Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Turtletrekker]

A new Ant-Man comic starting in February stars Scott and Cassie, but now instead of growing big and being called Stature, she's small, in a Wasp suit and called Stinger. Maybe the MCU version could skip over the whole Stature thing, and just go right to Stinger?

Technically, Cassie was called Stinger long before she was ever called Stature, at least from the publishing standpoint, if not in continuity. In the mc2 timeline which gave us Mayday Parker, adult Cassie was called Stinger and was the leader of the Avengers in that alternate reality. These comics were published long before the Young Avengers gave her younger self the name Stature. I was very pleasantly surprised when she took on the name Stinger in the 616 and thought that that was a nice little nod to the mc2 universe.

 

[Skywalker]

Didn't they get Hope van Dyne from the MC2 universe, too?

I have to say I do like the name Stinger better than Stature.

 

[JD]

Technically, Cassie was called Stinger before she was ever Stature, at least from the publishing standpoint, if not in continuity. In the mc2 timeline which gave us Mayday Parker, adult Cassie was called Stinger and was the leader of the Avengers in that alternate reality. These comics were published long before the Young Avengers gave her younger self the name Stature. I was very pleasantly surprised when she took on the name Stinger in the 616 and thought that that was a nice little nod to the mc2 universe.

I did not know that. I thought they had stopped with the MC2 stuff long before Cassie was introduced?
EDIT: Woah, Scott Lang has been around since the late '70s?! For some reason I was thinking he was first introduced in the early 2000s.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Didn't they get Hope van Dyne from the MC2 universe, too?

Wiki tells me "yes". Though she was Hope Pym there.

 

[Turtletrekker]

The current Wasp's name is Nadia, which is a derivative of the Russian translation for "hope".

http://www.babynamewizard.com/baby-name/girl/nadia

 

[Turtletrekker]

Woah, Scott Lang has been around since the late '70s?! For some reason I was thinking he was first introduced in the early 2000s.

You might be thinking of Eric O'Grady, Ant-Man number three, who was introduced in 2006 and created by Walking Dead creator Robert Kirkman.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_O'Grady

 

[JD]

That might be it.

 

[crookeddy]

https://www.cnet.com/news/martin-scorsese-explains-marvel-movies-arent-cinema-comment/

More Scorsese talking more about Marvel than the Irishman.

If there is no more risk in movie making, why do we have so many major flops...

 

[Samurai8472]

I wonder if this will cause some synergy with the movies

https://www.superherohype.com/comics/471008-marvel-shares-new-details-about-all-new-ant-man-relaunch

Rumor has it that Scott Lang will team up with his daughter, Cassie, when Ant-Man 3 hits the big screen in a few years. But fortunately, comic fans won’t have to wait that long to catch this father-daughter duo fighting side by side. Marvel will relaunch a new ongoing Ant-Man series next year. And while Scott’s costumed persona is getting sole billing, it sounds like he and Cassie will share the spotlight.

 

[Reverend]

Technically, Cassie was called Stinger long before she was ever called Stature, at least from the publishing standpoint, if not in continuity. In the mc2 timeline which gave us Mayday Parker, adult Cassie was called Stinger and was the leader of the Avengers in that alternate reality. These comics were published long before the Young Avengers gave her younger self the name Stature. I was very pleasantly surprised when she took on the name Stinger in the 616 and thought that that was a nice little nod to the mc2 universe.

Plus it's a much better name and outfit.

And yeah, I 100% see the MCU version just going with Stinger. No need to complicate things, just give her a suit. Job done!

 

[JD]

To go back to Scorese's comments for a moment, he says that it's not about supply and demand, and people wanting one type of movie more than the other, but I have to disagree there. All you have to do look at the numbers for the MCU style movies, vs the smaller movies that do make it to theaters. When one type of movie makes dozens of times more money, even when they are both in the same theaters, it's pretty clear that there is a bigger demand for one type over the other.
I can guarantee if smaller movies like the Irishman were making $2,000,000,000+ then we'd be seeing a lot more them in theaters alongside the Marvel movies.
And I really do think there is a lot of the stuff in there that he is claiming is not there, you just have to actually watch the movies, and dig down beyond the surface spectacle. That's part of the reason I love them so much, because they actually do have some good stories and characters underneath all the spectacle.
They had to evacuate the the Canary Islands set of The Eternals, after an WWII era Nazi bomb was discovered there.

 

[Christopher]

Typical of Dick Pym to do this even when he wasn't mentally off. The Vision was a prolific sulker but he would never treat Wanda this way.

Didn't someone explain that it was your standard "I must knock you out to save you" beat? That was a pretty common trope in fiction at the time -- e.g. in Star Trek: "The Empath" where Spock neck-pinched Kirk to stop him from sacrificing himself and then McCoy sedated him to do the same (both forms of nonconsensual assault, if less crude than a karate chop). Indeed, it's still a routine trope in Japanese tokusatsu shows today, though there it's traditionally a punch to the solar plexus. Of course, it's rare to see it used by a man against a woman instead of another man.

 

[YLu]

This image is starting to make its way around social media...

 

[Grendelsbayne]

To go back to Scorese's comments for a moment, he says that it's not about supply and demand, and people wanting one type of movie more than the other, but I have to disagree there. All you have to do look at the numbers for the MCU style movies, vs the smaller movies that do make it to theaters. When one type of movie makes dozens of times more money, even when they are both in the same theaters, it's pretty clear that there is a bigger demand for one type over the other.
I can guarantee if smaller movies like the Irishman were making $2,000,000,000+ then we'd be seeing a lot more them in theaters alongside the Marvel movies.
And I really do think there is a lot of the stuff in there that he is claiming is not there, you just have to actually watch the movies, and dig down beyond the surface spectacle. That's part of the reason I love them so much, because they actually do have some good stories and characters underneath all the spectacle.
They had to evacuate the the Canary Islands set of The Eternals, after an WWII era Nazi bomb was discovered there.

The simple fact is that a cinema experience is not the same as a streaming experience or a dvd experience and the cinema experience I can get today is just not the mythical cinema experience of 40 years ago that Scorsese thinks his movies are made for (no matter what kind of movie you watch). Modern cinemas are good for spectacle and for movies that you really don't want to be spoiled on. For *everything else* it's just a better experience to wait and watch it at home. So that's what people do. So no one pays to see movies in the theater unless they have spectacle or hard to avoid spoilers.

Scorsese needs to understand that the cinema itself just isn't capable of supporting these films anymore and fully embrace the world of streaming which actually is capable of supporting them.

 

[JD]

Completely agree. I would think most directors would just be happy for people to see their movies, whether it's streaming, in the theater, or on TV.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

This image is starting to make its way around social media...

Brilliant, although The Last Temptation of Christ wasn't really a crime flick (unless I'm forgetting something...).

 

[UssGlenn]

Brilliant, although The Last Temptation of Christ wasn't really a crime flick (unless I'm forgetting something...).

The main character is arrested, put on trial, and executed.

 

[Christopher]

The main character is arrested, put on trial, and executed.

But not for committing any actual crimes -- more for political reasons. A crime film is about the actual crimes. If it's just about the trial and sentencing, then it's a courtroom drama.

 

[crookeddy]

Brilliant, although The Last Temptation of Christ wasn't really a crime flick (unless I'm forgetting something...).

And Hugo was conveniently left out. Nevertheless, point made

 

[Marsden]

Is it just me or is Scorsese just complaining to be heard in a click bait culture that's past him by? I don't care or want to belittle what talent he had/still has, he just doesn't feel like he's getting enough at the trough and so as sooo many others, pick the easiest target and fire away. I can't stand how many people seem to think Marvel just got lucky somehow and there was no work or talent involved with the MCU, like every other studio that announced their own "shared universes" over the last few years and every single one has died out. But MCU isn't Cinema!

It's actually nothing new, it's done all the time, but what's so strange is he's such a "big name" to be stooping to that tactic.
There are so many attention whores that will just about spout anything to get a click, but why does he feel he has to do this, now? Is he feeling unfulfilled by his accomplishments?