The same people can buy a guy with a bow and arrow beating advanced aliens but the futuristic ants is somehow too much
I rmeebe when people complained about Thanos sitting in his chair for so long
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
The same people can buy a guy with a bow and arrow beating advanced aliens but the futuristic ants is somehow too much
I rmeebe when people complained about Thanos sitting in his chair for so long
In hindsight, Thanos' best appearance was in Avengers.
Also Kang in QM was exiled out of time, his main source of power. Granted, I was a bit disappointed we didn't get full Kang in QM but I saw that wasn't supposed to be be him so I was ok with it
Personally I suspect the core reason has actually more to do with the fact that those kind of stretchy/embiggening powers are difficult to sell in live action. If you make it too realistic in terms of texture, shading and animation then it's basically body horror, but on the other hand if you dial it back, then it's just cartoony (think 'The Mask'.) Either way it's bound to be off-putting and would undermine the character's portrayal.
I think they made the right call, and that what they gave her instead still manages to more or less achieve the same end-result. She can still punch people with a giant fist, it's just made of light now instead of being a gross person sized lump of rubberised meat and bone.
Last edited:
Agree with much of what you're saying, but there was a version of Secret Invasion to be made that could have been incredible while still not featuring major heroes. I've said before it should have been Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy meets The Thing. Paranoia, the inability to trust anyone, double and triple crosses are mainstays of espionage fiction, that the show just flat out ignored the possibilities, or at best paid lip service I still find find mind boggling.
As for who asked for an Echo show? Who asked for an Andor show? Who asked for a Guardians of the Galaxy movie? Some of the best stuff to come out of Disney has come out of left field. Obviously that doesn't mean Echo will be amazing, it might be shite or it might, in line with a lot of Disney product of late, be ok,
I'd assumed, perhaps wrongly given the post credits scene of Quantumania, that the point was to show us the softer, gentler, more thoughtful Kangs first, and that eventually we would get a Kang who was Palpatine/Vader merged into one! That there isa a Kang spectrum and we haven't got close to the worst ones yet.
Like I say though, the congress of Kangs implies he's dangerous by sheer weight of numbers which strikes me as odd. Kang doesn't strike me as the cooperative type.
It would have played out better if the rest of the Kangs didn't just look like howling lunatics when we cut to them.
Also if you field thousands of a powerful character they have to follow the Ninja rule and will likely be mowed down on-mass.
I always figured that was the plan anyway. But in order for it to mean anything that he's 'King Kang', you first have to have some idea of the insane chaos that the Council of Kangs implies.
They probably should've used the opportunity to already show more of that in Quantumania or Loki, though. Thanos had to be drawn out because his entire storyline was just 'get the stones', but drawing this rather more complicated concept out so far without really advancing his storyline isn't helping people's engagement.
Isn’t that a Jet Li film (or maybe that’s what you were referencing)?
The One
Is the Kang Dynasty an original concept/storyline? I was around for Secret Wars 1 & 2, but dropped out of comics afterwards, but i understand they kept going back to that like DC did with having a Crisis.
I think Majors would have been great to be multiple villains and based on Loki, i feel like he could have handled it, acting wise. But his personal situation really messed it up.
And going back to box office... i only care so much in the sense that i want to see more Marvel int he future..... i don't think it is dead or dying.... there could be much more life left. But as some have said, it might need to be more focused on smaller things, or other avenues (such as amusement parks, merchandising).... the Avengers blockbuster might be a center point, but they can't keep going to it the way DC & Marvel did with their mini series, and/or tying everything else to them.
I think Majors would have been great to be multiple villains and based on Loki, i feel like he could have handled it, acting wise. But his personal situation really messed it up.
And going back to box office... i only care so much in the sense that i want to see more Marvel int he future..... i don't think it is dead or dying.... there could be much more life left. But as some have said, it might need to be more focused on smaller things, or other avenues (such as amusement parks, merchandising).... the Avengers blockbuster might be a center point, but they can't keep going to it the way DC & Marvel did with their mini series, and/or tying everything else to them.
RW was no doubt referring to this:
[The Majors situation] has forced Marvel to reconsider its plans to center the next phase of its interlocking slate of sequels, spinoffs and series around Majors’ villainous character, Kang the Conqueror. At the gathering in Palm Springs, executives discussed backup plans, including pivoting to another comic book adversary, like Dr. Doom.
The quotes don't specifically say that Marvel insiders are worried about Kang as a character, but it's reasonable to deduce that if there weren't any such doubts, the discussions would only be about keeping Majors vs. recasting.
No, as I said, I think the problem is he has no discernible ideology or motivation beyond just seeking power, which isn't dramatically promising. And the whole concept of warring multiverses, discussed by He Who Remains, is just weird. Why would whole civilizations fight civilizations from alternate universes? Wouldn't a Nova Corps from one reality ally with a Nova Corps from another reality? And wouldn't even a warrior society like a Kree Empire be primarily concerned with safeguarding their existing territory from an infinite number of threats from beyond? In other words, wouldn't noble and vicious societies alike quickly come to the conclusion that any one authority/person whose aim is to control everything in all universes is their common adversary?
If Kang is just a means to an end, and that end is "a big multiverse fight with ALL the possible cameos, from Eric Bana's Hulk and the animated X-Men '97 team to Tom Cruise's Tony Stark, and maybe even a Cavill Superman," then, okay. But that sounds maybe like more of a one-Avengers-movie story, whereas Kang seems to be slated to be the big bad of a two-fer.
There was a whole platoon of liberated Widows at the end of BW, not to mention those not immediately present. Mathematically, I guarantee you they weren't all Snapped.
Black Panther was nearly five years ago. It's high time to address this.
I thought the idea was that it was just the Kangs who were fighting each other for the title of ultimate conqueror of everything, because their ego wouldn't let them tolerate any other Kang being above them.
^ He Who Remains definitely talked about entire universes going to war with each other. IIRC, the language he used did not describe his variants managing to become supreme ruler of all these universes, and then making them fight each other, but I could be misremembering.
Goofy comic relief needed to stick around, when a "funny" character sacrificing himself would have provided a truly poignant coda to a character often disregarded as inconsequential. Nope, Scott would not see that kind of conclusion.
Well, I'm sure you know her line to Steve was written at a time when Marvel Studios had no interest in ever exploring Black Widow's past in a solo film, so she could say anything from that point forward.
The solo Black Widow movie was a backstory that was not one; films of that kind must say the character and/or the story had a reason to be, and the script for this film simply lacks that crucial element. In the end, the film did not take what should have been a deeper dive into Natasha's motivations outside of what others did to her. Instead, one could not forget the film was the result of Marvel finally giving Natasha the solo movie they had no intention of making in the years before this production, and in the end, it felt more like a Yelena "pilot" than a story that provided interesting development for a character who still remains rather one-note.
The Eternals....a mess.
I've wondered about that, and felt it was a major oversight (or simply did not care to address it) in Infinity War, where Sam and Rhodey visited the land and acted as if the initial sight was no different than walking to another town. Some will attempt to argue that they had larger matters to deal with, but the idea of two black men (with their lived and inherited experiences as black men in America) landing in Wakanda and the film not offering at least one, brief scene where two black men--the descendants of and likely recipient of Western programs to dehumanize and erase African history--comment on the cultural and physical embodiment of their history. Nope, it was all about empty, loud spectacle and CG monsters.
I guess Sam is not so close to those just outside the original Avengers' orbit...
Honestly, I know the point of Sam not having easy access to money was serving as an echo of the Flag Smasher's arguments (and how Sam being a world-saving superhero--at the end of it all--was still treated like many black men dealing with American financial institutions--a part of a kind of villainy he was never going to conquer.
Very good question.
Once the Marvel made its deal with Sony for Spider-Man, one of the early outings should have been his conflicts with the Kingpin and/or Bernthal's Punisher--two landmark, important arcs from The Amazing Spider-Man comic, but we ended up with...something else.
Yes--inferior stories across the board.
Last edited:
