FOX has already let the Daredevil rights revert back to Marvel through their inaction on the property, and Sony has been contemplating selling off its entertainment assets, so there is hope for Spider-Man.
Ant-Man and Dr. Strange part of Marvel Cinematic Universe phase 3
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
That does seem to be the trend now, to start with a lesser villain and save the big one for movie two or three. I could see them using Mordo as the villain for one and then doing a post-credits scene that hints at Dormammu as a set up for movie two.
I feel X-Men is such a robust cast of characters that cross-overs tend to be distracting. You end up with mutants as a product of evolution and all the allegories that come with it and, oh by the way, there are other super heroes that are artificial and have none of those things but can still pose the same threats to other people. It undercuts the themes a bit. So I'm fine with X-Men being a separate universe.
Similarly, I feel that Daredevil and Punisher (might be missing someone) would work great in the same universe as Spiderman, but you don't necessarily need them in the Avengers universe.
Re the magic issue and audiences acceptance thereof - a couple of years ago, people were voicing the concern that Thor would be a hard sell, with his Norse Gods etc, but that worked out all right.
I used to think that way, but then I read an article or blog post that made a really good point: Any one movie studio can only make a finite number of movies per year, so if Marvel got back the rights to all its characters, we'd get fewer Marvel superhero movies in all. So now I think it's better to have them spread out among multiple studios working on them simultaneously. All we need is for the different studios to cooperate, to coordinate their efforts in order to establish a sense of continuity. That almost happened last year -- the makers of The Avengers had an agreement in principle with Sony to insert The Amazing Spider-Man's Oscorp Tower into their digital Manhattan skyline, but it didn't work out because of the timing of the post-production of the respective films. But it could've happened there, and it could happen again in the future.
I assume you're thinking of the curvaceous way she's usually drawn. I'd really rather not see her portrayed that way. I've got nothing against curvaceous women in principle, but it's a terrible body type for a catburglar, someone who's supposed to be light and agile and able to slink through tight spaces. It's a mistake to render Black Cat and Catwoman that way, a triumph of cookie-cutter fetishism over good character design.
Character design is not necessarily better when it's realistic. The characters you're talking about are defined by their sensual nature just as much as their profession. If you ignore those qualities, you miss the point of the character and end up with something else instead, something that is not nearly as interesting or enduring.
That's a nonsensical counterargument, because you don't need to have DD cups to be sensual. Some of the sexiest women around have much sleeker figures. Women who are built like gymnasts or dancers can be stunningly lovely and sexy. Ample curves are fine, but they aren't all that sexy if they aren't special, if every woman in the whole comic-book universe has the same busty build, which is all too often the case in comics these days. Uniformity is boring. There are a lot of different ways to be beautiful.
I was replying to your original statement, which made no mention of sensuality whatsoever.
^Yes, I know that. You introduced the concept of sensuality as a justification for the character's curvaceousness. I was rejecting that argument because that's not the only way to be sensual.
No, I introduced the concept of sensuality because your idea of "good character design" seemed to leave no room for anything else than practicality.
"Seemed" being the key word. You assumed that was what I meant because you made the mistake of equating sensuality with big breasts. My whole point is that that's wrong -- that the kind of sleek, supple body type I'm thinking of is no less sexy, that there's no reason a character like Black Cat couldn't be just as sensual while also having a body type that makes sense for a catburglar.
You see, what inspired my line of thinking here was a Mission: Impossible episode where Eartha Kitt -- the third-season Catwoman from the Adam West Batman -- guest starred as a gymnast who played a vital role on a mission by using her dainty, flexible build to crawl through tight ventilation ducts, slide under electric eyes, and so forth... and it was really very sexy to watch. I realized then and there that that's exactly how Catwoman or Black Cat should be built, because then they'd still be sexy, but in a way that suits their characters and their jobs, rather than just being a carbon copy of every other superheroine's or supervillain's body type these days.
Strawman argument. You're arguing with yourself.
Okay, I apologize. We're just talking past each other. I took it as implicit that what I was saying about body types had nothing to do with how sexy the character was, because of course different body types can be sexy. You seemed to think I was ignoring the issue of sexuality, which confused me. The only explanation I could think of for why you would interpret my words that way was that you were assuming "not big-breasted" meant "not sexy." I apologize for making that assumption, but then, what did you mean?
I agree with you about the X-Men. While I don't like how Fox has handled some aspects of the property, I much prefer the X-Men off in their own universe. I wish they were in their own universe in the comics, too.
And I also agree about Daredevil and Punisher. I especially would like to see at least Daredevil in the same universe as Spider-Man just so that both characters could have access to the Kingpin.
That's an illustrative point, though, because the movie went to lengths to emphasize that it wasn't magic or gods but aliens. Everything from the beginning intro to the "sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic" line just wanted to harp that point so the audience wouldn't reject it.
I think they can easily do that here. Advanced, unexplainable alien technology seems to be the rule of thumb for Marvel movies. After that, they can have whatever magic they want.
If they did jump to using Dormammu right away in the 1st Strange movie, he would definitely bring a presence to the screen with the sfx head. I've always imagined a loud booming voice similar to that of the Guardian of Forever or the Melkotian in ST:TOS. Throw some curves in with Clea and Umar. Add a few hundred Mindless Ones to help with the alien invasion aspect and you've got the beginnings of a good movie or two.
Works for me, as long as we get some psychedelic, Ditko-esque art direction as well.
Yes, definitely! If they can use special effects to match a Ditko-esque style for the Dark Dimension that would rock! When I was a kid, Pocket Books put out a book of Strange Tales reprints of Dr. Strange's earliest tales. By the time I reached #116 "Return to the Nightmare World," I was hooked on Ditko's depictions of other dimensions!
Similar threads
