• 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
    185
I'll be disappointed if it's a period piece. The FF are supposed to be on the cutting edge of Marvel-Universe progress and discovery, not relics of the past.

Amusing that one of the cast members of the FF is named Kirby. And with Vanessa Kirby's casting, we can add one more to the growing list of actors the MCU has in common with the Mission: Impossible film franchise, along with Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Renner, Angela Bassett, Hayley Atwell, Shea Whigham (who co-starred with Atwell in Agent Carter), and Pom Klementieff. (I'm a bit surprised Simon Pegg hasn't done Marvel yet.)
 
I could've sworn Marvel used that version of their logo for WandaVision but now I can't find any proof of it. Doesn't appear in the respective episode openers nor any official posters that I can find. Maybe my memory was rewritten or something.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
Yes--Universal's distribution rights to a Hulk film prevents Disney/Marvel from producing their own Hulk solo film unless Universal releases it,
Click to expand...
Possibly annoying point of pedantry, but Universal’s distribution rights are technically on a ‘first refusal’ basis. So, Marvel could easily make a Hulk film, which Universal could pass on distributing.
Alas, this is probably where Ruffalo’s ‘play nice’ comment comes from. Because Universal are unlikely to pass on that. Which makes business sense. Why pass on a bit of wedge you don’t have to?
Also, Universal’s distribution rights once a film is made are finite, with distribution reverting to Marvel once 15 years has passed. Thus, Marvel now own full rights on The Incredible Hulk, because distribution for that film has now reverted to them.
 
Booji said:
Just announced that Fantastic 4 will be released July 25, 2025 and will star Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, and Joseph Quinn
Click to expand...
Can’t see Pascal as Reed.
Also, though she’s great can’t see Kirby in the role of Sue. Should have gone with Samara Weaving in my book.

Great casting for Ben and Johnny though.
 
so-excited.gif
 
I hate that poster. I've said it before and I'll say it again, nothing about the Fantastic Four is inherently "60s", and the idea of doing a period piece with them was always stupid. No one associates Spider-Man or Daredevil with the 60s, yet thats when they debuted and they have exactly as much to do with the decade in general as the Fantastic Four.

In fact, I can say that the absolutely worst period for the F4 in the comics, writing wise, was the 60s. Has anyone ever tried to read the book when Stan Lee was writing it? It had good ideas, but the actual writing was absolutely horrendous, one of the worst 60s comics I've read (I think only Lee's Thor was worse), and I'm pretty sure Jack Kirby probably thought up most of the decent ideas. So when I think about the F4 and the 1960s I mostly shudder in memory of trying to read that poorly written (and horrendously misogynistic) crap and realising that later adaptations would take the basic ideas of things like galactus, the Inhumans, etc and do them much better.

Anyway, back to the new movie, if its a period piece then I won't be watching it until its on Disney+, and I'm underwhelmed by the cast. Pedro is fine but he's older then I'd want Reed to be in his first MCU appearance, and of course the age gap between him and Sue's actress is very Hollywood which is funny but unfortunate. I have no opinion on the other actors because I don't recognize them, but at the bare minimum I'm sure they'll be better then the 2015 cast.
 
Rich Watson said:
Not as ick as what was canon for decades though!

NGeFP0X.jpeg
Click to expand...

So in the comics, there was only a canonical six-year age gap?

Not that it's not totally ick anyway, but if we take the ages of the actors literally, it's even worse potentially within the MCU, if they wanted the same story.
 
Rich Watson said:
Not as ick as what was canon for decades though!
Click to expand...

That sort of thing was common enough in that era. Back then, couples were expected to court for years and not have sex until marriage. So an attraction between an adult man and an underage girl wasn't seen as a sexual thing, just as the establishment of a romantic bond that might eventually lead to marriage once she was old enough. Certainly there was an element of sexism to it -- the idea that a girl's only goal in life was to secure her future as a wife and mother -- but it wasn't usually as predatory as it might look to modern eyes.

Although my impression of Reed and Sue's backstory, supported by that John Byrne panel, is that she was the one who fell for him as a child and pursued him when she was old enough. I mean, he's Reed. It's right there -- "shy, bookish." Even when they're married, Sue has to drag Reed away from his books and inventions long enough to pay attention to her. I don't see him being the aggressor in that relationship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top