• 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
    192
Anwar said:
You mean like how the Hulk was never seen again after his MCU movie flopped?
Click to expand...

Never say never, but in fairness the statement here was about a Young Avengers show or movie, not the Young Avengers appearing in someone else's show or movie. And, yeah, it is indeed still true that we have never seen another Hulk movie or show after his first mcu film flopped.
 
Grendelsbayne said:
Never say never, but in fairness the statement here was about a Young Avengers show or movie, not the Young Avengers appearing in someone else's show or movie. And, yeah, it is indeed still true that we have never seen another Hulk movie or show after his first mcu film flopped.
Click to expand...
But wasn't that due to rights issues rather than the box office performance Incredible Hulk?
 
Yes. Universal still holds the distribution rights for any solo Hulk movie, which is also why Incredible Hulk was released through them instead of Paramount, who were Marvel Studios' main distribution partner before Disney bought them. And Disney is kind of pissed that they may have the film rights for a solo Hulk movie, but would have to work with Universal for distribution.
 
DarrenTR1970 said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...
Fantastic Tested video as always. I hadn't realized there hard been so many Mjolnirs but it isn't surprising. I particularly like the detail how Jane's hammer doesn't have any actual leather on it because Natalie Portman is a vegan. Kudos to Marvel for accommodating her for that. Also cool how there's a full metal version of Stormbreaker that Chris Hemsworth preferred to use whenever he could because the prop had actual weight to it.
 
JD said:
But wasn't that due to rights issues rather than the box office performance Incredible Hulk?
Click to expand...

Kai the spy said:
Yes. Universal still holds the distribution rights for any solo Hulk movie, which is also why Incredible Hulk was released through them instead of Paramount, who were Marvel Studios' main distribution partner before Disney bought them. And Disney is kind of pissed that they may have the film rights for a solo Hulk movie, but would have to work with Universal for distribution.
Click to expand...

We don't actually know the reason with any certainty. The rights issues definitely existed, but rights issues didn't stop them from bringing Spider-man into the MCU or buying back Daredevil's rights. At this point we don't actually know if Universal still even holds any rights. We know their rights to TIH itself expired a few years ago, but what kind of expiration date applied to the deal as a whole (there presumably was one) has never been made public.

Plus film distribution rights are pretty obviously irrelevant to tv series, so they could have made a Hulk show if they wanted to.
 
JD said:
She's vegan, and it's an easy, harmless change, literally in this case since it means a cow didn't have to die, so I don't see what the issue is. As another vegan, I think it's great they were willing to do that for her.
Click to expand...

While I have no objection to veganism, I very much doubt that they slaughtered a cow specifically to make a movie prop. The same number of cows would probably have died in any case, and the resultant leather would have simply been bought and used by somebody else.
 
Set Harth said:
I'd think that had already happened hammer or no hammer...
Click to expand...
Christopher said:
While I have no objection to veganism, I very much doubt that they slaughtered a cow specifically to make a movie prop. The same number of cows would probably have died in any case, and the resultant leather would have simply been bought and used by somebody else.
Click to expand...
That's completely missing the point of Portman's, JD's, or anyone else's veganism.
 
Set Harth said:
I'd think that had already happened hammer or no hammer...
Click to expand...

Christopher said:
While I have no objection to veganism, I very much doubt that they slaughtered a cow specifically to make a movie prop. The same number of cows would probably have died in any case, and the resultant leather would have simply been bought and used by somebody else.
Click to expand...
OK, I guess I worded that badly. I guess it would be more to accurate to say that nothing on it came from a cow that died.
Weyoun 251 said:
Surely the logic should be that one less piece of leather reduces the consumption and therefore fewer cows need to die rather than its already dead?
Click to expand...
Pretty much yeah.
 
The Nth Doctor said:
That's completely missing the point of Portman's, JD's, or anyone else's veganism.
Click to expand...

As I specifically said, I was not addressing the concept of veganism. I was exclusively and narrowly addressing JD's specific choice of words, "since it means a cow didn't have to die." There are plenty of valid arguments for vegetarianism or veganism; that is simply not one of them.

Weyoun 251 said:
Surely the logic should be that one less piece of leather reduces the consumption and therefore fewer cows need to die rather than its already dead?
Click to expand...

On a large enough scale, yes. On the scale of a single movie prop, no.
 
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