• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

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


  • Total voters
    181
The description said it's a "60s inspired retro future", so it's not actually set in the '60s.
That's actually one of the reasons I want to see the MetLife/Pan Am building more clearly. If it says Pan Am on the side, then then the movie is likely set in 1963ish.

If it says MetLife, well that building didn't become the MetLife building until 1980.

Which actually brings me to wonder, in the MCU did Tony Stark buy and tear down the building on that site in order to build Stark Tower?
 
The description said it's a "60s inspired retro future", so it's not actually set in the '60s.
Retro future doesn't necessary mean actual future though which would be present day. It can also just mean that some of the futuristic touches will feel like they are how the 60's perceived a futuristic setting .
 
That's actually one of the reasons I want to see the MetLife/Pan Am building more clearly. If it says Pan Am on the side, then then the movie is likely set in 1963ish.

If it says MetLife, well that building didn't become the MetLife building until 1980.

Which actually brings me to wonder, in the MCU did Tony Stark buy and tear down the building on that site in order to build Stark Tower?
Howard started Pan-Am in the MCU. ;)
 
Retro future doesn't necessary mean actual future though which would be present day. It can also just mean that some of the futuristic touches will feel like they are how the 60's perceived a futuristic setting .
Sure, but my main point is that it's not set in the '60s. If it was set in the '60s the description would have probably just said that it's set in an alternate '60s, rather than being "'60s inspired".
 
Something I think I may have spotted in the trailer during the wide city shot was the MetLife building, or was it the Pan Am building? This would be the first appearance of said structure in an MCU movie as it is the in-universe site of Avengers Tower (Although we did see the Met Life building a couple times in Agents of SHIELD and the Netflix shows).

Well, yes and no. To answer your subsequent question, the Stark/Avengers Tower actually is the MetLife Building with a new structure built on top of it. The lower half or so of the building is still the same. Stark bought the existing building and remodeled/added to it.


Yeah, it's the Quantumania issue in reverse.

You don't introduce your big bad and have them defeated immediately, but you also cannot introduce a new team of heroes and have them defeated immediately.

Sure you can, if the story begins with their defeat and ends with them coming back to triumph in the end. Heck, Indiana Jones's first onscreen adventure was a defeat -- Belloq stole the Hovitos idol from him and he barely got out with his life. But he came back and turned the tables, more or less, in the rest of the film. And lots of movies begin with the hero failing, say, to save their family from being murdered, only to go on and take revenge on the murderer. Or they fail to prevent the villain's escape and then have to redeem themselves by recapturing the villain.
 
Well, yes and no. To answer your subsequent question, the Stark/Avengers Tower actually is the MetLife Building with a new structure built on top of it. The lower half or so of the building is still the same. Stark bought the existing building and remodeled/added to it.
Huh. I never noticed that before. That does answer my question, thanks.
 
Has anyone heard anywhere if H.E.R.B.I.E. is CGI or a puppet? I had assumed he was CGI, but I saw a picture on IGN and the lighting and textures all look a little too perfect to be CGI.
 
I am kind of hoping it is set in a alternate 60's. It would be neat for example to see Reed Richards shaking hands with JFK or Johnny Storm entertaining folks on Johnny Carson. One thing I do love about the Fantastic Four is that they are not just superheroes but celebrities as well.
 
Which actually brings me to wonder, in the MCU did Tony Stark buy and tear down the building on that site in order to build Stark Tower?

Well, yes and no. To answer your subsequent question, the Stark/Avengers Tower actually is the MetLife Building with a new structure built on top of it. The lower half or so of the building is still the same. Stark bought the existing building and remodeled/added to it.

If the movie was set in the MCU's 1960s then you could have the big final battle destroy both the Baxter Building and heavily damage the Pan-Am building. Then Howard/Tony buys the property and rebuilds it.
 
You're being sarcastic, right? There's a shot of his shadow looming over Manhattan, and the shadow of his "horns" is half the width of the island. The next shot shows him somewhat smaller, but still dwarfing the Statue of Liberty, which is 305 feet high. According to the Marvel Wiki, Galactus's typical height in the comics is less than 30 feet. So they've scaled him up enormously.
I thought he was way bigger than that.
Anyway the trailer looks fine. I'm sure it'll be a serviceable movie.
 
I could see this going in a very Marvel Comics direction -- the Fantastic Four fail to stop Galactus from consuming their Earth, and in their failure they are "kicked" through the multiverse, survivors of a doomed timeline, trapped in a world they never made.

Interesting. If they are to be catapulted into the MCU's "current" timeline, this would be a way to do it.

That just seems like a pretty grim, no pun intended, way to introduce your heroes to an audience to me.

Captain America: The First Avenger was fairly grim throughout, with Bucky apparently falling to his death, and Cap taking the Valkyrie on a suicide nose-dive into the ocean. Yes, he's revived in the coda, but he realizes he's lost his entire, oriignal life.

I am kind of hoping it is set in a alternate 60's. It would be neat for example to see Reed Richards shaking hands with JFK or Johnny Storm entertaining folks on Johnny Carson.

No one needs to pull that Gump shit in this film. Superheroes can be larger than life though the public's reactions, not stunt cameos of the kind you refer to.

Galactus is beyond having one size

As seen in numerous Fantastic Four and Thor comics from the Silver and Bronze Ages.
 
The description said it's a "60s inspired retro future", so it's not actually set in the '60s.

That is not a strict definition of retro-future. It also used to refer to the futuristic styling created during a bygone era, most notably seen in Mid-Century architecture, furniture and electronics styling of the 50s - 60s..
 
Sure, but like I said before, if it was actually set in the '60s, I would think the description would just say that it's the '60s.
I thought he was way bigger than that.
Anyway the trailer looks fine. I'm sure it'll be a serviceable movie.
Wow, you're really enthusiastic about this one. :lol:
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top