was the one responsible for Wanda's situation. He wasn't willing to compromise because he disliked what he heard but had no solution at all what to do, he was just angry because it was a thing he felt was wrong. It is exactly a case of 'Cap has no ideas but he doesn't want you to do what he dislikes." ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:52 on May 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Why is Wanda locked up? For her part in AoU? In the opening of the film she stops Crossbone from exploding Captain America but misjudges and blows up a big portion of a building stopping it. She is explicitly still learning to control her powers and is in training and ends up in a bad situation and Cap apologizes for putting her into it. She gets put under house arrest with Vision to prevent anything else from happening.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:You keep saying that about a man that literally picked up a pen and started compromising. Why? Because he picked up the pen and was still hesitating and the second he heard something he disliked he changed his mind in a moment while angrily telling Tony off without making a single argument beyond 'that's wrong.' He was tempted but proved he wasn't actually willing.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:I feel like Cap's point of contention even before Wanda was that Tony's side refused to ask any questions. You said that "What if we have to do bad things or what if we aren't allowed to do good things" is weak, but at least it's a start. It's better than diving in head first because you can see that not doing so will be a fight. The movie then goes to show why Cap is right in that regard. Not asking any questions about the motives involved is what allowed Zemo into Bucky's cell to reactivate his Winter Soldier programming and cause him to kill more people. They just captured him and hand delivered him to be interrogated by some guy because some government officials said so. Sure in the real world that's how things work, but Steve was right to wonder why Tony couldn't be bothered to try and reason. They were given the Sokovia Accords and half of the team just said "Alright, whatever". That's lazy. Cap didn't try to reason at all. He just kept going "I see things going south" or other vague comments without offering any suggestions beyond the fact that the doesn't trust other people. It's not actually a start because Cap had no plans for Bucky and even after rescuing him the end result was... putting Bucky in frozen carbonite because he was too big a danger to others around him. So apparently he's perfectly fine with locking someone up for being a danger as long as it is him doing it. Wanda even was content to stay inside when it was explained to her until Clint specifically came, broke her out and insisted she come with him. Boogaleeboo posted:Well yeah, that's why it's compromising. It's making concessions to what you actually want to reach an agreement. Nobody is ever loving happy about it, or it wouldn't be a compromise. And you say "something he disliked" like it wasn't illegally detaining one of their friends. Like it was just some minor little thing. Face it. He was willing to compromise with the situation until new information came up. He thought it was wrong, but he was willing to sit down and make changes until it was something everyone was happy with until he heard they were locking up his friends. Right, and what is the other solution? Captain America took an untrained Scarlet Witch on missions and it killed a dozen people because she wasn't prepared for it and because he himself hosed up when he got Bucky thrown in his face. He has no solution, just "no, don't do that," even after he hosed up tremendously. That isn't a compromise. And Cap is clearly okay with people being locked up as long as it is under his specifications or he'd not have been okay with the end of the film. So if Tony had asked Wanda and she'd agreed to it then presumably there would have been no issue but Cap didn't even bother to check that. It is his way or the highway. "No, you move" as the film puts it. Tony was absolutely wrong for doing it without telling Wanda, that isn't up for debate, but Cap's solution is just "no, you're wrong, Imma do it my way." ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:29 on May 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Cap didn't reason, but that was his idea. He went to Stark first for support. To his surprise, Tony (and his two best buddies) were already 100% in. At that point it was becoming a law and there was a "get with it or get out" kind of thing being declared. It didn't matter if Cap had a solid plan or not, he was not being listened to. Ross made that crystal clear when he ignored the evidence that Bucky was innocent. Cap's plan wasn't to put Bucky back on ice, it was Bucky's idea. Cap's entire deal was that he wanted him and all of the other heroes to have a choice. He said that many times. If Bucky had told him that he wanted the government to capture and confine him to prison then I have to imagine Cap would've let that happen as well. It's not just that Cap has some kind of leader-complex and wants to be in charge of it all. His ego is definitely part of things, but he ultimately believes that he and his friends are all good people and should therefore have the choice in what they do. He believes this because he feels like they will always choose the right thing. That's naive, but it isn't really wrong. Captain America absolutely has a leader complex and doesn't believe the laws apply to him. Like that isn't even up for debate. You can argue that he's justified or not but it doesn't really matter because as long as Captain America believes he's justified than the laws don't apply to him and he has the power to enforce that. We see it at the end of the film where he breaks into the Raft to free the other Avengers. As long as he believes it then everyone else can go to hell. I mean The Raft is interesting because at first blush it looks terrible. It's an underwater supermax prison. Except as we see at the end of the film isn't enough. Captain America is able to break in and free a group of superpowered individuals. So what if it had been a supervillain? The only reason it's 'good' is because it is Captain America but he doesn't think about how that applies to anyone else. His friends angrily grumble about being arrested and imprisoned but they openly and knowingly broke the law and at least one of them is extremely superpowered. What precisely are they supposed to do with them? Let them go? Tony even brings it up and they just get angry that he dared to arrest them for breaking the law. Captain America is a good person but he even admits that he puts a lot of emphasis on the people he trusts and considers that more meaningful than anything else. Tony on the other hand is well aware that even people he trusts can gently caress up and make mistakes and that has consequences. Neither side is entirely correct. Boogaleeboo posted:Who cares? It's like if you told me you had a plan to solve the deficit and it involved raping nuns and orphans: The counter to me telling you that's insane isn't "Yeah, but what's your idea?". You are wrong, your wrongness is an intrinsic quality that in no way requires my having a better idea in that moment. Tony is wrong, the UN is wrong, and their idea was never workable. The fact Cap doesn't have a better idea doesn't change that. All he did was save them time. Now they know a bunch of people that were never going to listen to them won't listen to them. Now, whatever they do next, at least it'll be more realistic a solution. Except that isn't what the Accords involved at all? Like there's no point in the film where the Accords are Secretly Evil. Claiming that it is on par with raping nuns is frigging ridiculous because there's nothing in the film to suggest that. Edit: The ending of the film is Cap sending Tony a letter that is apologizing, suggesting that they're both doing what they think is right, and Cap saying he'll be there if Tony needs him. I'm pretty sure if the Accords were Evil Puppy Raping then Cap wouldn't be offering that. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:50 on May 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:So, to follow your own logic... what's your answer to the prison issue? Cuz I guarantee Thunderbolt Ross wasn't going on CNN and sharing the conditions at the Raft. Is Wanda in a straitjacket until she dies of old age? That's a heck of a 'solution'. And we know for a fact the Avengers weren't given a trial and at no point is one mentioned, so we're back to 'detained without trial in supertech gulag' from the comic. We also don't see Bucky or Zemo get trials so I guess they were locked away without trial too. That's a really weird argument considering the time between arrest and Tony's visit has to be less than a day considering it happens while Steve and Bucky are still in flight. We don't actually know what the end result of the Raft situation is because the film doesn't go into it but I'm somehow doubting Wakanda, Black Widow or MCU Iron Man was going to sign on for Eternal Imprisonment Without Trial. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:59 on May 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:
Except as we saw they were a serious breakout risk. Wanda is the only one with powers but at least one of them is an expert thief, another is a former SHIELD covert ops agent and the third is an elite soldier. And we see them get rescued at the end of the film from the "power play' Raft by a single person. I'm pretty sure they can't just stick them in a holding cell down at the precinct or whatever, especially considering it has been less than a day. Boogaleeboo posted:.......morality was never an issue raised, sanity was. The Accords are a bunch of politicians telling a group, whose defining moment was ignoring the orders of a bunch of politicians in order to save New York by the way, that it'd be a good idea if they listen to politicians. This is not a viable solution to anything. "Politicians never solve anything! It can only be solved when great men take actions into their own hands" is not only a gross Randian idea it is one that CW has potential Raidan Superman Tony Stark reject and point out as flawed and damaging and admitting that he himself has trouble sticking with that. It's the only thing that keeps the film from being absolutely disgusting to watch. (And even then it trends that way with Tony allowing his friends to skirt around the law whenever possible.)
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:That would be fine if we didn't know these guys and had no context, but we do. They came in relatively peacefully. If they had put up a serious fight, they would not have been sitting in The Raft. At least Wanda if nobody else could've leveled the poo poo. They're the good guys though and they don't do that. The only risk to them escaping was if their Big Boss came for them. As it turned out, there wasn't anything they could do about that. Which is totally Tony's point and that's the part where I see his point. They can't live in a world where having super powers means you get to do whatever you want when it suits you. However, putting all those guys in a supermax prison underwater is not the solution to that problem. Clearly. They absolutely did not come in peacefully, they had a giant fight that leveled an airport and left someone crippled. The fact that nobody died doesn't mean it wasn't a serious fight, not in the least because nobody wanted someone to die. And are you seriously saying they wouldn't have tried to escape if the chance arose? Hell, they did escape when the chance arose. And no. It's another case of there being no actual answer but people jumping to 'it's wrong' anyway. Scarlet Witch is currently, according to the film, a tremendously feared weapon of mass destruction who is being blamed for the death of 12 civilians. Her not being allowed to go to the store for some paprika isn't as simple a matter as people like to argue and the fact that Captain America has no other solution is a pretty important point. "She's a teenage girl" ignores the opening of a film is Captain America using this same girl as a soldier in a battle against terrorists which I guess is totally okay? It's actually a complex issue which Captain America doesn't give a poo poo about. Tony should absolutely have talked to Wanda about it first and he's well in the wrong for that, but context goes both ways and the film provides a lot of context beyond "Tony was doing it for no reason." ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 00:09 on May 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Not what I was on about. More your idea that Wanda was totally chill with her condition and Hawkeye showed up and strong armed her to leave. That's definitely not what happened in the slightest. Captain America gave a poo poo about the issue. He wanted a solution better than locking her away. Like they are constantly trying to do to Banner. Like they did with Bucky. Like they would eventually do with his other mates. The solution to super powered people in the MCU seems to be finding a deep enough hole and tossing them into it. You are harsh on Cap for not having ideas, but that's not really his job. Nor is it his point. He doesn't have to have a better idea in order to explain why the current one is bad. Tony had a reason for trying to keep Wanda away from the PR nightmare while he was trying to get all his friends pardoned. However, as you admitted, he went about it in a terrible way. Cap is helping her to get control of her powers. She's gotta do that in intense situations for it to work and since there's no Danger Room in this universe, he tried her in combat. Perhaps not the best tactic, but as you defended Iron Man with, what is the alternative? It is the definition of Captain America's job actually. He wants it to be his job. That's kind of the entire point. He wants the hands that are responsible to be their own which by definition means he needs to have a solution. And Tony wasn't planning to 'just lock her away.' Like Vision explains the situation and it isn't Tony locking her up forever. It was "at the moment poo poo is explosive." She even hesitated leaving at first because of that. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 02:04 on May 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Zemo's entire plan would've fallen apart phenomenally if Bucky took a bullet to the brain at any point before he was able to interrogate him, wouldn't it If Bucky died Cap probably would have responded extremely badly, especially if Tony was in any way responsible. So same outcome basically.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Raserys posted:How did Tony know that Peter Parker was Spider-Man? Dude is a super genius with an army of drones. It's not hard.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:Since we're on actor chat at the moment, does anyone know who plays the woman in T'Challa's entourage? The one who has him going all Was that supposed to be a character from the comics? She got surprising emphasis so I wondered if I was supposed to know who the character was.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 16:46
|
|
while she confronts Black Widow in the parking garage.
|
Cythereal posted:I'm going to be surprised if there's not an element of that in Homecoming, given that Pepper broke up with Tony between Ultron and Civil War and Paltrow has said she's iffy about playing the character again. I would deeply love it for "Tony Stark is dating Aunt May" to be canon. And also for the comics to be stuck with it also. Not actually change anything, just Tony Stark dating the Cryptkeeper. He uses StarkTech(tm) to deage her 150 years at some point though for brand synergy, and then proceeds to remind Spider-Man at every single occasion that he is dating his Hot Aunt.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
omg chael crash posted:What was the in story reason for Pepper not being in CW? I somehow didn't catch it Tony kept going back to his Iron Man suits despite promising he wouldn't and she had enough. It's basically "Tony's an alcoholic" but with Iron Man in place of actual alcohol.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
zoux posted:Attention super hero's girl and boyfriends: They are never going to pick you over the suit. Cap clearly chose Bucky over the suit.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
They do have a solution there in the form of Rescue if they actually wanted to.Cythereal posted:Maybe more to the point, the world isn't going to let Tony especially pick Pepper over the suit. He's tried that two or three times now and poo poo keeps happening that demands Iron Man. Honestly has anything happened since Iron Man 3 that actually required Iron Man and wasn't caused by Tony?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Pepper Potts is entirely needed because Tony Stark needs someone who will call him on his poo poo and who he will listen to. Rhodes kinda-sorta fills that role but doesn't have the same influence on Tony and without that poo poo-called Tony... well, he makes a whole lotta fuckups is what he does.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
DC is also already using their own Enchantress in Suicide Squad and they probably would prefer not to overlap.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Rurea posted:Yeah. If you showed people a list of the male Marvel heroes in 2007 and said "guess which ones will get their own movies or feature in movies in the next ten years", everyone would have been wrong. Really? I can't think of any who would be on that list and didn't get one.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:The whole point of the character is that she breaks the power curve. That's not sustainable in the same universe without reining in her power (negating her character) AND making her serious (negating her character). Or instead of focusing on her power level you focus on her being chipper, optimistic and slightly over the top despite her silly power set? Nor does she need to be serious. Frigging Deadpool is one of the most profitable superhero films ever.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
The MCU is coming up on 10 years of length and more than a dozen films. It is one of the largest and most prolific film franchises ever. Saying they 'need to wait' is insane because they're going to be releasing their 14th film this year.. *14.* The only comparable franchise is like James Bond.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:They have one Cosmic Marvel film and zero Magic Marvel films. You're pretending like the Marvel Universe still isn't tiny in scope when it absolutely is, restricting the kinds of heroes they can introduce or stories they can tell. Currently, anyways. The Marvel films involve a group of space heroes, a genius tech, an alien god who battles space elves, a World War II hero, and as of this year will involve a super-magician. calling it 'tiny in scope' is absurd. I literally can't think of a film franchise that is comparable in genre and setting.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:And they all hang out in Manhattan. Yes, Thor and the Guardians of the Galaxy all spend most of their time in Manhattan. Edit: Actually none of them really do. Most of the Marvel films not named Avengers spend their time outside of Manhattan. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:47 on May 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Compared to 616, which is exactly where they'd be drawing female supers from? Yeah, the MCU is tiny in scope. You really need to stop treating the movies like they should give a poo poo about the comics at all. They're movies. They're not comic adaptations. Civil War just came out and has almost nothing to do with its comic counterpart beyond the mere basic concept of "Iron Man and Captain America fight over a law" and a version of an iconic villain who is so absurdly different (and yet still well done) that it doesn't matter. Treat them like films and compare them to other films, not like comics.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
The Wasp in the MCU is going to be a character who basically never existed before except as a completely different character with a completely different superhero identity in a "What if" future timeline.Toxxupation posted:Ah yes, comic book movies shouldn't take inspiration from comic books. How silly of me. I like how you can't tell the difference between "taking inspiration from' and "this is a literal exact copy" less than a week after Civil War came out. Civil War is an exact example of what we're talking about here. Its similarities are entirely superficial and its themes, concepts and basically everything about it are completely different. It omits every single iconic moment from the comic and its villain is completely different from the comic version of the character. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:59 on May 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
X-O posted:The biggest hurdle to getting a lot of these female heroes is also the biggest hurdle for new male and female superheroes in comics. They're all either derivative of other heroes or are legacy characters. The original ones that don't fall into that category, or that are derivative of characters that don't matter like Tigra, Moondragon, Thundra, White Tiger, Songbird, Miss America, or Elsa Bloodstone is that these characters really couldn't really make it as solo characters in comics much less in movies. That's not to say there's not a way to make them work in movies, but there's no incentive to try from business point of view. You don't make movies out characters that barely make waves in the comics. That's why you're also never going to see a Nova, Red Wolf, Starbrand, Spider-Man 2099 movie or solo movies for characters like Hawkeye and Vision. This I agree with, unfortunately. I'm not sure how they can fix it short of trying for a super-hard push of a character Cyborg-style but that is really hard to do Toxxupation posted:Because Squirrel Girl was invented as a joke. There's a difference between going "let's make her origin legally and distinctly different from being a mutant" to "let's make her Not a Joke". As opposed to Deadpool? The character who literally began as a parody of Deathstroke: The Terminator? Toxxupation posted:You said, and I'm quoting you directly here, that the movies "shouldn't give a poo poo about the comics at all". The only one exaggerating here is you. As per usual. ... No? You don't actually grasp what I'm saying? If the comic does something and the film makers want to do something different then they shouldn't give a poo poo it contradicts the comic. Which they don't. They absolutely don't give a poo poo about the comic if it gets in the way of their story. If they really think it's better for a character to be different than the character will be different. It doesn't matter if it's the Nova Corps, Baron Zemo or The Mandarin.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:"the DNA of this character, the fundamental building blocks that establish who they are and what their themes are, should be ignored" (which I absolutely don't). Why? They do it all the time. Is Baron Zemo bad for being so completely and utterly different from his comic version? Is Drax a worse character because he isn't a human being whose family was killed by Thanos? Did it ruin Thor that the only service paid to Donald Blake was a brief injoke on his borrowed clothes? Is Scarlet Witch really ruined when she's now an orphan with a dead brother whose powers came from a magic gem? If they make a really good character who is completely divorced from the original character but is a good character, is that bad or wrong? X-O posted:Call me crazy, but I think Marvel and the MCU should probably try to make some original female characters that aren't just gender swapped versions of male characters and well defined. Those would would have a much better chance at actually being successful movies. Sure female Thor is fun, but why not make a similar character and push her the same way that isn't just a duplicate of someone else? I'd love to see the MCU actually take on original characters a bit more honestly, but I know it's more marketable to use existing ones.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Female Thor is really the only example of that, though. None of the Spider-Women (well, Gwen, but that's...a whole other shitstorm) or She-Hulk has that problem. Quasar and Nova are ideals so have no baggage of gender-swapping anyways. ... She-Hulk is literally named She-Hulk and got her powers from an infusion of Hulk's blood. Unless you change that entirely (and I'm not opposed to that) she is absolutely derivative of another hero.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
X-O posted:And therein lies the problem, because most of the marketable ones are just gender swapped versions male characters we already have or have their rights with other studios. And there's no incentive in just doubling down on female Thors, Iron Mans, or Spider-Mans. Yeah, that's the truth. You can make an original hero or you can turn, I donno, Mary-Jane into Spider-Jackpot and the latter would probably do better just for existing alongside Spider-Man. 
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
Toxxupation posted:No, she's not. She's always been in control of her personality and conscience from the start, which makes her inherently different from Hulk (who usually gets a name change if he can actually control his thoughts, reinforcing the point). She-Hulk. As in "Hulk who is she." She is a good character but when he name is literally "Female Hulk" you really can't pretend she isn't a Hulk derivative.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:24
|
|