Apparently the relationship is alluded to.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
What you say is logical, certainly from an ECONOMIC standpoint (especially of those vested in it).
but it'd be like if the Underworld movies had two different novel series going at the same time (like Bantam & random house). And not just that they are out there, and with separate storylines (with different characters being killed/made important) but there are commercials for both played heavily, with the publishing company in very small print (if mentioned at all).
i'm pretty sure most people don't really think of movie studios in the same way as, say TV networks. I think it's easier to take in 2 similar shows on different networks (like fairy tale adaptations, or Sherlock Holmes). But with movie studios, not so much...
Also, Marvel Comics, unlike Sherlock, is going on RIGHT NOW, and is NOT public domain. And unlike the Sherlock versions, which are taking place in different parts of time (the movies in the turn of the century, the CBS show in modern times), the movies are happening in about the same time period, with a similar look/feel. (Similar enough for the casual viewer, not us nitpickers)
Having Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch being in both MOVIE universes, at nearly the same time, is the thing that throws things really off for people. If they weren't used, then having these separate Marvel-based universes might seem easier to handle, and not try to mentally tie them altogether. Don't forget,we're on TrekBBS, where we as Trek fans are always trying to connect a discombobulated universe together.
And sometimes, tying things together can make things stronger. Stephen Amell has been vocal about willing to be a part of the DC movie universe with Arrow. In DC's case, that might actually help get things going, rather than being a decade behind marvel (and possibly missing the current interest in superhero movies as a whole).
And for my own personal viewing, i am not down with the economic selfishness out there (especially for Spiderman). i'm waiting for Redbox to see Amazing Spider Man 2 -- we just had a pretty good trilogy (#3 issues aside) in the previous decade. Restarting it, unlike Trek TOS, seems ridiculous at this point. i'd rather save my money for the new X-Men movie. And Guardians is coming out a few months later, so enough time for me to want to go see that.
Last edited:
And this is one of the reasons why I believe the market is currently oversaturated with superhero movies. There are too many companies stirring the same pot. In a couple of years, the public (non-comic fans) will get tired of even Marvel movies regardless of how good they are.
Well, there's no indication of that so far considering how well Captain America: TWS did. Nor is there any indication in advance that people will be confused or bothered by their confusion.
My personal view will always be that the X-Men are an awkward fit into the rest of the universe. Their themes get diluted by having non-mutant superpowered individuals and every time the rest of the universe doesn't mention mutants, it makes no sense. The best example I can think of is the X-Men/Spider-Man crossover in the 90s cartoons. Spider-Man fights some villain and the public screams "mutant" when they see him. What's weird is Spider-Man fought plenty of villains in public before and no one ever thought they were mutants. It's only when X-Men are in proximity that people think about it.
I make an exception for Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver because of their significant ties to the Avengers. In fact, my hope is they're born with their powers just like a mutant would be. But I don't think the Avengers universe benefits from having a substantial minority of the population with a variation in their genes that gives them special powers and a public who has been grappling with this issue for decades.
My personal view will always be that the X-Men are an awkward fit into the rest of the universe. Their themes get diluted by having non-mutant superpowered individuals and every time the rest of the universe doesn't mention mutants, it makes no sense. The best example I can think of is the X-Men/Spider-Man crossover in the 90s cartoons. Spider-Man fights some villain and the public screams "mutant" when they see him. What's weird is Spider-Man fought plenty of villains in public before and no one ever thought they were mutants. It's only when X-Men are in proximity that people think about it.
I make an exception for Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver because of their significant ties to the Avengers. In fact, my hope is they're born with their powers just like a mutant would be. But I don't think the Avengers universe benefits from having a substantial minority of the population with a variation in their genes that gives them special powers and a public who has been grappling with this issue for decades.
Yeah, but they're both really major X-Men characters. That would bring up the issues of confusion that we'd like to avoid.
True, Loki fell into his lap and was an easy immortal to manipulate and was the perfect fit for the lesser stone, to risk it to get the most powerful one. Still think the plan was to kill Loki and claim both stones, burn Earth down though, not risk him being around them one moment longer than necessary.
Yeah, I caught that too, and the weird dark dimension they live in may not be a part of the known universe, implying others even more extreme and alien than it. Asgard may be the way to access further higher realms, the bifrost being taken and modified, using the Tesseract, could lead to anywhere.
Should be fun finding all this out over the next 4 years, assuming Avengers 3 is Thanos' big end game.
Heck, my fourth Underworld novel completely contradicts my second one, just because the movie series ended up going in a different direction. And there were at least two different lines of ALIAS novels, one aimed at young-adults and another aimed at adults. It happens.
And rival movie studios are like rival TV works, whether the public understands that are not. And I'm not sure it's all that difficult a concept to grasp. Even as a kid, I understood that the Universal "Frankenstein" movies were not set in the same continuity as the Hammer "Frankenstein" movies, even though they both ran on "Nightmare Theater" on Friday nights.
Ditto for Tarzan, Sinbad, the Mummy, Godzilla, etc.
The idea that everything has to exist in some seamless continuity or people's heads will explode is a very modern notion that bears little reality to how audiences actually process fiction. Heck, the original ZORRO novels by Johnston McCulley aren't even consistent with each other!
(And, yes, I know I'm showing my age here!)
Last edited:
Reminds me of what happened with James Bond in 1983, with Octopussy and Never Say Never Again.
Super heroes are the new Westerns. Certainly Wsterns did fall out of favor after dominating the 50's, 60's and even 70's; but there's still a huge market for them with elderly people who loved them while growing up (I know that my parents can't get enough of Starz Westerns).
If you want to see where comics movies are going to end up, look to Westerns.
I wonder if Sony/Fox would give Marvel studios a challenge
its a pity cross overs don't happen more often like they did in comics
'X-Men: Days of Future Past' Has a Clip After 'Amazing Spider-Man 2'
http://www.firstshowing.net/2014/x-men-days-of-future-past-has-a-clip-after-amazing-spider-man-2/
its a pity cross overs don't happen more often like they did in comics
'X-Men: Days of Future Past' Has a Clip After 'Amazing Spider-Man 2'
http://www.firstshowing.net/2014/x-men-days-of-future-past-has-a-clip-after-amazing-spider-man-2/
Heck, in 1979, there were three high-profile Dracula movies, all completely unrelated to each other: Dracula (with Frank Langella), Love at First Bite (with George Hamilton), and Nosferatu the Vampyre (with Klaus Kinski). And that was only a year or so after the BBC miniseries version, Count Dracula, with Louis Jourdan . . . .
I doubt if anyone lost sleep trying to reconcile them all.
I don't think that the X-Men movies are part of the Marvel multiverse (even the 60s Spidey/FF cartoons and 90s Captain America movies are in there!), but that's how I think of them. I have no problem with different studios making unrelated product, but there's always room for more in a multiverse.
The two Quicksilvers just aren't that big a deal. He was shoehorned into the X-Men film as an afterthought.
Critics have been wishfully, prematurely announcing the death of the superhero movie trend for years.
And the argument has been made that the Marvel properties being split between different studios is a good thing. We get more films than we would under a single studio; more characters get attention--there'd be no Avengers franchise if Marvel Studios were busy making Spidey and X-Men films and trying to get the FF to work; and competition is a good thing for the consumer.
Critics have been wishfully, prematurely announcing the death of the superhero movie trend for years.
And the argument has been made that the Marvel properties being split between different studios is a good thing. We get more films than we would under a single studio; more characters get attention--there'd be no Avengers franchise if Marvel Studios were busy making Spidey and X-Men films and trying to get the FF to work; and competition is a good thing for the consumer.
Who's the real McCoy?...
I've heard this point made before but it's still the best reason their is for Marvel not having all the IP's at the moment. We might have gotten an Avengers film, but Marvel would have went about it differently I think if they were able to make Spidey films and X-Men films. In fact there's a very good chance Wolverine would have overshadowed an Avengers film since he's such a popular character.
I do agree with you on one point, I don't think Marvel would have tried to make a FF movie work. I think they would have made a FF movie work
I feel, in many ways, Guardians of the Galaxy would be a sneak peek of what Marvel could do if they had Fantastic Four. It's the first ensemble movie without using already established characters (like Avengers).
I still try to wrap my head around how the FF aren't the bad guys in that first movie. Reed spends a good amount of Victor's money, ruins his company, steals his girl, doesn't check up on him after they all survived that storm, and he didn't even try to invite him to the Fantastic Five. Reed doesn't even give Vic a tough luck nod.
However as things stand now unless the carrier is in a country shielding it as their new military asset the US Military and presumably others will be hunting it as a possible Hydra weapon. No matter how much cloak it has it is not as simple as putting The Bus in an Airwolf type hanger at a hide held by a loyal SHIELD Agent and who is not a deep cover Hydra.
With Director Fury thought dead, Captain America missing and maybe going back to the US Army instead of secret cabal of SHIELD, Agent Hill jumping to Stark International and Agent Hand if not dead then wounded we are left to believe that Coulson is one of the senior SHIELD agents still free and he just gave the order at one of three major bases they still held to disperse before the USAF arrived. The agency would need more then an 084 juice to recover the trust that would allow the world to let what might be a nest of Nazis have such an asset.
Heck, in 1979, there were three high-profile Dracula movies, all completely unrelated to each other: Dracula (with Frank Langella), Love at First Bite (with George Hamilton), and Nosferatu the Vampyre (with Klaus Kinski). And that was only a year or so after the BBC miniseries version, Count Dracula, with Louis Jourdan . . . .
I doubt if anyone lost sleep trying to reconcile them all.
Some people have tried to reconcile Bond by saying that the name is a code name that gets passed around for the agency's top agent.
I know you're being facetious about the 1979 Draculas...but they have never been shown to be in same universe, either comics, books, TV...so no one would try to tie them together.
And very few are clamoring to put DC & Marvel movies or TV in the same universe. They don't have any comic history together (other than a few one-shots here & there)
Avengers, X-Men & Spidey have a big history together in the comics universe. Many of the Superhero movies from all 3 have had some of their movies base don established continuity. It doesn't match exactly with the comics...but enough to feel like it respects the continuity yet doing something original.
Like Walking Dead, it's follow the comics exactly, but doesn't stray so far that a basic thing like these characters interacting at some point ought to be a reality.
Also, the 3 properties still show the Marvel logo at the beginning of the movie, and have a guest appearance by Stan Lee...so that adds to the confusion