Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

Well the comic took place on Earth and in the present.

 

True, but everything Kevin Feige has said has focused on the parts of the movie taking place in the past. That said, I'm not surprised that part of the movie will be taking place in the present, this is just the first confirmation of it.

 

Speaking of The Eternals, I really hope they aren't taking anything from Neil Gaiman's run, which is easily his worst comic writing ever. That shot of Sersi makes me think they are (the context of his story is the only reason that sersi would ever look like some random human on the street, even if she was trying to "blend in" she's easily the most bombastic/showy Eternal based off what I've read of her).

To be clear, I doubt they're adapting his Eternals comic directly, but it has some really bad elements that I hope don't make it into this movie.

 

I know I'm big Gaiman fanboy and all, but having recently read that volume for the first time, I thought it was a great story. Mind you, I've never read anything else regarding the Eternals, so that volume is all I have to go by.

 

Sersi has been known to live among humans and throw a lot of parties, so I think this is more likely to just be her in-between parties, which is why she doesn't look as extravagant.

 

What's that? A reasonable take on a very small sample size? How dare you!?

 

Eh. I may really love the MCU, but there is no denying that they tend to tone things down/make things "realistic" probably a bit too much (not anywhere near DC's levels obviously, and there are some rather large exceptions, but it does happen a bit more then I'd like). I'm not big on the casting choice for Sersi, and since she's the only Eternal to really be recognizable even to most comic fans (because of her time as an Avenger), when she's "off", its noticeable.

In the comics, as a character she's never really "off", she's pretty noticeable all the time. This is the same woman that spent years in the time of Ancient Greece turning men into various animals for her own amusement (in the Marvel Comics Universe she is supposed to be the same "Circe" that Jason and the argonauts ran into, although she's obviously calmed down since then).

Honestly, its only a big deal because, as a Marvel Comics fan, she's pretty much THE Eternal. She's been an Avenger, she's had storylines that had no real connection to the rest of the Eternals (like all her stuff with the Black Knight, which is why he makes sense to see in this film), and in general she's always been the most fleshed out Eternal.

Its not like that picture is a make it or break it thing for me, it just makes me worried that at least part of the film will take inspiration from (in my opinion) the worst comic Neil Gaiman wrote, and one that does a fairly shitty job of justifying The Eternals as a group you should want to read about/watch.

I've read a bit of Kirby's Eternals stuff a long time ago, but more than that I've read a good amount of Sersi specific stuff (she has done the most stuff with other Marvel characters of all the Eternals). Gaiman's run was just bad in general, and honestly I HATE that specific trope in general

Spoiler: Neil Gaiman's Eternals

FUCK amnesia/mind wiping storylines, and this one was pulled off particularly badly, and with a stupid end twist as the cherry on top

 

I really don't have any love for Gaiman's Eternals either, I think it's (relatively) overhyped and mediocre. I'm much more fond of Kirby's Eternals and, weirdly, the Knauf's Eternals series that's a sequel to Gaiman's one. All I'm trying is to dispel your (and my) fears about this being based on the Gaiman stuff. I found one of Captain Marvel's greatest weakness to be that as the audience we basically already knew everything (even if we aren't knowledgable about the comics) that Carol has to find out over the course of the film. I'd hate to do that again, but with the Eternals.

 

I have to be honest here, as big of a Marvel fan as I've been my entire life, my exposure to the Eternals is very limited. My first real exposure was a three-part story in Roger Stern's Avengers run. I think it was issues 247, 248 and 249. I've read neither Kirby's run nor Gaiman's stories (although I may make a point of rectifying that before the movie comes out). I'm more familiar with them as supporting characters, rather than leads. Sersei's time in the Avengers makes her the most accessible character for me, so her relationship with Dane Whitman will be something of a grounding point. It puts me in the unusual position of going into a Marvel movie without a whole lot of preconceived notions about the story or characters. That's actually something I'm rather looking forward to.

 

That's actually what pulled me into the MCU to start with. I never really cared much for the Avengers before then. A handful of Hulk or Cap issues was all I ever read (even now I typically have trouble enjoying actual Avengers issues, though I've grown much fonder of many of them as solo heroes), but the movies did such an incredible job introducing the characters that I really got into them all. Worked for the CW verse, too, until I got so frustrated with the shoddy quality that I couldn't watch them anymore.

I'm looking forward to the reversal that will come in phase 5 or so when I start getting to see a lot more characters I'm really super-familiar with get the MCU treatment. So far we've got Spider-man with Ms. Marvel on the way, but I'm definitely looking forward to the X-Men the most. I've always been WAY more obsessed with them than anything else in the genre (even Batman, and Batman was probably my very first superhero).

-

Re: the Eternals, I have to agree Gaiman's run disappointed and left me no more interested in the coming movie than I was already. I've never seen any of the characters anywhere else, so this project is still a total blank slate for me. But MS have earned my trust, as discussed above, so I'm happy to just wait and see what they make of it.

 

I don't know why I feel this way, but my instincts tell me that Sersi and the Black Knight are going to be the narrative focus of the movie. The point-of-view characters. The rest of the Eternals will have important parts to play, of course, but Sersei and Dane will be the ones driving the story forward.

 

Huh, I guess I'm in the minority regarding Gaiman's take on the Eternals.

 

Well, they did have the most focus in the comics of any of the characters in this movie. No other Eternal has gotten near the story time (if that's the right term) as Sersi, even if it was a while ago now, and Black Knight was really tied in with her during her Avengers time, so it would make sense for them to get more focus then the others.

Honestly, I hope Black Knight ends up getting a lot of focus and gets super popular so that more British heroes are introduced. I really want to see Captain Britain in the MCU at some point.

 

https://collider.com/martin-scorsese-says-marvel-movies-are-theme-parks-not-cinema/

Scorsese says Marvel movies aren't cinema.

 

He's entitled to his opinion.

 

I like this take on his comments: https://twitter.com/scott_tobias/status/1180146201511043072

From Scorsese's perspective plot first movies, like the MCU movies generally are aren't actual cinema. They are something shallow and different. Most of the classic auters always use plot as background to convey something entirely different.

 

Like I said in the Spidey thread, he's overrated, so I don't care what he thinks (conversely, I'm a big fan of Spielberg's but I also don't care what he thinks about superhero films).

 

Spielberg made Ready Player One, which is a pretty damn simple entertainment movie, so I don't want him complaining about other movies for being simple. (And I am not sure whether he has or hasn't)

EDIT: To me Spielberg doesn't really come off as a pinky up type of auter anyway. Most of his movies are entertainment first, and he's one of the reasons the summer blockbuster even exists.

 

https://twitter.com/joss/status/1180028110915420160 Whedon does not agree with Scorsese.

 

I agree with him to a degree. From a literal standpoint, of course they're cinema. But there's that common semantic distinction between "movie" and "film" people like to use, as if there's some universal objective checkbox out there defining the latter. It's kind of pompous - if not a little pretentious - obviously, but I do agree with the concept to a degree. And most comic moves don't pass all the criteria, save for Superman, Buton Bats, and Logan. I wouldn't even say the TDK trilogy passes the mark completely. But so what?

Of those would-be checkboxes, I think the DCEU films fill in more blanks. But aside from WW and maybe Shazam, they're a shitty experience not worth a tenth of the price of admission of the MCU. Even Supes II might arguably be the better movie, but Lester just doesn't have the same 'cinematic eye' as Donner.

This holds true for television, as well. While I think the DCW is - overall - the better product, the shows simply lack the artistry of Smallville, which could approach Buffyverse quality when it was on point.

He really isn't. No American filmmaker's oeuvre presents a more complete education in film.