Avengers: Endgame (2019) 5 5

[Gatsby77]

World of difference between being told you're an honorary Avenger...or being part of the Avengers roster...and _leading_ the Avengers.

Spider-Man will not be the team's leader.

[@therealsilvermane]

3 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

War Machine was an Avenger pre-Civil War. Did you watch that one, either?

Regardless of your inflated opinion of her, why would Disney or Marvel put such a divisive person at the forefront of such a lucrative franchise..?

"Strong rumors" mean nothing. There is no confirmation of SHIELD returning to the MCU. There is the confirmation that Nick Fury is in Far From Home, and that Agents of SHIELD is returning to TV/Disney+. Sony does not single-handed own the right to Spider-Man. Hence why he was absent from Venom. 

James Rhodes is one of the Avengers who didn't break the Sokovia Accords and tried to enforce it during Civil War. He was still an Avenger in Infinity War, too.

Brie Larson is divisive for trolls and dudes who don't like diversity, and maybe Disney is better off. Brie as Carol Danvers will bring in a new fan base of girls to the MCU. As Brie Larson says, representation is important. Brie also gets attention and makes news. It's like free marketing. And oh yeah, Captain Marvel made a billion dollars and is getting ready to cross $400 million domestic. The woman is money. 

Okay, here's my official prediction. After its downfall in Winter Soldier, SHIELD will return as the force for good it was meant to be, with Nick Fury in charge of everything again. If there were Vegas odds, I'd put $1000 on it.

Sony owns full movie rights to everything Spiderman. Sony could have put Peter Parker in Venom if they wanted. The MCU only has an agreement with Sony that Disney makes the Spider-Man movies (but don't get the profits) and can put Avengers in them and make it part of the MCU, and Peter Parker can be put in Avengers movies. That's it.

[theCapraAegagrus]

1 minute ago, @therealsilvermane said:

James Rhodes is one of the Avengers who didn't break the Sokovia Accords and tried to enforce it during Civil War. He was still an Avenger in Infinity War, too.

Brie Larson is divisive for trolls and dudes who don't like diversity, and maybe Disney is better off. Brie as Carol Danvers will bring in a new fan base of girls to the MCU. As Brie Larson says, representation is important. Brie also gets attention and makes news. It's like free marketing. And oh yeah, Captain Marvel made a billion dollars and is getting ready to cross $400 million domestic. The woman is money. 

Okay, here's my official prediction. After its downfall in Winter Soldier, SHIELD will return as the force for good it was meant to be, with Nick Fury in charge of everything again. If there were Vegas odds, I'd put $1000 on it.

Sony owns full movie rights to everything Spiderman. Sony could have put Peter Parker in Venom if they wanted. The MCU only has an agreement with Sony that Disney makes the Spider-Man movies (but don't get the profits) and can put Avengers in them and make it part of the MCU, and Peter Parker can be put in Avengers movies. That's it.

Rhodes was an Avenger until he was crippled in Civil War. If you read the pre-IW comics, or watched IW commentary, Rhodes only joins the fight out of necessity. He's not an Avenger anymore. He also broke the Accords by joining Nomad to his destination Wakanda.

Brie Larson is divisive. Period. Make up all the excuses you'd like. She's divisive. RDJ? Evans? Hemsworth? Ruffalo? Nope. Give me a logical reason why they'd force a divisive person down our throats. I'll wait.

Sony does not own "full movie rights" to Spider-Man. Sony could not put Peter Parker in Venom without an agreement with Marvel Studios. What you have said is not a comprehensive agreement between Marvel Studios and Sony.

I think that, if SHIELD resurfaces, it would kinda undo everything that The Winter Soldier (and onward) has conveyed in-story. Hydra is already back. If SHIELD is back, then what was the point? Why alienate a story you've told?

[theCapraAegagrus]

11 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

World of difference between being told you're an honorary Avenger...or being part of the Avengers roster...and _leading_ the Avengers.

Spider-Man will not be the team's leader.

You say that with such certainty. What year did you travel to the past from..?

In all seriousness, I'm suspecting that he is, while you're making seemingly concrete statements to the contrary. It undermines the discussion. None of us know what for sure is going to happen.

To brush the discussion off with such muster is a little mind-boggling.

Disagree all you'd like, but don't be a know-it-all. I'm at least providing some insight into my conjecture.

Spider-Man is an Avenger. Well, right now, he doesn't even exist, but, when he died he was an Avenger.

[Gatsby77]

My concrete statements are based on:

- Reading Spider-Man and Avengers comics for the better part of 30 years

- Seeing all of the Phase 3 MCU films and how Disney has positioned the characters -- esp. Black Panther and Captain Marvel

- The fact that -- regardless of what happens in Endgame, Peter's back to being a high schooler in Far From Home.

Part of the Avengers? Maybe.

Leading them? No.

 

My new prediction?

You're going to be sorely disappointed by Endgame, when you see it and it doesn't come close to matching your headcanon.

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

1 minute ago, Gatsby77 said:

My new prediction?

You're going to be sorely disappointed by Endgame, when you see it and it doesn't come close to matching your headcanon.

Don't be disappointed if/when I'm right. As I said, it took years before Iron Man was 'officially' the face of the franchise. Marvel Studios and the fanbase aren't going to immediately appoint Iron Man's successor.

Your new prediction is asinine. It doesn't correlate to anything I've posted...

[@therealsilvermane]

10 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Rhodes was an Avenger until he was crippled in Civil War. If you read the pre-IW comics, or watched IW commentary, Rhodes only joins the fight out of necessity. He's not an Avenger anymore. He also broke the Accords by joining Nomad to his destination Wakanda.

Brie Larson is divisive. Period. Make up all the excuses you'd like. She's divisive. RDJ? Evans? Hemsworth? Ruffalo? Nope. Give me a logical reason why they'd force a divisive person down our throats. I'll wait.

Sony does not own "full movie rights" to Spider-Man. Sony could not put Peter Parker in Venom without an agreement with Marvel Studios. What you have said is not a comprehensive agreement between Marvel Studios and Sony.

I think that, if SHIELD resurfaces, it would kinda undo everything that The Winter Soldier (and onward) has conveyed in-story. Hydra is already back. If SHIELD is back, then what was the point? Why alienate a story you've told?

If you go by that logic that Rhodes quit the Avengers by joining Steve Rogers, then there are no Avengers anymore because they ALL joined Steve Rogers. Maybe they should rename the movie Defectors: Endgame.

Brie Larson was perceived as divisive because ComicsGate people with an agenda took her words and used it as a rallying cry against a character they hated from the outset. Before Brie Larson, Captain Marvel was public enemy #1 for ComicsGate. The Alita Challenge was started by an Alt-Right twitter troll Jack Posobiece who could care less about Captain Marvel or comics, but saw it as a political stance against diversity. Disney has always been about diversity and will continue to do so. Disney and Brie Larson also have a 7 movie contract. After Carol Danvers officially takes the name Captain Marvel, perhaps in Endgame, with the Studio's name in her title, you can bet that Marvel wants her front and center. And why not? You just perceive her as divisive. I've talked with friends and family and associates about Captain Marvel. Most of them knew little about her before, and some of them, being conservative politically, were ready to hate Brie Larson. All came away from CM either loving the character and the movie, or saying, "okay, that was good. She was okay." That could almost be a cross section of how the general public feels about it. The general public doesn't rally care that much about Brie's activism on diversity just like they don't care much about Chris Evans or Mark Ruffalo's activism.

I admit, I don't have the full details of the Spiderman agreement, but I can't believe anybody actually thinks that Disney and Marvel Studios or the characters in the movie will put a 17 year old high school kid with no leadership training in charge of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the planet's defense.

I don't know what's happened in Agents of SHIELD but I also know Kevin Feige doesn't give a mess what happened on those TV shows. He only care about the MCU, and SHIELD will be back. To save it, they had to destroy it in Winter Soldier. That's Feige's MO. The Star Trek model. SHIELD is coming back after Endgame.

[theCapraAegagrus]

8 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

If you go by that logic that Rhodes quit the Avengers by joining Steve Rogers, then there are no Avengers anymore because they ALL joined Steve Rogers. Maybe they should rename the movie Defectors: Endgame.

Brie Larson was perceived as divisive because ComicsGate people with an agenda took her words and used it as a rallying cry against a character they hated from the outset. Before Brie Larson, Captain Marvel was public enemy #1 for ComicsGate. The Alita Challenge was started by an Alt-Right twitter troll Jack Posobiece who could care less about Captain Marvel or comics, but saw it as a political stance against diversity. Disney has always been about diversity and will continue to do so. Disney and Brie Larson also have a 7 movie contract. After Carol Danvers officially takes the name Captain Marvel, perhaps in Endgame, with the Studio's name in her title, you can bet that Marvel wants her front and center. And why not? You just perceive her as divisive. I've talked with friends and family and associates about Captain Marvel. Most of them knew little about her before, and some of them, being conservative politically, were ready to hate Brie Larson. All came away from CM either loving the character and the movie, or saying, "okay, that was good. She was okay." That could almost be a cross section of how the general public feels about it. The general public doesn't rally care that much about Brie's activism on diversity just like they don't care much about Chris Evans or Mark Ruffalo's activism.

I admit, I don't have the full details of the Spiderman agreement, but I can't believe anybody actually thinks that Disney and Marvel Studios or the characters in the movie will put a 17 year old high school kid with no leadership training in charge of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the planet's defense.

I don't know what's happened in Agents of SHIELD but I also know Kevin Feige doesn't give a mess what happened on those TV shows. He only care about the MCU, and SHIELD will be back. To save it, they had to destroy it in Winter Soldier. That's Feige's MO. The Star Trek model. SHIELD is coming back after Endgame.

Rhodes "quit" the Avengers after he was crippled in Civil War. That's the logic.

I'm gonna skip your Brie Larson blog, because there's no real good reason for them to appoint a divisive person/character as opposed to someone similar to who's led them to success so far, so I'll leave it at that.

Peter Parker is a genius. Along with Shuri, one of the smartest people in the MCU. He's also got the heart of a hero. Kind of a blend between Iron Man and Captain America (who they initially wanted to lead the MCU). Ageism isn't really a good defense IMO.

You're 100% right about Feige and Marvel TV. I was just informing you of the confirmed natures of SHIELD characters/entities. IMO it would be very stupid to alienate their own narrative by having both Hydra and SHIELD back in the MCU. Doesn't make sense from a fan's (storytelling) POV (and Feige is a fan).

Edited April 17, 2019 by TwoPiece

[Gatsby77]

5 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Peter Parker is a genius. Along with Shuri, one of the smartest people in the MCU.

Jaydog, is that you??

Also...da fuq?

Peter's *maybe* book smart, but he's been portrayed as pretty naive/stupid thus far -- for instance, disobeying Stark's direct order and following him into space in the last film.

And you're trying to claim he's smarter than:

• Tony Stark, inventor extraordinaire
• Vision, who is literally a computer
• Banner, who even Tony has acknowledged is probably smarter than him
• Doctor Strange

 

Also, the previous poster's dead-on.

Brie's not at all "divisive" outside a few butthurt internet trolls.

She's a well-liked Oscar-winning actress who is starring in two of the biggest movies of the year and whose solo movie will soon surpass $400 million -- indicating lots of repeat viewings.

Also, she's currently the # 3 most-viewed actor on IMDB. A full month after her film's been released.

For reference - Tom Cruise? Currently ranked # 97 most-viewed.

 

But...trolls gotta' troll. Keep doing you! 

[theCapraAegagrus]

6 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Jaydog, is that you??

Also...da fuq?

Peter's *maybe* book smart, but he's been portrayed as pretty naive/stupid thus far -- for instance, disobeying Stark's direct order and following him into space in the last film.

And you're trying to claim he's smarter than:

• Tony Stark, inventor extraordinaire
• Vision, who is literally a computer
• Banner, who even Tony has acknowledged is probably smarter than him
• Doctor Strange

 

Also, the previous poster's dead-on.

Brie's not at all "divisive" outside a few butthurt internet trolls.

She's a well-liked Oscar-winning actress who is starring in two of the biggest movies of the year and whose solo movie will soon surpass $400 million -- indicating lots of repeat viewings.

Also, she's currently the # 3 most-viewed actor on IMDB. A full month after her film's been released.

For reference - Tom Cruise? Currently ranked # 97 most-viewed.

 

But...trolls gotta' troll. Keep doing you! 

Vision is dead. I never said that he's smarter than Stark, Banner, or Strange. Idk how you came to that conclusion, because I haven't. Stark is also likely dead after Endgame, so...

Brie Larson is a divisive person. This is just a fact. It's not "internet trolls". There probably are trolls that don't like her. I'm not one of them. There's enough data out there for anyone and everyone to come to the same conclusion that she is not a likable person (awards have literally nothing to do with personality - it's about a particular performance). You can't pick and choose anyone else's opinions on a singular person. That's not how it works.

Tom Cruise and Scientology is definitely a good comparison for Larson...

Edited April 17, 2019 by TwoPiece

[theCapraAegagrus]

Tom Wilson didn't win the Stanley Cup because he's a likable player...

[Bosco685]

 

[Prince Namor]

7 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Brie Larson was perceived as divisive because ComicsGate people with an agenda took her words and used it as a rallying cry against a character they hated from the outset. Before Brie Larson, Captain Marvel was public enemy #1 for ComicsGate. The Alita Challenge was started by an Alt-Right twitter troll Jack Posobiece who could care less about Captain Marvel or comics, but saw it as a political stance against diversity. Disney has always been about diversity and will continue to do so. Disney and Brie Larson also have a 7 movie contract. After Carol Danvers officially takes the name Captain Marvel, perhaps in Endgame, with the Studio's name in her title, you can bet that Marvel wants her front and center. And why not? You just perceive her as divisive. I've talked with friends and family and associates about Captain Marvel. Most of them knew little about her before, and some of them, being conservative politically, were ready to hate Brie Larson. All came away from CM either loving the character and the movie, or saying, "okay, that was good. She was okay." That could almost be a cross section of how the general public feels about it. The general public doesn't rally care that much about Brie's activism on diversity just like they don't care much about Chris Evans or Mark Ruffalo's activism.

4

+100

[Prince Namor]

7 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Brie's not at all "divisive" outside a few butthurt internet trolls.

She's a well-liked Oscar-winning actress who is starring in two of the biggest movies of the year and whose solo movie will soon surpass $400 million -- indicating lots of repeat viewings.

But...trolls gotta' troll. Keep doing you! 

 

+100

[Bird]

I would think that characters slated for the new TV shows like Scarlet Witch, Vision, Winter Soldier etc will be featured or totally absent from the movies. Scheduling and such will be an issue for them and the powers that be will want to spread the exposure around. It would be awesome is Spider-Man was the center point of the MCU as he is the flagship character and Holland is fantastic but I am not sure that will work as he doesn't have the experience and age to lead the adults. 

[Hawkman]

8 hours ago, TwoPiece said:

Vision is dead. I never said that he's smarter than Stark, Banner, or Strange. Idk how you came to that conclusion, because I haven't. Stark is also likely dead after Endgame, so...

Brie Larson is a divisive person. This is just a fact. It's not "internet trolls". There probably are trolls that don't like her. I'm not one of them. There's enough data out there for anyone and everyone to come to the same conclusion that she is not a likable person (awards have literally nothing to do with personality - it's about a particular performance). You can't pick and choose anyone else's opinions on a singular person. That's not how it works.

Tom Cruise and Scientology is definitely a good comparison for Larson...

You're not a troll, you're just sexist.

[thunsicker]

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

8 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

The general public doesn't rally care that much about Brie's activism on diversity just like they don't care much about Chris Evans or Mark Ruffalo's activism.

4

 +100

This x 1000.  If the general public doesn’t care about Evans or Ruffalo I see no reason why they would care about Larson.  Those two have waded much deeper than Larson into partisan politics.  That said, other than you, I don’t see much backlash over Larson anymore on any site I visit.

[Prince Namor]

7 hours ago, Bird said:

I would think that characters slated for the new TV shows like Scarlet Witch, Vision, Winter Soldier etc will be featured or totally absent from the movies. Scheduling and such will be an issue for them and the powers that be will want to spread the exposure around. It would be awesome is Spider-Man was the center point of the MCU as he is the flagship character and Holland is fantastic but I am not sure that will work as he doesn't have the experience and age to lead the adults. 

1

It never happened in the comics, and the way they've set this character up, it's just not going to happen in the movies. He's a kid right now. He's NOT Tony Stark. Maybe someday they'd veer toward this, but not now. No way. Besides, this is becoming an intergalactic team, not a friendly neighborhood one. 

And as popular as everyone says that character is (and I like Holland), Homecoming still isn't even the highest grossing Spider-man movie (it's 4th). They still need to grow that fan base and return it to being the biggest and the best. You want to lead the Avengers - Iron Man 3 numbers are now the benchmark.

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

8 hours ago, Hawkman said:

You're not a troll, you're just sexist.

You're wrong.

I would look up the definition of a word if you don't fully understand it, first.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Iron Man was the face of the franchise prior to Iron Man 3. So, that benchmark is incorrect.