Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by bbjeg, Apr 6, 2014.

?

What grade would you give the Marvel Cinematic Universe? (Ever-Changing Question)

  1. A+

    18.2%
  2. A

    27.1%
  3. A-

    14.7%
  4. B+

    7.6%
  5. B

    13.5%
  6. B-

    2.9%
  7. C+

    3.5%
  8. C

    4.7%
  9. C-

    2.9%
  10. D+

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. D

    0.6%
  12. D-

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  13. F

    4.1%
  1. Starkers

    Starkers Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2001
    Location:
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Especially once you factor in all the other Loki's we saw including Richard E Grant! (and a crocodile!)
     
  2. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Recasting never poses continuity challenges. Recasting James Rhodes, Bruce Banner, and Fandral (from Thor) didn't affect the continuity in any way, nor will the upcoming recasting of Thunderbolt Ross, because continuity is about who characters are and what they do, not what they look or sound like.
     
    Grendelsbayne and Commander Troi like this.
  3. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    astral plane
    Fair enough. But what I meant in this case was that the hypothetical line of dialog, "These are Kang's variants," would carry with it an in-universe explanation for why the actor's appearance has changed. Sci-fi fans are well known for their hyperliteralism. See for example the whinging about Chris Pine's eye color, or there being a perceived need to explain smooth-forehead Klingons in-universe.
     
    The Nth Doctor and fireproof78 like this.
  4. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    ^I don't think there was a need to explain the Klingons' change in-universe. These things are rarely about "need" -- it's just a question of whether a writer thinks there's a worthwhile story to tell about something. Sometimes it's worth telling a story to explain a recasting, sometimes it isn't. My go-to example is the second-season premiere of the 1988 Superboy TV series, which did a whole 2-part story explaining Lex Luthor's recasting by saying he got plastic surgery to impersonate an older man, but did nothing to address their simultaneous recasting of Superboy himself. Because there was a story to tell about Lex Luthor getting a new face (although it was necessary to justify why he was suddenly decades older), but no story to tell about Superboy and Clark Kent simultaneously getting a new face without anyone noticing. At least, no story that it would've been a good idea to tell, since that's just getting too deep into the weeds.

    And writers should never let their creative choices be dictated by fear of fan complaints. Some members of the audience will always complain about anything, and overreacting to that tends to warp the story in bad directions. Sports coaches don't change their game strategies based on how much the audience boos, they stick with what their training and experience tell them will work best at winning the game. Heck, if nobody hates what you're doing, you're probably not doing anything noteworthy at all.

    So yes, the Kang story provides an easy way to give a throwaway explanation for a recast and then move on. But my point is that recasting is just as easy to do whether there's an in-story excuse or not. It's an option when and if it serves the story, not a requirement.
     
    CorporalCaptain likes this.
  5. Anwar

    Anwar Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Location:
    Moncton, NB
    So has there been any update on Majors' Trial?
     
  6. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    QFT x2. :bolian:
     
    Starkers likes this.
  7. JoeZhang

    JoeZhang Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    https://collider.com/tom-holland-spider-man-future/

    This is a man who knows that they will be backing up trucks of money to get to sign not only for Spider-man 4 but also to appear in a couple of future MCU films in an attempt to prop it up.
     
  8. MikHutch

    MikHutch Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2023
    Why do people even ask these questions
     
  9. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    Journeying onwards
    Because they have to write articles.
     
    MikHutch likes this.
  10. Gaith

    Gaith Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Location:
    Oregon
    He's also a man who knows that Sony has made eight live-action Spider-flicks on their own so far, and only two (SM2 and ASM1) have been good. Also, remember when Sony almost declined to meet Disney's financial demands to keep Holland's third movie in the MCU? So, if I were Holland, not only would I demand beaucoup cash and profits, I'd get it in writing that the MCU collaboration would continue, and/or that he'd get shooting script and editing approval.

    (I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Mark Hamill had demanded script approval on the Sequel Trilogy - would Disney have balked, and written him out? Would he have rejected the TFA script, or would he have gone along with it despite his misgivings? If he'd had such rights, would he have rejected Johnson's script?)
     
  11. Anwar

    Anwar Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Location:
    Moncton, NB
    So now that it's made known that the variant of Maria Rambeau is the MCU version of Binary, I wonder how long it will be before certain folks freak out over her "political pandering" name without realizing it refers to Binary Stars in Outer Space.
     
    Commander Troi and MikHutch like this.
  12. MikHutch

    MikHutch Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2023
    People will still complain, sadly
     
  13. Mage

    Mage Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Each his own, but while I enjoyed the Raimi movies when they were released, I struggle to rewatch them. Calling them 'good' as if it's fact seems a little OTT.
    It's Burton's Batman. I still consider it a highlight of my childhood and have a lot of fond memories of it. But looking back at it now, it's not as great a movie as I remember.
     
    FreezeC77 and Turtletrekker like this.
  14. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Annwn
    If anything, wouldn't that be considered politically incorrect as opposed to pandering?
     
  15. Anwar

    Anwar Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Location:
    Moncton, NB
    Yes, but you know what I'm trying to say here...
     
  16. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    Spider-Man is Sony's ace with the control they have over the character (almost a situation similar to the Hulk with Universal), so I doubt Holland is so valuable to them, that Sony would capitulate to that level of theoretical demands.

    Yes. If one considers the shitty handling of the character in the ST, one can assume Luke--and Hamill--were expendable, since he was little more than half-hearted fanservice (that did not work).

    I would think so. He did more to shape his Star Wars character than anyone else in the series, so why would accept a script that shoehorned his character into a ridiculously wrongheaded, so-called plot?
     
  17. Gaith

    Gaith Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Location:
    Oregon
    ^ Sony had never made a billion-dollar Spidey movie until FFH and NWH, so I don't see why the above demands would necessarily be deal-breakers. Unless they were ready for a live-action Miles Morales, recasting Peter Parker again, with no MCU support, and then releasing another mediocre movie (along their average live-action Spidey quality level) sounds like a great way to squander hundreds of millions in potential profits, even after Disney takes their share.

    It's an interesting counter-factual; too bad we'll never know.
     
  18. The Knappos

    The Knappos Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2021
    Location:
    South coast, UK
    A thin argument considering that when the Raimi trilogy was released there was precisely 1 billion dollar movie ever. Adjusting for inflation, the Raimi trilogy passes the $1B mark compared to each year an MCU Spidey movie was released.

    Spider-Man took $825M in 2002, which is:
    $1.1B in 2017 money
    $1.2B in 2019 money
    $1.3B in 2022 money

    Spider-Man 2 took $789M in 2002, which is:
    $1.01B in 2017 money
    $1.06B in 2019 money
    $1.2B in 2022 money

    Spider-Man 3 took $895M in 2007, which is:
    $1.06B in 2017 money
    $1.1B in 2019 money
    $1.3B in 2022 money
     
  19. Gaith

    Gaith Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Location:
    Oregon
    ^ Ah, fair enough.

    Still, booting Holland would be a major risk.
     
  20. The Knappos

    The Knappos Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2021
    Location:
    South coast, UK
    You say that, but in Doctor Who terms, we’ve just had the equivalent of The Three Doctors. It could equally just be possible that whoever is cast next gets to be Spidey’s equivalent of Tom Baker.