Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Christopher]

You're looking at this from a storytelling and character standpoint, and that's not really what makes playing a bad guy fun for actors.
Now, I'm not a professional actor but for a long time I wanted to be, and a lot of my childhood taking acting classes both during and outside of school, so I have some insight. The thing that draws actors to bad isn't really the dept of the characters, it's just about playing a character that is about as far from your daily life as possibly get and you get to really just let loose and go places you wouldn't really go playing more heroic characters.
And in some movies it can really let you go more broad and over the top than the heroes tend to be, which can be really fun for actors.

Yes, and I understand that as a generalization. I've seen it up close, because my late father loved hamming it up as over-the-top villains, whether reading stories to my sister and me as children (he did a great Gollum voice for The Hobbit) or doing the occasional performance as part of his work as a prominent local radio announcer (e.g. playing the Devil in a live performance of Igor Stravinsky's The Soldier's Tale).

But my point is that just because something is often the case, that doesn't mean it can't have exceptions. I'm not saying your point is wrong, just that it's not the complete picture. I'm trying to add another layer to the conversation, and that does not falsify or erase the point you're making, it just expands on it. Life is not black-and-white; there are always shades of gray.

And I still say it's possible to write a heroic character who's eccentric or complex enough to let an actor play something very different from themselves. A troubled antihero is an obvious example, though it's low-hanging fruit since it's not that different from a villain. Speaking for myself, as an introvert, I've found that it can be liberating to play the role of a more confident, outgoing figure, whether performing in a classroom or putting myself in such a character's shoes as a writer. (In high school English class, I was just about the only one who performed rather than just dully reciting when the teachers had the students read Shakespeare plays aloud, so I tended to get the big parts like Mercutio, Brutus, and Hamlet.)

Yeah, actors really do have to be careful they don't get to deep into the character. I've been under the impression for a while now that the impact of playing the Joker was part of what lead to Heath Ledger's death.

That's probably just making an excuse for the general toxicity of an industry that puts enormous stresses on its employees, generally through the abusive culture perpetuated by the executives. There's no way a single factor like playing a fictional character would've driven him to that if there hadn't been a lot of other things driving him to that vulnerable state. Since different actors who've played the Joker have reacted to it in very different ways, it doesn't seem logical to assume it's the relevant causative factor here.

 

[Set Harth]

They can't all be winners.

I thought it was a high point.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

He was in conflict with Steve on how to solve accountability for superheroes and ended up being antagonistic to the title character because of that, same as Black Panther. He was not the villain. That was Zemo, and Zemo alone.

Stark was a villain the second he volunteered to act as Ross's attack dog / hunter of Bucky, which continued to split relations between the Avengers, and justified Ross' view that Rogers and his allies were criminals / threats to society.

I don't want to comment on whether the rumors are true that Ledger was emotionally impacted in a negative way by playing the Joker, rumors that as I recall began circulating immediately after his death — because, since I did not know him personally, how would I know? — but I will relay what's posted on Wikipedia, with citations [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_Ledger#Posthumous_films_and_awards]:

Attempting to dispel widespread speculations that Ledger's performance as the Joker had in any way led to his death (as Denby and others suggest), Ledger's co-star and friend Christian Bale, who played opposite him as Batman, has stressed that, as an actor, Ledger greatly enjoyed meeting the challenges of creating that role, an experience that Ledger himself described as "the most fun I've ever had, or probably ever will have, playing a character".[12] Terry Gilliam also refuted the claims that playing the Joker made him crazy, calling it "absolute nonsense" and going on to say, "Heath was so solid. His feet were on the ground and he was the least neurotic person I've ever met."[160]
​

I do not know how anyone concluded Ledger's psychological issues had anything to do with the Joker role. Its as though some were looking to associate the character with a tragedy for the most bankrupt, reality-detached reasons imaginable.

 

[fireproof78]

I thought it was a high point.

Mileage will vary because I cannot stand a plot that insists upon ripping the heroes apart after them finally finding common ground. It's some bull cookies right there, and ends very poorly.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I thought it was a high point.

Absolutely.

 

[JD]

I don't want to comment on whether the rumors are true that Ledger was emotionally impacted in a negative way by playing the Joker, rumors that as I recall began circulating immediately after his death — because, since I did not know him personally, how would I know? — but I will relay what's posted on Wikipedia, with citations [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_Ledger#Posthumous_films_and_awards]:

Attempting to dispel widespread speculations that Ledger's performance as the Joker had in any way led to his death (as Denby and others suggest), Ledger's co-star and friend Christian Bale, who played opposite him as Batman, has stressed that, as an actor, Ledger greatly enjoyed meeting the challenges of creating that role, an experience that Ledger himself described as "the most fun I've ever had, or probably ever will have, playing a character".[12] Terry Gilliam also refuted the claims that playing the Joker made him crazy, calling it "absolute nonsense" and going on to say, "Heath was so solid. His feet were on the ground and he was the least neurotic person I've ever met."[160]

[...]

12. Halbfinger, David M. (9 March 2008). "Batman's Burden: A Director Confronts Darkness and Death". The New York Times. pp. 1, 16. Archived from the original on 29 June 2019. Retrieved 1 January 2021.

[...]

160. "Terry Gilliam – The Talks". the-talks.com. 7 March 2012. Archived from the original on 23 January 2016. Retrieved 5 April 2017.​

OK, I just remembered hearing that around the time he died.

Yes, and I understand that as a generalization. I've seen it up close, because my late father loved hamming it up as over-the-top villains, whether reading stories to my sister and me as children (he did a great Gollum voice for The Hobbit) or doing the occasional performance as part of his work as a prominent local radio announcer (e.g. playing the Devil in a live performance of Igor Stravinsky's The Soldier's Tale).

But my point is that just because something is often the case, that doesn't mean it can't have exceptions. I'm not saying your point is wrong, just that it's not the complete picture. I'm trying to add another layer to the conversation, and that does not falsify or erase the point you're making, it just expands on it. Life is not black-and-white; there are always shades of gray.

That's a fair point.

That's probably just making an excuse for the general toxicity of an industry that puts enormous stresses on its employees, generally through the abusive culture perpetuated by the executives. There's no way a single factor like playing a fictional character would've driven him to that if there hadn't been a lot of other things driving him to that vulnerable state. Since different actors who've played the Joker have reacted to it in very different ways, it doesn't seem logical to assume it's the relevant causative factor here.

Of course it wouldn't have been the only reason (or any reason based on the post I quoted earlier in the post) which was why I said part. Obviously, it's going to take a lot more than just that to lead him to the point he got to.

 

[MikHutch]

I don't think Stark was any more of a villain than Rogers

 

[Commander Troi]

I think they did a good job of showing that Tony and Cap both think they're right based on their own experiences and personality.

 

[MikHutch]

To some extent but I always felt it was rushed. And tbh Steve felt narrow minded to me. Like everyone else in the world's opinion didn't matter. He's usually more agreeable in other appearances

 

[JD]

I don't think Stark was any more of a villain than Rogers

I think this is a case where who you felt was the villain depended on who you agreed with more.

 

[MikHutch]

I mean, I didn't agree with Tony trying to kill Bucky. Or flouting the rules he was enforcing

But that's my issue with any hero who tries to enforce the law while not following it. Or saying the government shouldn't launch a war before they happen while doing it themselves

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

To some extent but I always felt it was rushed. And tbh Steve felt narrow minded to me. Like everyone else in the world's opinion didn't matter.

The opinion of those on the opposite side were wrong on endless levels. From Project Insight to the Accords, Rogers called out government authoritarianism / human rights abuse under the guise of security and freedom. The Accords were founded on an attempt to control (and weaponize when "authorized") individuals, despite Ross trying (and failing) to sell the foundation of said Accords as a means to stop "out of control" superhumans. One of Civil War's great failings was the script not having Rogers lay out the BS of every charge Ross made against the Avengers:

• New York: Okay, the W.S.C. sent a nuclear missile against innocent civilians. Was that a reasonable alternative to superhuman intervention? Who was going to be held responsible for the millions who would died from a nuclear strike? Moreover, the Avengers were not a rogue group, but created and authorized to act by Fury--the head of a government organization, so their actions could not be more official.
• Washington: Rogers and his team stopped what would have been global mass murder from a terrorist organization controlling SHIELD. There were no options to Rogers' actions, and if he sat on his hands, waiting for some authorization from on high...
• Sokovia: Stark and only Stark. He was responsible for the entire disaster, and should have been called out. Instead, the writers--to create false drama--have no one turn one of the key inspirations for the Accords on the one responsible for the catastrophe. They (the other Avengers) allowed Stark to turn government screws on his alleged friends / allies in an attempt to remove the yoke of guilt from his conscience.

If Rogers (or anyone else) laid out the details of why the Accords were BS masking world governments wanting to control superbeings for incidents they (with the exception of Stark) did not cause, Captain America: Civil War would have been reduced to a 40-minute film called Captain America: Heated Discussion or Captain America: You Would've Been Pushing Up Daisies Without Us, but the writers used false drama that was easy to point out when the film was in theaters.

 

[MikHutch]

Telling superheroes they can't beat up or destroy whatever they want isn't human rights abuse or authoritarianism. It's oversight. That can go wrong but vigilantes aren't an oppressed group despite Marvel always acting that way.

 

[Set Harth]

Sokovia: Stark and only Stark. He was responsible for the entire disaster, and should have been called out.

Banner could also be considered culpable, as they created Ultron together.

 

[Guy Gardener]

No thoughts about Stephen Yuen as Sentry?

(I have nothing as I have never seen him in anything).

 

[Guy Gardener]

I'm mixed on Sentry but I'm not familiar with the character. I liked Yeun in what I've seen him so far so I'm ok with the casting

Sentry has got a Jeykll and Hyde thing going on, so his alternate could as easily be played by some one else, even if they want to stretch out the reveal over the course of several movies.

 

[MikHutch]

Sentry has got a Jeykll and Hyde thing going on, so his alternate could as easily be played by some one else, even if they want to stretch out the reveal over the course of several movies.

Jekyll & Hyde could be cool. I hope it's done well. But I don't like half the Thunderbolts roster so I'm not enthused just yet

 

[fireproof78]

To some extent but I always felt it was rushed. And tbh Steve felt narrow minded to me. Like everyone else in the world's opinion didn't matter. He's usually more agreeable in other appearances

It was rushed and ignored the camaraderie built between the team members, and makes Steve extremely myopic while Stark becomes the kine toeing rule follower to go against Steve.

It ignores much lf the character development of the past several films and insists that dramatic rules must be followed.

but the writers used false drama that was easy to point out when the film was in theaters.

Pretty much this.

 

[MikHutch]

It was rushed and ignored the camaraderie built between the team members, and makes Steve extremely myopic while Stark becomes the kine toeing rule follower to go against Steve.

It ignores much lf the character development of the past several films and insists that dramatic rules must be followed.

While it's definitely less edgy than the comics version, it misses the nuance of the issue by needlessly conflating oversight with fascism. As if vigilantism can't be fascistic too

 

[Skipper]

Thr average Chilean is about 40% Native American with a few percent African.

You know, I've read how Europeans (also because of their recent history) often find it disturbing how Americans discuss someone's ethnicity until they get to the percentages of this or that genetic strain.

Now I'm starting to understand them.