Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
The movie will be about Carol Danvers. Kamala Khan has been rumored for TV.
I'd actually be curious to see how all those Inhumans would react to Black Bolt and Co. in that situation. "We're the Royal Family of the Inhumans!" ... "Ok.. so what?" Make them earn the loyalty of the Inhumans, rather than simply inheriting it. And obviously large numbers wouldn't take to the idea at all. Sets up all kinds of potential stories and antagonists.
Presumably they'd be the royal family of an existing Inhuman civilization...not a small group of people running around calling themselves the royal family trying to find followers.
Carol is Captain Marvel, Kamala is Ms. Marvel. Carol used to be Ms., but Kamala has never been Captain (even though quite a few other people have). So it's Carol in the movie.
You bring up some good possiblities here, these do seem like they would be the most logical explanation for the lack of the Royal Family.
Yeah, I'm thinking it would probably more likely that they would just invite people to Atilan, which they happen to rule over, rather than just telling them that just they're now their subjects.
Yeah, for a couple reasons.
One, Kamala Khan was never Captain Marvel. Second, when the announcement was made, Feige said there were many characters to hold the title Captain Marvel, but our movie is about Carol Danvers (the others were Captain Mar-Vell and Monica Rambeau, not Kamala Khan).
On a side note, she used to be "Ms. Marvel," she was never "Miss Marvel" and they deliberately used "Ms." because it was a more feminist thing to do at the time.
Also Genis-Vell, Phyla-Vell, Khn'nr, and Noh-Varr.
No. Mary Marvel was the superhero name of Mary Batson. Although in the '90s, she actually shared the Captain Marvel title with her brother Billy, meaning that DC has also had a female Captain Marvel.
There's never been a "Miss Marvel" in either company as far as I can tell. Entering that in Wikipedia or Google just redirects you to Ms. Marvel. Although it looks like the French use "Miss Marvel" in place of "Ms. Marvel," or at least French Wikipedia does.
I have wondered if their approach to introducing Captain Marvel might be similar to what they're doing with Black Panther & Spider-man. That is, instead of spending their first solo movie doing the origin story, they introduce her character as a supporting role in an Avengers movie (yes, I think Civil War is pretty much counts as an Avengers movie) then give her a solo movie afterwards.
It's quite clever really since it's a neat way of getting an audience invested in the character before their movie even comes out. and avoids some of the formulaic nature inherent in origin movies.
I gather Ant-Man didn't do as good business as some other MCU films and if 'Doctor Strange' also performs less than they might hope this approach may become their new SOP.
It's quite clever really since it's a neat way of getting an audience invested in the character before their movie even comes out. and avoids some of the formulaic nature inherent in origin movies.
I gather Ant-Man didn't do as good business as some other MCU films and if 'Doctor Strange' also performs less than they might hope this approach may become their new SOP.
Ant-Man did less than others better than expected and a sequel was added to the schedule
^From what I read, based on it's opening weekend it did middling box office overall. Not bad by any means and certainly solidly profitable in the long run, but not a runaway hit either.
Marvel (or rather Disney) likes making runaway hits and if they think they've found a way to squeeze a little extra profit by introducing a little narrative efficiency and embedded marketing into their franchise, then that's probably what they're going to go with where it's feasible.
Marvel (or rather Disney) likes making runaway hits and if they think they've found a way to squeeze a little extra profit by introducing a little narrative efficiency and embedded marketing into their franchise, then that's probably what they're going to go with where it's feasible.
So before seeing Civil war I am doing a MCU re-watch so far I have seen 2 of the films and my order was going to be CA > IM > IM2 > Thor > IH > Avenger Assemble > IM3 > Thor: Dark World > CA2 > Avengers: Age of Ultron > Ant man then to Civil war, I think that's the right order but can anybody tell me if Guardians of the Galaxy fits in anywhere or is it more of a marvel films that's more like "meanwhile in another part of the galaxy" sort of film?
Yep, but the whole Infinity Stone thing puts it just before Age of Ultron.
The only earth bound scenes that I remember is a young Star Lord in 1980s America so sometime after The First Avenger and before the flashbacks of perhaps Ant-Man but certainly Civil War. If there is a MCU historian able to put a precise age on Star Lord good luck in your search.
I think the best order is release order. Iron Man 2 alludes to the events of The Incredible Hulk at one point. Captain America: The First Avenger's plot works better if you've already had the idea of Asgard and alien technology seeded, and its final scene of Cap's awakening works best as a lead-in to The Avengers (or Avengers Assemble as it's known in the UK to avoid confusion with Steed and Mrs. Peel).
Well Agents picks up right after Iron Man 3 using a product improved attempt at their Super Soldier formula.I might have to remind myself what the infinity stones stuff is first as most of the films I have only ever seen once so far so my details are a little sketchy.
Honestly if I had time I would also have watched S.H.I.E.L.D in order too.
I know, I think after IM3 its like 7 episodes of shield then Thor's dark world then later in the series is when winter soldier takes place.
I've been wondering if they might take the approach the Arrowverse did when they introduced Flash. We meet her in Infinity War, and her involvment with the whole thing leads to the incident that gives her her powers which she then starts using in her movie.