• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

What grade would you give the Marvel Cinematic Universe? (Ever-Changing Question)

  • Total voters
    185
Honestly, I don't know who is right for the part. Previous actors that played Reed didn't really work IMO. I think this casting will be like when Chris Evans was announced as Captain America.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
Black Panther was Boseman's as much as the Frankenstein Monster had been for Karloff in the Universal series (because next to no one has ever claimed Lon Chaney Jr., Bela Lugosi or Glenn Strange made the role their own / became the defining portrayal of the Monster), and that--whether the role is recast or not--is impossible to replace or surpass.
Click to expand...

They've been recasting that part for nearly 100 years now and just because most people like Karloff best doesn't mean people don't enjoy other versions. Boseman was great but this whole "no one can ever replace him" argument reminds me in no small part of the people who claimed no one could ever replace Heath Ledger as Joker (surprise! here comes Joaquin Phoenix!) or still think only Shatner and Nimoy could play Kirk and Spock
 
Saul said:
Honestly, I don't know who is right for the part.
Click to expand...


Ah-HEM ;)
21266.jpg
 
Philosophical/generalized musings on age gaps in relationships should probably be discussed elsewhere.

Set Harth said:
"Didn't you guys chart in the 60s?"
Click to expand...
Yep, it's abundantly clear that the Four aren't a part of the main timeline's history, hence my suggestion they be introduced in a different universe's 1960s.
 
JoeZhang said:
The comic version is just sort of weird in many ways - he uses time travel to go places and fight people but it's just a transport mechanism - except for the crossing (!!) and a recent mini-series, it's never used in a clever way because it cannot be.

So let's say he fights The Avengers and they barely defeat him. He goes back to the future, re-equips and comes up with a new plan and then arrives immediately after he left and wipes out the tired Avengers. If it doesn't work that second time, just do it a third and fourth...
Click to expand...
One thing I don't get about movie/streaming Kang: as I understand it, in the comics the Victor Timely thing happened because Kang intentionally went back to the 19th century to play the Tesla-esque inventor role. But Loki's Timely has roots in the 19th century: we see him as a boy in 1868. Yet HWR referred to a scientist living in the 31st century. Are we just supposed to accept that there's a version of Kang who was apparently born in the 19th century "because variant duh"? Or were all variants actually rooted in the 19th century somehow? Or was the boy Timely actually from the 31st century but got time-traveled back to the 19th through some unspecified event?
 
the G-man said:
Ah-HEM ;)
21266.jpg
Click to expand...

I can't object

Gaith said:
Yep, it's abundantly clear that the Four aren't a part of the main timeline's history, hence my suggestion they be introduced in a different universe's 1960s.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking the current multiversal focus would be ideal for introducing some period piece comic movies. However, I don't know how much of that is just my personal likings versus actual mainstream appeal.

For that matter though I don't know how much superhero movies appeal to the next generation. We seem to be stuck with targeting the superhero landscape of the 1990s not the current situation from what I've seen.

Set Harth said:
One thing I don't get about movie/streaming Kang: as I understand it, in the comics the Victor Timely thing happened because Kang intentionally went back to the 19th century to play the Tesla-esque inventor role. But Loki's Timely has roots in the 19th century: we see him as a boy in 1868. Yet HWR referred to a scientist living in the 31st century. Are we just supposed to accept that there's a version of Kang who was apparently born in the 19th century "because variant duh"? Or were all variants actually rooted in the 19th century somehow? Or was the boy Timely actually from the 31st century but got time-traveled back to the 19th through some unspecified event?
Click to expand...

The way I saw it as there are Kang variants everywhere, that's what we see in Antman and that's what the TVA is watching/pruning now. The Timely variant was being pushed to replace HWR by the manipulations of Renslayer and Miss Minutes.
 
Mr. Adventure said:
The way I saw it as there are Kang variants everywhere, that's what we see in Antman and that's what the TVA is watching/pruning now.
Click to expand...

The TVA isn't pruning anything anymore. That's the whole reason the Kang variants are able to exist. They're trying to protect the timelines now, not eradicate them.
 
Christopher said:
The TVA isn't pruning anything anymore. That's the whole reason the Kang variants are able to exist. They're trying to protect the timelines now, not eradicate them.
Click to expand...
They're monitoring them now, what will they do if one needs to be addressed? I assumed they would handle them harshly if need be.
 
Mr. Adventure said:
They're monitoring them now, what will they do if one needs to be addressed? I assumed they would handle them harshly if need be.
Click to expand...

The Kangs as individuals, yes. But "pruning" refers to the eradication of entire timelines and everyone living within them, which is a genocide twice as large as Thanos's every single time a pruning occurs. So it's very much the wrong word to use when discussing whatever sanctions they might impose on individual Kangs.
 
Set Harth said:
One thing I don't get about movie/streaming Kang: as I understand it, in the comics the Victor Timely thing happened because Kang intentionally went back to the 19th century to play the Tesla-esque inventor role. But Loki's Timely has roots in the 19th century: we see him as a boy in 1868. Yet HWR referred to a scientist living in the 31st century. Are we just supposed to accept that there's a version of Kang who was apparently born in the 19th century "because variant duh"? Or were all variants actually rooted in the 19th century somehow? Or was the boy Timely actually from the 31st century but got time-traveled back to the 19th through some unspecified event?
Click to expand...
I assumed all variants come from 19th Century Timely. Perhaps the 31st Century was his first stop. IIRC, comic Kang was from the 31st Century and assumed the name Kang after winding up in the 41st Century after over shooting his home time on the way back from Ancient Egypt.
 
the G-man said:
They've been recasting that part for nearly 100 years now and just because most people like Karloff best doesn't mean people don't enjoy other versions. Boseman was great but this whole "no one can ever replace him" argument reminds me in no small part of the people who claimed no one could ever replace Heath Ledger as Joker (surprise! here comes Joaquin Phoenix!) or still think only Shatner and Nimoy could play Kirk and Spock
Click to expand...

The comparison was centering on hypothetical and actual cast changes from a defining actor/performance within the same series--(Boseman in the MCU & Karloff in the Universal monster movies, respectively), not casting a part in unrelated productions spanning generations.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
The comparison was centering on hypothetical and actual cast changes from a defining actor/performance within the same series--(Boseman in the MCU & Karloff in the Universal monster movies, respectively), not casting a part in unrelated productions spanning generations.
Click to expand...
In which case, I would respectfully submit James Bond/Sean Connery and the various successors, some more successful than others, but still recast
 
I'm a big fan of Pedro Pescal, but he just doesn't seem like a good fit for Reed Richards to me. If he is cast, he could be good in the role, but he's just not an actor that really jumps to mind as Reed for me.
the G-man said:
Ah-HEM ;)
21266.jpg
Click to expand...
OK, now Anson Mount on the other hand would be great. But I'm not sure if his appearance in Multiverse of Madness would keep Marvel from wanting to use him. Yes, he was also Black Bolt in Inhumans, but I think most people probably wants to pretend that never happened.
Gaith said:
Yep, it's abundantly clear that the Four aren't a part of the main timeline's history, hence my suggestion they be introduced in a different universe's 1960s.
Click to expand...
We really don't know much about the MCU's '60s, so they could easily have been around then, and they just haven't come up yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top