I have to agree with this. Star Trek V and the Section 31 movie are just as much canon as The Wrath of Khan and First Contact.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Correct. It's the makers of the work that determine canon, not the consumer.
If it happens in another universe doesn't mean it didn't happen, technically. It just means some other universe in the mult-verse had those events take place.
Nothing about Secret Invasion says "alternate universe" story, though.
Everything can happen in a alternate universe. Just because the events don't crossover and impact the main universe, doesn't mean stuff isn't happening.
You're ignoring the point.
Because there's absolutely nothing about Secret Invasion that indicates that its events are an AU to the primary universe of the MCU, the only motivation for trying to ignore its Canonicity is that it's not good, qualitatively, which isn't how things work.
Eh, whatever. The obsession with canon is overblown (in general, not just in this instance). All that matters is if you enjoy it or not.
Last edited:
It's not a good series, I know that much.
I've never seen Ben Mendlesohn or Emilia Clarke wasted so badly.
I've never seen Ben Mendlesohn or Emilia Clarke wasted so badly.
Acknowledging the reality of something being Canonical is not even remotely equivalent to "being obsessed with Canon".
No, but constantly bringing it up and capitalizing "canon" (it's not a proper noun) does border that equivalency.
Hey that is good enough reason as any to remove something from canon. Though I would say it's not the only reason. By removing it you get to bring Maria Hill back to life and explain and ignore the idea that their is some kind of cold war going on fighting Skrulls. Also you can restore Nick Fury's dignity.
I agree with Mendlesohn but has Clarke ever been good in anything other than Game of Thrones? She still has lived down being a bad Sarah Connor.
She was great as Qi'ra in Solo.
I agree she was decent in that. Still she seems to have more fails than success. What I don't get is how does she and Sophie Turner keep getting high profile jobs when the more talented Lena Headey seems to not be in anything, anymore. Ironically unlike Clarke she was great as Sarah Connor.
Emilia Clarke has been great in everything I've ever seen her in. Even Secret Invasion. That the script wasn't good was not her fault.
I'd agree. I don't think her acting has been her problem. Her agent keeps getting her roles in crappy projects. As for Turner, I tolerated her acting in Game of Thrones but she was certainly a weak link in the cast.
The success or failure of something is determined largely by general interest, not quality (which is an entirely subjective thing).
It's not science fiction or fantasy, but I also loved Clarke in Dom Hemingway (with Jude Law and Richard E. Grant!).
I think things that are well made though have a higher batting average so to speak. Basically if a movie or tv show is good it will be successful to some degree more than the ones that are bad. Most of those shows and movies disappear and are never remembered or talked about again unless they fail in amazing way somehow or they bring down the career of a once promising actor or older actor of acclaim that not as popular as they once were.
Eh. That's debatable.