Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
^^^
That is indeed a surprising return cameo if true!!
That is indeed a surprising return cameo if true!!
Would make sense considering...
William Hurt returned after a long absence. Maybe there's still hope yet for Tim Blake Nelson as The Leader after all.
Wow, I never expected to see that character again.
Sounds like it might have been. I don't remember the exact quote or who said, but I remember I read an interview with a director who talked about how they shot differently with the IMAX cameras because the shape of the image with them. I just remember being surprised because I had thought the only difference between IMAX and regular filming was that the size.
I just checked Wikipedia and it looks like I was right, IMAX uses a 1.43:1 ratio, while the standard widescreen movie ratio is 1.85:1.
One dimensional? MCU heroes are human and act like real people unlike Nolan's Batman and Singer's X-Men which Nolan and Singer are ashamed of the wondrous in favor of "grounded" and "realistic" sell out storytelling which Nolan and Singer are into. Now MCU and Deadpool (which Fox didn't want to do BTW) feel unashamed of where they come from and embrace the wondrous/fantastic and unashamed especially Bryan Singer who exploits the holocaust in X-Men.
Besides Marvel is more mature than DC on film.
grounded and realistic provide a better framework and environment for characters to act more human.
star trek is proof of this compared to other space adventures series including star wars.
if anyone is ashamed of comic books, its the mcu. who feel they have to make mediocre fantasy kids movies to find a common denominator
I don't agree. I don't think the MCU is more "human" or "mature" than Nolan's "BATMAN" series, Singer's "X-MEN" series or the DCEU. To me, all of these franchises are part "realism", part "fantasy".
I also don't agree with this assessment. "STAR TREK" may present its stories in a more "mature" manner, so to speak; but I don't believe that its stories and characterizations are more mature than "STAR WARS". Beneath its Saturday matinee style of storytelling, I believe "STAR WARS" can be just as mature and realistic as "STAR TREK".
Yeh right! i'm sure you love Bryan Singer who loves to exploit the holocaust with his X-Men films and he has no imagination but realism, same for Nolan who is overrated. Nolan and Singer are for people ashamed of comics especially Singer's leather costumes than the fantastic costumes of the animated shows/comics. Marvel knows how to get rid of the taint that all comic films should be "realistic"/"Grounded" and embrace their comic roots to be living comics. Marvel's characters are more human and all that plus Marvel make their heroes the star of their shows, not the villains, same for Deadpool.
I guess you don't like Star Wars or Doctor Who or Ghostbusters
The MCU is way closer to the comics than the rest of the comic book movie franchises. Fox's X-Men dropped the colorful uniforms because they thought it wouldn't hold well but the MCU stuck with it and DC tries too hard to be super serious with a mopey Superman and murderous Bat-man (well, more than before). They're far away from their comic book counterparts. Plus, the MCU formula is for both kids and adults (Stark's references particularly go over a kid's head).
Star Trek is more science fiction and Star Wars is fantasy. The fact that Star Trek has humans and our solar system, it definitely more grounded in reality.
MCU is not closer to the comic books. that is just a media lie. DOFP and X2 have been closer to the comics than any mcu adaption.
the fact that people think colourful costumes means closer to the comics makes me laugh. this is the kids mentality of mcu movies.
Media lie? You should read Ultimates. Also, in the DOFP comic, Wolverine wasn't sent to the past.
Last edited:
Do you agree that Deadpool was a Fox marvel movie that was unashamed of it's comic roots? and it felt like a MCU film all the way plus a sense of wonder like MCU in a way without grounded stuff.
I'd say X-Men: Apocalypse was too, in a different way. It embraced the colorful costumes more than previous movies, mainly in just the closing moments with the X-Men in the Danger Room, although Psylocke and Jubilee had their classic '90s looks pretty much throughout.
Trek isn't really any less fantastical than Star Wars is, and frankly, most people in Star Wars behave like actual human beings than do most people in Star Trek.
Variety reports that Peter Dinklage is in talks to appear in Avengers: Infinity War.
If true, I'm betting he'll play Pip the Troll. I honestly didn't think we would get the character in these two films, especially considering there hasn't been any set-up for Adam Warlock (aside the possible cocoon in Guardians of the Galaxy, which, I believe, James Gunn has denied).
Even though Deadpool was pretty spot on with the comics, I was speaking of Fox as a whole. There were 8 other X-Men movies. The MCU as a whole taps in more with the comics than the X-Men Franchise (wrong outfits, wrong ages, and the oddest continuity), The DCEU (unique versions of Supes and Bats), and Spider-man (both pre MCU franchises had him too old).
Star Trek is placed post World War III with influences from alien life. They're not going to be like us today. Hell, compare our way of life today with the way we lived 250 years ago.
Too old for what? Both previous film series started with him in high school and moved him to college. The comics' Peter Parker spent only 30-some issues in high school before starting college in 1965, and he graduated in 1978. In the nearly four decades since, he's been married and had a kid (who died), and he's gone through various careers. The movie versions to date have been much younger than the comics' version. It's only the Ultimate version that's defined more by being a teenager.
I don't think there's any basis for claiming that the Raimi Spider-Man series was less faithful than the MCU. Like the MCU, it took some liberties and modernized some things, but also paid very close homage to a lot of the essential story elements and characters of the comics.
Last edited:
And there is a very good reason for changing it to Wolverine in the filmverse. Using Kitty doesn't work.
Spider-man was 15 when he started out. Tobey Maguire was 27 and Andrew Garfield was 28 during their run as Spider-man. Tom Holland is 20 but way more believable to be a teen in high-school than the other two.
That wasn't my point. I was saying that movie didn't follow the comics as Dales stated. Hugh Jackman was/is a hit with X-Men so why wouldn't they replace the unpopular movie version(s) of Kitty with him?
Oh. Your previous post's phrasing seemed to suggest you were talking about the character's age, not the actors'.
But as I said, most of Spider-Man's history as a character is as a post-college student, so I don't understand this modern fixation on keeping him in high school as if that were somehow a requirement. I can see the value of it in the MCU, as a contrast with the established adult heroes, but I didn't feel a high school setting was all that essential to the previous film series. Heck, when I wrote my Spider-Man novel a decade ago, Peter Parker was teaching high school, and it worked fine for the character as far as I was concerned.