|
She threw a guy about to explode directly up to reduce the damage he was going to do and <maybe> she caused more loss of life than she prevented. It's a terrible catalyst for the plot of Civil War.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
Timby posted:Why do you do this? Because Strategic Hazard Espionage Intervention Logistics Directorate makes as much sense as Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate. Like how PATROIT Act (PRoviding Appropriate Tools Required to Obstruct and Intercept Terrorism) would be as sensible as PATRIOT Act (PRoviding Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism). BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Nov 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
I think we can all agree the MCU was destined to forever suck rear end the moment they had Harry Dean-Stanton cameo in Avengers 1 to give a pep talk to The Hulk but didn't have it consist of him reenacting the scene from Red Dawn where he screams AVENGE ME!! over and over again for like two minutes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
So what did Stan Lee’s last cameo end up being? It is kind of amazing that he managed to stay healthy enough to do them until the end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:So what did Stan Lee’s last cameo end up being? It is kind of amazing that he managed to stay healthy enough to do them until the end. the ghoulish speculation couldn't be held back for long
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:the ghoulish speculation couldn't be held back for long  It's not ghoulish speculation for someone (especially on a movie forum of all places) to wonder what a person's last filmed appearance will be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:the ghoulish speculation couldn't be held back for long How on earth is that ghoulish you sperglord
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:The films frequently feature such earth-shattering revelations as “the US government is secretly run by Nazis that are more Nazi than regular Nazis” These days that's not such earth-shattering revelations as you might think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
McCloud posted:And how is Rhodey getting semi-paralyzed impactful? Do we see him struggling with his newfound disability, does it meaningfully alter his character or relationship with the other heroes? No, it was milked for 2 minutes of drama and then promptly forgotten. So you claim that you want a scene of him struggling with his disability and then immediately admit that such a scene exists. I guess your issue is that the scene should have been longer? These criticisms are getting really weird and specific.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:So you claim that you want a scene of him struggling with his disability and then immediately admit that such a scene exists. I guess your issue is that the scene should have been longer? These criticisms are getting really weird and specific. the claim is that they want things that happen in these movies to actually matter rhodey being disabled doesn't matter in any way shape or form
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:How on earth is that ghoulish you sperglord You'd think people would be interested in how he contributes to pop culture rather than wondering how many cameos they got before the kicked the bucket. Alhazred posted:These days that's not such earth-shattering revelations as you might think. Winter Soldier was about the Obama administration, so you're saying that... Obama is a Nazi?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:You'd think people would be interested in how he contributes to pop culture rather than wondering how many cameos they got before the kicked the bucket. Do you even actually give a poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
My gene-enhanced metabolism makes the act of making GBS threads obsolete. Look upon the future, and despair. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:So what did Stan Lee’s last cameo end up being? It is kind of amazing that he managed to stay healthy enough to do them until the end. What? gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:My gene-enhanced metabolism makes the act of making GBS threads obsolete. Look upon the future, and despair. As an industrial toilet magnate, this future chills me to my bones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:My gene-enhanced metabolism makes the act of making GBS threads obsolete. Look upon the future, and despair. My god, it's beautiful
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:So what did Stan Lee’s last cameo end up being? It is kind of amazing that he managed to stay healthy enough to do them until the end. Ironically enough, I think his last actual recorded cameo is for Teen Titans Go! To The Movies, where his voice mostly sounds like it was recorded over a hospital telephone. https://youtu.be/XdEfrNBoe8Y
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:
We're mostly in agreement about the MCU then, but you are sorely kidding yourself if you don't think there are people out there that don't think MCU is some sort of carefully crafted masterpiece. Just look at the black panther, a by the numbers movie that was heralded as revolutionary, when the actual text itself is anything but. Neo Rasa posted:
Agree with pretty much all of this. WS ended with Captain perpetrating 9/11 on fake CIA, that should be pretty drat major, and in general that sort of thing would warrant some massive corporal punishment or retaliation against superhero communities. Instead it turns out remnants of nazi CIA had a flying fortress just stashed away somehow, and no one bats an eye at it until civil war when Cap is told he can't do what he wants and violate international law anymore and he sulks It's...cartoonish, for a lack of better word. And again, that's fine for what it is, but it's tiresome to see people exalt it like it's somehow a cinematic achievement when it's cinematic white bread. It's fairly telling that when fans discuss the MCU they talk about the character interactions and future interactions they hope to see, like "I will be so mad if X doesn't tell Y to (quip)", it's because there's little else to discuss. Ragnarok is imo an exception, because like you say it dares to be different, you get cool looking scenes out of a metal album and good comedy. The downside is that it radically changes Thors personality and at times seems like 2 very different movies sewn together, and that's the consequence of the shared cinematic universe, because to tell a good story with Thor they had to drastically change his personality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 22:03
|
|
Then at the end the government lets the Avengers live in a huge SHIELD facility upstate for some reason. Then after how those movies played out in Civil War they had to do a lot mental gymnastics to get Cap on the side of "folks shouldn't register" and Iron Man on the side of "folks should register" and make both of them huge morons to get them on the same sides they were on in the comics. Like that part where Cap is literally signing the accords but then doesn't just because he learns Scarlet Witch is under house arrest until she learns how to not accidentally explode people.
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:So you claim that you want a scene of him struggling with his disability and then immediately admit that such a scene exists. I guess your issue is that the scene should have been longer? These criticisms are getting really weird and specific. Brother entropy summed it up nicely. How does anything in the MCU change if he had just gotten a concussion instead, or broken his ankle, or what not? It's a fake consequence, smoke and mirrors, an illusion of a consequence, because it changes nothing
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
Hell, Vision picks up Mjolnir in Age Of Ultron - the very act of doing so being the cornerstone of the first entire Thor movie - for a Sensible Audience Chuckle, and what growth even comes out of it? Vision farts around in a turtleneck for a movie and then serves as a liability for the entire duration of Infinity War.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Had the pleasure of meeting Stan Lee at a charity do once. He was surprisingly down to earth, and VERY funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:the claim is that they want things that happen in these movies to actually matter I mean, his injury informs his words and actions towards the Secretary of Defense in Infinity War. I'd call that a form of mattering? McCloud posted:We're mostly in agreement about the MCU then, but you are sorely kidding yourself if you don't think there are people out there that don't think MCU is some sort of carefully crafted masterpiece. Just look at the black panther, a by the numbers movie that was heralded as revolutionary, when the actual text itself is anything but. I'm not kidding myself, I'm just not interested in being talked to like I am those people, nor am I interested in talking about how dumb those people are are, or how the movies are dumb not smart, OR how dumb the people are for not getting how dumb not smart the movies are. All of those are masturbatory and a giant waste of time! I don't give a single flaming gently caress about the opinions of people who think a Marvel Cinematic Universe film is a deep mediation on life or the world around us, and the fact that they upset you and others in this thread is only annoying to me insofar as I am apparently being assumed as part of these people. I know the MCU is dumb. I have already moved on instead of feeling compelled to fixate on how deeply wrong other people I do not know are for thinking it isn't. McCloud posted:Brother entropy summed it up nicely. How does anything in the MCU change if he had just gotten a concussion instead, or broken his ankle, or what not? It's a fake consequence, smoke and mirrors, an illusion of a consequence, because it changes nothing You are right, it doesn't matter what the injury is because the point isn't that he lost the ability to walk or that he specifically got a laser beam to the spine, the point is he was was severely injured. Why does it *need* to matter how he was injured? What's the point of focusing on the details of the injury when the details of the injury aren't as important to the story as the fact that he was injured? Being paralyzed is an excellent injury for getting across the stakes (people are in serious danger) while still allowing him to be War Machine in future movies. It needs to be a 'permanent' injury, but not too permanent because (and this might be a spoiler since folks seem to be having trouble with this) in a comic book universe, a lot of the time you want to give the illusion of larger impacts while you actually change something much smaller, or are just making the change to give a character an interesting hook that might be used in the future, without substantially limiting the number of toys in the toybox in the future! Fart City posted:Hell, Vision picks up Mjolnir in Age Of Ultron - the very act of doing so being the cornerstone of the first entire Thor movie - for a Sensible Audience Chuckle, and what growth even comes out of it? Vision farts around in a turtleneck for a movie and then serves as a liability for the entire duration of Infinity War. It does establish very quickly to the characters and audience that Vision is 'worthy' for the Thor definition of worthy, which might as well be synonymous with "Is somebody we should trust."
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
If you have to undercut the very arc of one character to justify another, what is even the point of feigning that those arcs carry any sort of importance or weight? But again, look at Ragnarok - the entire film essentially builds to the “are you the god of hammers?” line, and subsequent reveal of Thor’s full power, only to have the status quo immediately reset in Infinity War by having him go off on a Build A Bigger Hammer fetch quest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
See, I don't really view the Infinity War blacksmith quest as undercutting the Ragnarok's 'you are not your hammer' message. Thor got his rear end absolutely beat at the start of the movie. The first thing he does after waking up is take stock, realize he got his rear end beat, then go to the first place he can think of to buy the Asgardian equivalent of a superweapon while nursing his internalized rage. Stormbreaker is established by Eitri as being a more powerful weapon than Mjollnir. Thor even says to the GotG that he is going to get a Thanos-killing weapon. I guess if you assume the point of Ragnarok was that Thor needed to learn "All tools are useless, only trust your own internal power" or something it might be a bit of a hard swerve to conceptualize Stormbreaker being more powerful (thus more useful to a powerful being) than Mjollnir but I think taking "You are stronger than that tool, don't use it as a crutch" as "You are stronger than ALL tools, if you can't beat something on your own don't even try to find one." is the wrong take away. I think that Ragnarok tried to get across that Thor didn't need his hammer to BE powerful. He can be stronger than his hammer without being stronger than all potential tools in the universe. I also don't view Vision being 'worthy' as undercutting Thor's arc in the first one either, because Thor still went from being unworthy to worthy. It doesn't trivialize what he did, it just means he's not the only worthy person. edit - I am a little said they gave him back an eye, I think he looked cool with the one eye. My understanding is that it was partially because Hemsworth hated wearing the patch, right? Zodiac5000 fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Nov 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:I mean, his injury informs his words and actions towards the Secretary of Defense in Infinity War. I'd call that a form of mattering? Because it's shoddy storytelling, is the point. It is, like you say, the illusion of an impact, without following up on it. It's a hollow gimmick, like giving your lead character amnesia or something. That's what we've been saying for the last 4 pages, but you somehow still manage to cobble together halfbaked excuses for the mediocrity of the storytelling. . We know why they went with the most cliché and boring alternative available, that's not a goodexcuse. This is emblematic of the problem a lot of us have with MCU, which is that they have the opportunity to create an interesting story or setting, and instead just piss it away in favor of easter eggs and quips. In that sense it's just like a comic book, because it doesn't matter how many times Professor X gets his legs back, you know they'll stick his bald rear end back in the chair within the year. Instead of using smoke and mirrors to give us an illusion of an impact, why not make it an actual impact? Why not have Rhodey resent Vision, Tony or Falcon? Why not make his road to recovery interesting, instead of just slapping an exoskeleton on him and calling it a day? Or remove him all together. They got a gazillion toys in their toybox, and the movies are already bloated enough as is, take a risk! Zodiac5000 posted:It does establish very quickly to the characters and audience that Vision is 'worthy' for the Thor definition of worthy, which might as well be synonymous with "Is somebody we should trust." Again, this weird half-assed excuse for a scene that's pointless. The act of doing so not only undermines the entirety of Thor's struggle in the first movie, and never even goes in to what "worthy" means. It's another nonsense scene that adds very little aside from being meaningless catnip for nerds that gets dumber the more you think about it. Edit: And while typing this you came up with another half-assed excuse! But tell us again how you're not like "those" MCU fans 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
Dunno what you want from me here man. The movies are lazily written. The characters are shallow. The reason they are shallow is because the writers of said movies and characters have chosen to stick with the conventions of comic books. Your criticisms of them being lazy are right. Your criticisms of them not taking risks are right. I have no interest in convincing anybody that IW is high art, and I apologize if you think I'm making up excuses or justifications for why the writing is secretly great, that's probably issues with my word choice or something, I'm not trying to. I never took Ragnarok's 'god of hammers' thing as a screed about never using tools, but if this is just me making up excuses I guess I'm not really doing a good job of communicating that without being somebody you can't stand. I think that if folks want to have stories where they did deeper investigations into Rhodey's PTSD, or huge, meaningful mediations on Thor's personal journey, that judging the MCU by that standard is unrealistic, and continuing to complain about how things aren't being explored is akin to complaining that a cinderblock is not a good tire, so we should sand down the cinderblock to make it more round. I would say "No, don't do that, go get a tire, that cinderblock will never be good at what you want."
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:Dunno what you want from me here man. The movies are lazily written. The characters are shallow. The reason they are shallow is because the writers of said movies and characters have chosen to stick with the conventions of comic books. Your criticisms of them being lazy are right. Your criticisms of them not taking risks are right. I have no interest in convincing anybody that IW is high art, and I apologize if you think I'm making up excuses or justifications for why the writing is secretly great, that's probably issues with my word choice or something, I'm not trying to. I never took Ragnarok's 'god of hammers' thing as a screed about never using tools, but if this is just me making up excuses I guess I'm not really doing a good job of communicating that without being somebody you can't stand. I appreciate the restraint it took to not use a food metaphor
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:Dunno what you want from me here man. The movies are lazily written. The characters are shallow. The reason they are shallow is because the writers of said movies and characters have chosen to stick with the conventions of comic books. Your criticisms of them being lazy are right. Your criticisms of them not taking risks are right. I have no interest in convincing anybody that IW is high art, and I apologize if you think I'm making up excuses or justifications for why the writing is secretly great, that's probably issues with my word choice or something, I'm not trying to. I never took Ragnarok's 'god of hammers' thing as a screed about never using tools, but if this is just me making up excuses I guess I'm not really doing a good job of communicating that without being somebody you can't stand. This is nonsense. You can do lean characterisation and world building within the constraints of a comic book adaptation, as plenty of other comic films and television shows attest, including Young Justice, which manages all the characters, world building, red herrings, cliff hangers and the general madness of comic book universes. It's more like they're lovely tires, and you're saying that tires are inherently lovely, which they are not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:Dunno what you want from me here man. The movies are lazily written. The characters are shallow. The reason they are shallow is because the writers of said movies and characters have chosen to stick with the conventions of comic books. Weird how Marvel fans keep proving that they don’t like comic books.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
I do like comic books! I also like comic book movies! It's why I'm here, discussing them! Edit - Not all of them, I guess Zodiac5000 fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:I do like comic books! I also like comic book movies! It's why I'm here, discussing them! Defending their right to do things badly as if it's some intrinsic quality of them instead of the MCU just being bad. I mean, we have roughly 12 hours of Iron Man on film, yet I would challenge you to write even a full paragraph on his character. Obviously, you've got plenty of superficial stuff, but in terms of his values, ideals, what he believes and what he would willingly fight against, he's a cipher. It mostly boils down to "is flippant, but sometimes isn't." His villains always target him personally, saving him the trouble of actually having any real opposition to them beyond survival. He's a non-character despite there being a massive wealth of footage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Alright, Zodiac, look: I think I owe you an apology for being so pithy. CineD is a little on edge because I don’t think we’ve had any non-regulars come in here to talk about these movies in good faith in literal years, and you are attempting that, which I appreciate. The point I was trying to get at with that comment is that I’m not a fan of the idea that flat characters and suspenseless plots are an idea inherent to the medium of comic books, and reflects an overall shame within nerd ideology to unironically enjoy camp. We’re seeing this a lot with the recent release of Venom, which is being frequently billed as “so bad it’s funny” despite the fact that the comedy beats in the movie are all very obviously intentional. I have no problem with movies that want to take comic book material very seriously, but the general fan base seems to be ashamed of how goofy the original sources can get. SMG posted a thesis fairly recently that the intention of the MCU, and the reason why they use the same names as famous comic book arcs, is that their goal is to “fix” a flawed origin, to present a definitive version of that story. Infinity War provides the perfect example - Thanos’s’s original motivation of being in love with Death herself is a genuinely better-written and more sensible argument than some weird libertarian propaganda that falls apart when you look at it funny, but the MCU can’t bring itself to actually use that plot beat (despite us literally encountering a goddess of death who “dies” dubiously just two movies ago) because of what appears to be a shame of the source material. So when the argument is made that the MCU shouldn’t be held to higher standards because it’s based off of comic books, it’s like, man, you know Watchmen exists right? Sandman? A Serious House on Serious Earth?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:This quoted part though, Civil War/the Sokovia accords ARE why the avengers are split up, instead of being in one place. That is why Vision and Wanda are off the grid loving in Scotland while getting Kebabs instead of with their teams, loving and pouring coffee grounds in the disposal. The scene shows that as soon as other avengers show up the Thanos spec-ops team retreats, because they are no longer in the fight they tried to pick. Vision and Wanda having reason to be separated from their two groups is what allows the fight to happen, and they are alone because they care about each other (something established in prior movies) and because their two teams are opposed to each other (also established in prior movies). There's even dialogue about how Vision is off-grid from Tony to Bruce. Vision's resultant injury/protecting Vision drives several scenes across the rest of the movie. It's been a busy day so I'm just getting to this now. You've been kind of getting piled on so I don't want too much to that but I did want to address this point because I didn't really see it addressed. There's really no indication that SW and Vision have fled because of the Sakovia accords or indeed that the Avengers in general have been fractured (outside of Tony staring longingly at his Cap phone). It's presented as them being on a lover's holiday then deciding to buck curfew to have more time alone. Vision seems to still be an Avenger in good standing based on jokes in Homecoming, and Black Widow (who I am also pretty sure is still a core Avenger at the end of CW) just admonishes them for not sticking to their deal and checking in or whatever. I don't remember the Tony/Bruce dialogue but I don't remember it being presented as Tony losing control of his team and being isolated without backup because of his actions. He opens the movie jogging with Pepper and shooting the poo poo and then when aliens attack it's not like he presses the "Avengers Assemble" button and gets no reply, he's just cracking jokes and taking things into his own hands like always. Cap shows up with Black Widow and, again, Widow talks to them as if she more or less knew where they were. That scene essentially implied they have all just been in the super hero equivalent of a private group text that doesn't include Stark or whatever. They could have so easily changed this all so that Tony was presented as being alone after driving everyone away, they just softened everything so it's like, Tony doesn't know where Vision is but it's cool cause Widow did and had it handled, and her and Cap could quickly get together, and Rhodes just welcomes them back with a joke, etc etc. From the second Stark pulled out his burner phone there was no real drama or tension as to whether Cap would show up to help, and they even sidestepped any potential drama by having Banner call instead offscreen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
edit - actually, you know what, not gonna bother, gonna take my own advice (and yours, ghosthotel) and not get animated about it. sorry about that, whomever read it. Boredom at work combined with some defensiveness got the better of me.Guy A. Person posted:It's been a busy day so I'm just getting to this now. You've been kind of getting piled on so I don't want too much to that but I did want to address this point because I didn't really see it addressed. Regarding the bolded part: Isn't there indication of a divide in that there are two separate superteams, one that seems to operate with Captain America, who is very clearly a fugitive and another one that still has the legal backing of the Government, led by Iron Man? And since Wanda and Vision are members of the different superteams it seemed like a logical inference that they are meeting alone in a third-party location (or, I guess, they could be whereever Wanda is at the time but I assumed that the Cap Avengers were even there because of Bruce Banner's call). I guess I didn't interpret Black Widow as a member of the Tony Avengers. I assumed that the Airport fight teams continued on pretty much unchanged. If you assume that Black Widow is a core avenger then yeah, none of that poo poo makes any sense. Zodiac5000 fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
You don't need to type that many words to ask why people insist on talking about movies in the movie forum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:This already doesn’t fly. As often mentioned, there are side details like Tony Stark inventing free renewable energy and it affecting nothing, but the criticism of the MCU not having consequences doesn’t just apply to the background lore, it applies to its own plot. The films frequently feature such earth-shattering revelations as “the US government is secretly run by Nazis that are more Nazi than regular Nazis” but nothing in future films is affected by that. In Ragnarok, Thor loses his eye and his hammer and then immediately gets them back in the next film (I guess it’s an axe now, who cares.) This all comes to a head with Civil War, highly hyped as “the most consequential movie of the MCU!” when what happened was Cap becoming a fugitive and then not mentioned again until he was no longer a fugitive, and Rhodey getting prosthetics that won’t show up outside his suit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
At the end of the day most of the films are intended to stand alone. Infinity War is one of the few exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:Regarding the bolded part: Isn't there indication of a divide in that there are two separate superteams, one that seems to operate with Captain America, who is very clearly a fugitive and another one that still has the legal backing of the Government, led by Iron Man? And since Wanda and Vision are members of the different superteams it seemed like a logical inference that they are meeting alone in a third-party location (or, I guess, they could be whereever Wanda is at the time but I assumed that the Cap Avengers were even there because of Bruce Banner's call). I guess I didn't interpret Black Widow as a member of the Tony Avengers. I assumed that the Airport fight teams continued on pretty much unchanged. If you assume that Black Widow is a core avenger then yeah, none of that poo poo makes any sense. BW's status in particular is left unfortunately vague by the end of Civil War, but she did at least start out the airport fight on Stark's side and wasn't on the floating prison when he visits. She might be on the run as well but I don't think there's necessarily a Captain America run alt-Avengers running around. For one thing, like half of them (Hawkeye, Ant-Man and Bucky) are officially inactive between the end of the CW and the beginning of IW. Again, my interpretation is that Widow in particular is still acting as a kind liaison between the official Avengers and whoever is still on the run with Cap since her dialogue implies that she set up the connection between Vision and Widow and set some ground rules about regular check-ins. If she's left the Avengers then yeah, it doesn't leave much of an "Avengers" even intact, although this is again where the "shared universe" thing isn't really doing this job; like, is Tony Stark holding a press conference in Homecoming to announce that Spider-Man is the 4th active member of the Avengers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:edit - actually, you know what, not gonna bother, gonna take my own advice (and yours, ghosthotel) and not get animated about it. sorry about that, whomever read it. Boredom at work combined with some defensiveness got the better of me. I was being a dick but yeah people keep talking about the movies cus we're in a movie forum. I'm going off what I remember from your post before you edited so I'll try to answer based off that. I get where you're coming from. Why keep criticizing these movies if it's unlikely they're going to do anything but the absolute bare minimum? Because it's fun to talk about. There's a lot of big fuckin' nerds here that love comic books and at least for me there's a morbid curiosity in seeing how these stories get neutered of anything interesting from their comic-book counterparts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
And not for nothing, it's basically impossible to talk about the current state of cinema and not talk about the MCU. For good and for bad it's changed the ways that movies are being made right now, particularly in regards to the idea of big pre-planned cinematic universes. It's absolutely valid to criticize the many shortcomings of the brand, especially since it's being used as the mold for so much more stuff coming out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 03:21
|
|