Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Rich Watson]

So I was just wondering to myself what movie was being shot at the moment and then realised that none are because 'Blade' got delayed.

Is this the longest stretch of time we'll have gone with no movies being made since the earliest days of the MCU? And what is next up to start shooting?

 

[kirk55555]

Since other people are ranking phase 4:

Phase 4 Movies:
1.Dr. strange: MoM
2. Spider-Man: No Way Home
3. Shang-Chi
4. Wakanda Forever
5. Black Widow
6. Thor: Love and Thunder
7. The Eternals


Phase 4 Shows (not counting Ms. Marvel, which I didn't watch):

1. Loki
2. Wandavision
3. Werewolf by Night
4. Hawkeye
5. Moon Knight
6. What If?
7. Falcon and the Winter Soldier
8. She-Hulk
9. Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special

Of the movies, 1-4 are Great to good, Black Widow is mediocre and Thor 4/Eternals are awful.

Of the shows, 1-3 are really good, Hawkeye is pretty decent but with flaws, 5-6 are ok but heavily flawed, Falcon & Winter Soldier has great leads but a terrible story/main villain and 8-9 are awful.

Phase 4 overall is definitely the weakest phase in my opinion, and has more mediocre to terrible stuff then the other phases, but it also had some great stuff.

 

[Anwar]

So, congrats to Angela Bassett for her Golden Globe Nom for Wakanda Forever!

 

[eschaton]

So I was just wondering to myself what movie was being shot at the moment and then realised that none are because 'Blade' got delayed.

Is this the longest stretch of time we'll have gone with no movies being made since the earliest days of the MCU? And what is next up to start shooting?

I'd say it doesn't matter, given Marvel Studios is using studio space for the Disney+ shows, but I think What If...? Season 2 is the only one in active production now (and since it's animated, they don't need the studio space). Secret Invasion, Echo, Loki Season 2, and Ironheart are reportedly all done filming, and the Agatha and Daredevil shows haven't started up yet.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Phase 4: The Falcon and the Winter Soldier stands alone. The most coherent, weighty Marvel production that was a logical progression (and tight connection) to the Cap wing of the MCU.

 

[Anwar]

Some folks are still mad that the show tried to make us sympathize with "Terrorists" because the US Media has spent the last 21 years telling the populace that "Terrorist = Pure Evil".

 

[Dee1891]

Phase 4: The Falcon and the Winter Soldier stands alone. The most coherent, weighty Marvel production that was a logical progression (and tight connection) to the Cap wing of the MCU.

It was?

 

[theenglish]

Some folks are still mad that the show tried to make us sympathize with "Terrorists" because the US Media has spent the last 21 years telling the populace that "Terrorist = Pure Evil".

The issue I have is that this show made the same mistake as Black Panther. It ended by putting the terrorist/antagonist squarely in the wrong during the third act. I would have preferred more grey, and I think it would have been more poignant.

 

[fireproof78]

Some folks are still mad that the show tried to make us sympathize with "Terrorists" because the US Media has spent the last 21 years telling the populace that "Terrorist = Pure Evil".

Just watch Star Wars.

 

[Mage]

Just watch Star Wars.

During the whole of the OT, the Rebellion is always portrayed as 'the good guys'. Never once as terrorists. Sure, when you look back, you get it. Rogue One, Andor.... This is where the ambiguity of it is there from the get go.

@theenglish is correct. Both FATWS and Black Panther gave us this level of grey and then suddenly want 'nah, never mind. Just a bad guy'.

 

[theenglish]

The Clerks did a pretty good job of explaining why they were terrorists.(JOKING).

But the difference between terrorists and military rebels is that terrorists attack civilian targets with the intention of instilling fear in the general population. In a military rebellion, the intention is to primarily attack military targets with civilians being unfortunate bystanders. An example would be attacking a town occupied by a vast number of forces and accepting civilian deaths of those living in the town as acceptable losses. Ukraine attacking military and strategic locations/bridges in Russia doesn't qualify as terrorism.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The issue I have is that this show made the same mistake as Black Panther. It ended by putting the terrorist/antagonist squarely in the wrong during the third act.

Not really. The last few episodes wisely illustrated the difference between those trying to make some sort of sociopolitical change (some of the other Flag Smashers), and those who resort to "all or nothing" extremism when they face resistance, hence the scenes when when Karli Morgenthau's associate (I believe it was Dovich) questioned her not caring about blowing up a building with innocent people in it, and in the series finale, when the remaining Flag Smashers were a bit rattled by Karli ordering them to agree to kill the hostages & sacrifice themselves during their last campaign. Karli--perhaps pushed into a level of psychopathy by the serum--no longer cared about making the stand her group attempted pre-bombing--it was now just "all or nothing" for her (meaning: having no issue with murdering people), and to the rest of the world, that is not viewed as freedom fighting, but evil.

It took Sam to be the one to explain (to the GRC members) the actual issues and the potential consequences sans force. Throughout the series, he was aware and supported the underlying cause of the Flag Smashers' arguments--but never agreed with their violent methods, so in the end, his speech did more to sort of soft-redeem the Flag Smashers' by clarifying their original intent, so the series did not end with the group seen as completely evil. The exception was Karli, who continued to run toward extremism, even as her plans were crumbling around her.

 

[eschaton]

As I said upthread, I thought The Falcon and the Winter Soldier was a critical failure in terms of conception because:

• They seemingly realized they made Karli too sympathetic to begin with, and then had her start killing people with really flimsy justification. I know it's hard to build such a thing up properly in a short runtime, but it really came across as something happening for plot reasons rather than character reasons.
• What they did with John Walker though was 10 times worse, because they were clearly setting him up to be the actual villain of the show - someone with a personal animus against Sam who symbolized everything bad about U.S. foreign policy (with Sam meant to symbolize the good aspects)...and then they chickened out in the final episode and gave him a halfhearted, unearned redemption arc.

The finale should have been Sam and Karli teaming up against John Walker, full stop. It felt like there absolutely was an earlier draft of the show that did this. But in the end, the writers chickened out...perhaps because Disney leaned on them to not make a show that was too political. Hence we got Sam's useless centrist speech instead.

 

[Christopher]

What they did with John Walker though was 10 times worse, because they were clearly setting him up to be the actual villain of the show - someone with a personal animus against Sam who symbolized everything bad about U.S. foreign policy (with Sam meant to symbolize the good aspects)...and then they chickened out in the final episode and gave him a halfhearted, unearned redemption arc.

I don't know... I think it was important for Sam's arc to have his rival for the title of Captain America come around and accept his right to it at the end. If he hadn't, then there would still be someone questioning his legitimacy as Cap, and I think that would have been a problematical way to end it given the racial implications. Maybe more realistic in the context of current American politics, but that's exactly why a more optimistic resolution was necessary, to send a clear message that yes, Sam is the one and only successor. I think that message is sold better by having his white rival come around and follow his lead than by having Sam merely defeat or kill his unrepentant rival. After all, Cap is supposed to symbolize unity, to be a hero for all Americans regardless of our differences.

Besides, it's not wrong to have morally ambivalent characters who can't be simplistically lumped into "hero" and "villain" categories. Both Karli and Walker were meant to be nuanced and exist in gray areas. That's not "chickening out," it's just not dumbing things down to simple categories.

And Walker's redemption is probably only partial, since it seems he'll be an antihero at best as U.S. Agent. He didn't renounce his harsher methods, just accepted that they don't go with the Captain America role.

 

[Turtletrekker]

There was no gray with Killmonger. The very first thing we saw him do was murder a museum employee.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

They seemingly realized they made Karli too sympathetic to begin with, and then had her start killing people with really flimsy justification. I know it's hard to build such a thing up properly in a short runtime, but it really came across as something happening for plot reasons rather than character reasons.

I disagree. Historically, the distinction between freedom fighter of just cause and terrorist is the notion of what is considered "too far" to achieve a certain goal. In the series, Karli was introduced via the Flag Smashers' message (leading some viewers to see her--by association--as a sympathetic figure), but in time, Karli--as an individual--was revealed to operate on a level apart from the other Flag Smashers, having no "too far" which was questioned by her associate. For a real world example, in the early days of the Black Liberation Army, there were some divisions about methods and intent; some wanted to strike blows against institutions such as government buildings & rob banks (and/or armored trucks delivering money), while others were Hell-bent on assassinating police officers, as they saw fighting the system and "sending a message" possible only through murder (against agents of the state). Karli represented the latter mindset, as she was impatient, with her fluid modification of Flag Smasher doctrine escalating to the "all or nothing" plots embracing the killing of innocent people to send what she believed to be a message forcing her enemies to capitulate.

The finale should have been Sam and Karli teaming up against John Walker, full stop. It felt like there absolutely was an earlier draft of the show that did this. But in the end, the writers chickened out...perhaps because Disney leaned on them to not make a show that was too political. Hence we got Sam's useless centrist speech instead.

Karli was not a hero; it would have made no narrative sense for every sociopolitical message espoused by Sam to somehow align with "all or nothing" Karli against Walker--who did suffer from a form of White entitlement--but was not the threat in relation to the main series issue of government disenfranchisement / gentrification / discrimination. Walker was not the focus of this story; he was a secondary vehicle to the argument / fight for the idea of a black man (with his unique historical / foundational role) representing the American identity as Captain America.

 

[eschaton]

I disagree. Historically, the distinction between freedom fighter of just cause and terrorist is the notion of what is considered "too far" to achieve a certain goal. In the series, Karli was introduced via the Flag Smashers' message (leading some viewers to see her--by association--as a sympathetic figure), but in time, Karli--as an individual--was revealed to operate on a level apart from the other Flag Smashers, having no "too far" which was questioned by her associate. For a real world example, in the early days of the Black Liberation Army, there were some divisions about methods and intent; some wanted to strike blows against institutions such as government buildings & rob banks (and/or armored trucks delivering money), while others were Hell-bent on assassinating police officers, as they saw fighting the system and "sending a message" possible only through murder (against agents of the state). Karli represented the latter mindset, as she was impatient, with her fluid modification of Flag Smasher doctrine escalating to the "all or nothing" plots embracing the killing of innocent people to send what she believed to be a message forcing her enemies to capitulate.

I understand what they were trying to do here, I just think they botched the execution. Factionalism in revolutionary movements happens due to power and social dynamics within the movement, not because a single individual gets the idea "what if we start killing people?" There's a desire to prove yourself as being the most true to the cause in order to prove something to the cadre. The show didn't really feature this dynamic, it just showed Karli as an extremist and the other Flag Smashers being hesitant, but eventually complying. Which would be fine if she was presented as some sort of crazy psychopath using the movement for her own shits and giggles, but she was clearly not - scenes like her being at her adoptive mother's deathbed drove home that she was fundamentally speaking a normal person, not a villain.

Karli was not a hero; it would have made no narrative sense for every sociopolitical message espoused by Sam to somehow align with "all or nothing" Karli against Walker--who did suffer from a form of White entitlement--but was not the threat in relation to the main series issue of government disenfranchisement / gentrification / discrimination. Walker was not the focus of this story; he was a secondary vehicle to the argument / fight for the idea of a black man (with his unique historical / foundational role) representing the American identity as Captain America.

I agree that Karli wasn't a hero, but she didn't work as a villain either - not even a tragic one. She just came across as a messed-up kid who made some poor choices, which meant there really wasn't any emotional catharsis to her being "defeated," just a sad tragedy - a waste of life.

To be clear, I think the idea of having a more complex antagonist who's not just a total asshole is a good one for the MCU. I just think that the series ended on a bit of a damp squib structurally because Karli's death didn't really bring closure - that if anything the real antagonist was the complex social problems the Blip and the return had caused - problems which I'm fairly sure every Marvel show from here on in will basically ignore unfortunately. Sam's "can't we all just get along" speech didn't cut it for me, not one bit.

It's a shame, because there were elements of the series that were amazing - like Isaiah Bradley, and the scene with Walker and the blood on the shield. Some of the absolute best political commentary in the MCU. And it all just vanishes up its own butt in the final episode.

 

[theenglish]

There was no gray with Killmonger. The very first thing we saw him do was murder a museum employee.

That's true, but at that point it could be argued that he was doing it for the greater good (in his mind).

 

[JD]

Yeah, he had some good points, but he was still very much an outright villain without any real shades of gray.

 

[theenglish]

Yeah, he had some good points, but he was still very much an outright villain without any real shades of gray.

In the end, for all his talk he was only ever out for his own gain. That's my issue with the movie, and one of the reasons I think Wakanda Forever was the much better film.