https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...you-a-tedious-superhero-wanker-20180921177546
Question 3 reminds me of someone but I can't think who.
Question 3 reminds me of someone but I can't think who.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
People who think Big bang theory is funny, and treat Sci Fi/Fantasy stuff as something for kids? That's definitely what I got from it. Then again, it is a British site. The only thing people from Britain are allowed to like that isn't a serious mystery show, period piece or crime drama is Doctor Who, and even then they can't like it too much
Seriously though, I can't stand the "get a life" people, and that article was definitely written by one. Some of us prefer stories that aren't realistic, we don't all find stuff like CSI or generic British Mystery Show #455533545F entertaining. I bet I get more joy out of the minutiae of comics and nerd stuff then people who complain about people who actually care about nerd stuff get from anything.
I'm not familiar with Chloe Zhao's work but I'm thrilled that Marvel is continuing to diversify their directors and willing to give independent and artsy directors a chance on a big-feature. It's paid off very well for them so far. 
For all the talk of people guessing about the title for Avengers 4 and the marketing around that and next year's Spider-Man sequel, we don't even know anything about the 3 MCU movies planned for 2020. (Let alone 2021 and beyond.)
The assumption was that GOTG 3 would be one of them, but now that may not be the case. Who knows what the 2020 titles could be. Could be Black Widow or A-Force, Eternals is now a possibility, anything could happen. And you know they really won't even want to tell us who's alive until after Avengers 4 next May.
Gotta give 'em credit for all the secrecy around the Avengers movies.
It's fun imagining and speculating about what those movies could be, and it'll be fun when they're actually announced and we can start diving into all the details and new casting and whatever.
And speaking of crazy speculating, I really really really hope Feige can pull off Galactus in his typical epic fashion on the big screen. If he can make that story as big and grandiose as it deserves to be, well, there are no words.
With Eternals, I'm curious to see the reaction when they inevitably change the races of some of the characters to make the whole bunch less white. Usually, the people who are against that sort of thing say it's not about racism, and they just want fidelity to the source. But the Eternals aren't actually white or even human. They weren't even raised as white like Clark Kent was. They just happen to look that way, or at least most of them do. So it's not really a race-change in any sense of the word.
So will there be no complaints this time, or will they still come? (Hmm, did anyone complain about the casting of Karnak and Gorgon in Inhumans?)
So will there be no complaints this time, or will they still come? (Hmm, did anyone complain about the casting of Karnak and Gorgon in Inhumans?)
And of course they're lying. They never complained about all the non-redheads playing Jimmy Olsen until one of them had brown skin as well as hair. They never complained about all the non-blonds playing Barry Allen. There were few complaints about Wolverine being a foot too tall, or Xavier having an English accent, or Iceman being younger than Storm. There were some objections to an Englishman (Henry Cavill) playing the all-American Superman, but they didn't amount to much. The only time they get really fanatical about "fidelity to the source" is when it means keeping a character white and male.
Probably, but it was most likely ameliorated by the fact that hardly anyone cared about Inhumans to begin with.
I once pointed out to someone voicing such complaints that changing a character from a human to an alien (Drax) is by any measure a much bigger change and yet he didn't have any issue with that. The guy genuinely tried to argue with me that changing a character's species is a smaller change than changing their race. The saddest part is I think he genuinely believed that.
I actually kind of like The Eternals, so I'd definitely be interested in seeing them get a movie (and I don't give a crap what race any of the actors playing the Eternals would be, it really doesn't matter). I wish we'd gotten a good Inhumans thing instead, but The Eternals would be a nice kind of replacement. I just hope they don't use Gaiman's story as a base. It wasn't totally terrible, but I'm beyond sick of amnesia stories in any media at this point. Plus, having every Eternal go mad and commit suicide would be a real downer ending (I like Gaiman a lot, but his Eternals run and stuff connected to it was godawful, and one of the few death stories that has unfortunately stuck in the comics).
***Today's Juicy Rumor***
An alleged synopsis for the Black Widow movie has been making the rounds...
At birth the Black Widow (aka Natasha Romanova) is given to the KGB, which grooms her to become its ultimate operative. When the U.S.S.R. breaks up, the government tries to kill her as the action moves to present-day New York, where she is a freelance operative. The standalone film will find Romanoff living in the United States 15 years after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Other rumors state that young Natasha may very well be the one who saved us from the horrors of... Y2K!*
*Which would mean that we know the activities of both Natasha and Tony Stark on the night of 12/31/99.
Other rumors state that young Natasha may very well be the one who saved us from the horrors of... Y2K!*
*Which would mean that we know the activities of both Natasha and Tony Stark on the night of 12/31/99.
Frankly, I'm a little on the doubtful side, but won't dismiss this rumor as out of hand. However, it did get me thinking. If this is the route they plan on going down, they will certainly have to digitally de-age Scarlett Johannsen for the entire movie as they did with SLJ in Captain Marvel. They've been saying from the beginning that this will be a pre-Iron Man 2 prequel, and if you watch IM2 and Infinity War back-to-back, the difference between early 20s ScarJo and early 30s ScarJo is apparent (As it is with all of the Phase one MCU actors). I mean, Scarlett is still certainly young and beautiful, but can she pass for 16?
Last edited:
***Today's Juicy Rumor***
An alleged synopsis for the Black Widow movie has been making the rounds...
At birth the Black Widow (aka Natasha Romanova) is given to the KGB, which grooms her to become its ultimate operative. When the U.S.S.R. breaks up, the government tries to kill her as the action moves to present-day New York, where she is a freelance operative. The standalone film will find Romanoff living in the United States 15 years after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Other rumors state that young Natasha may very well be the one who saved us from the horrors of... Y2K!*
*Which would mean that we know the activities of both Natasha and Tony Stark on the night of 12/31/99.
Frankly, I'm a little on the doubtful side, but won't dismiss this rumor as out of hand. However, it did get me thinking. If this is the route they plan on going down, they will certainly have to digitally de-age Scarlett Johannsen for the entire movie as they did with SLJ in Captain Marvel. They've been saying from the beginning that this will be a pre-Iron Man 2 prequel, and if you watch IM2 and Infinity War back-to-back, the difference between early 20s ScarJo and early 30s ScarJo is apparent (As it is with all of the Phase one MCU actors). I mean, Scarlett is still certainly young and beautiful, but can she pass for 16?
Natasha Romanoff was born in 1984, at least according to "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER". Which means that the fall of the U.S.S.R. happened when she was roughly seven years old. So, the story is set around 2006 or 2007?
If Y2K is a plot element, then it's obviously set in 1999.
Ugh, I hope they don't address the Y2K bug as a real threat. Simply, it just doesn't need addressing.
I don't have a problem with Scarlett Johannsen reprising a younger version of herself without any CGI. Granted I haven't watched Iron Man 2 and Infinity War in close proximity with each other so nothing in particular stands out, but I don't it should be an issue if the film is indeed a short period of time prior to Iron Man 2 (up to five years or so).
As for her on-screen birth date, that shouldn't be a hard and fast rule for the writers to follow. I haven't watched Winter Soldier in awhile but it's only actually seen but not talked about. Not really a big deal if they don't stick to that date if the timeline needs adjusting for the sake of the story.
I don't have a problem with Scarlett Johannsen reprising a younger version of herself without any CGI. Granted I haven't watched Iron Man 2 and Infinity War in close proximity with each other so nothing in particular stands out, but I don't it should be an issue if the film is indeed a short period of time prior to Iron Man 2 (up to five years or so).
As for her on-screen birth date, that shouldn't be a hard and fast rule for the writers to follow. I haven't watched Winter Soldier in awhile but it's only actually seen but not talked about. Not really a big deal if they don't stick to that date if the timeline needs adjusting for the sake of the story.
It was a real threat, to an extent. But it was a threat that people, uncharacteristically, actually took seriously ahead of time and worked hard to protect against so that it never actually came to pass. That doesn't mean the warnings about the problem were phony -- it means the warnings worked, by getting people to fix the problem ahead of time.
One way around it is to hand-wave away the 1984 date as misinformation (if there was anyone that could hide information from both SHIELD & Hydra, it's Leviathan and The Red Room Academy) then make Romanov a lot older than she looks. Perhaps she's the recipient of some iteration of the super soldier, the effects of which are starting to wear off so she's ageing normally from around 2011 onwards. That way you don't have to worry too much about de-aging Johansson, and we get a cool cold war era spy movie.
If we're talking strictly canon information: the 1984 date is already problematic thanks the the brief flashback scenes in AoU, where she's clearly a lot older than 7 (mid-teens at the youngest) in a place that looks a lot less contemporary than the 1980's or '90's.
ETA: Oh and for reference, this and this is what she looked like around the turn of the century. Not only would they have to de-age her face, they'd have to paste it onto a girl's body, because Scarlett Johansson is now a grown woman. Technically feasible perhaps, but very expensive if you're going to do it for the *whole* movie and I'm not sure how into it Johansson will be if she's going to be hidden under that many layers.
If we're talking strictly canon information: the 1984 date is already problematic thanks the the brief flashback scenes in AoU, where she's clearly a lot older than 7 (mid-teens at the youngest) in a place that looks a lot less contemporary than the 1980's or '90's.
ETA: Oh and for reference, this and this is what she looked like around the turn of the century. Not only would they have to de-age her face, they'd have to paste it onto a girl's body, because Scarlett Johansson is now a grown woman. Technically feasible perhaps, but very expensive if you're going to do it for the *whole* movie and I'm not sure how into it Johansson will be if she's going to be hidden under that many layers.
Last edited:
I meant as a national security threat, one that would involve someone like Natasha.
Good enough for me.
Mmm... since she knew about the WInter Soldier...maybe she was involved in being frozen herself?
that would be a way to have Scarlett more in the movie... the other thing might be weaving in flashbacks (as a child and as a teen for Y2K), with some kind of modern story with a connection to the past.