Avengers: Endgame SPOILERS
3 3

890 posts in this topic

696 posts
11 minutes ago, WoWitHurts said:

Had nothing to do with ASM 2. Sony saw the benefit for letting Disney use SM in their films. Tons of great exposure and keeping SM in the public eye. The deal is Sony gives Disney nothing from their stand alone movies aside what a Producer would make after certain financial goals were met and Disney can use SM in their moves as supporting cast and pay Sony nothing from CA Civil War and Avengers. Fans love the deal because you get to see SM involved in the Marvel universe. Win Win Win

Yeah, but ASM2 was supposed to be this big launching point for a Sony Spiderman Extended Universe with a Sinister Six spinoff movie and a Black Cat spin-off movie and the intro of Mary Jane in ASM3, but clearly those plans got scuttled after ASM2 didn't perform at the box office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,317 posts
Posted (edited)
On 4/26/2019 at 6:45 PM, AGGIEZ said:

Completely agree with most of your post...with the exception of these two. Yes, Captain Marvel didn't have a huge plot part, but she was definitely a factor single handedly taking out Thanos' war ship. I think she's a bit overpowered with that "I'm just going to fly through your ship once and take it down" BS...

 

That's the problem with cosmic-level characters; they end up seeming like a cheap, unconvincing deus ex machina, as with Rick Jones in the Kree-Skrull War.

Edited by Ken Aldred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
696 posts
9 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

That's the problem with cosmic-level characters; they end up seeming like a cheap, unconvincing deus ex machina, as with Rick Jones in the Kree-Skrull War.

 

3 minutes ago, RedRaven said:

I'll take a guy in a tin suit with a drinking problem any day over super-man. 

And that’s what makes Marvel so special. Whether they’re a dorky high school kid or drunk billionaire or god or disaffected earthling with the power of an Infinity Stone, Marvel always focuses on the “human” behind the mask and their “human” relationships. And casting actors with a lot of charm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82,385 posts
1 hour ago, Callaway29 said:

Just so we're all clear, none of y'all know jack squat.

giphy.gif

 

SPIDERMAN01.thumb.PNG.680f0dda430d9f9e86d3256c5ae9e8fa.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,460 posts
5 hours ago, RedRaven said:

Not sure on that. If I was mister bidness-man at Disney I wouldn't want my lynchpin hero to be a property I didn't have full distribution rights to. I agree though, as a fan it is irrelevant.

If they didn't want Spider-Man to be the linchpin of the future MCU then they wouldn't have Tom Holland and Spider-Man groomed by RDJ Iron Man.

They're simply both good for the health and business of Marvel Studios. At some point Sony will have to surrender to the Mouse, just as Fox did...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,553 posts
19 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

If they didn't want Spider-Man to be the linchpin of the future MCU then they wouldn't have Tom Holland and Spider-Man groomed by RDJ Iron Man.

They're simply both good for the health and business of Marvel Studios. At some point Sony will have to surrender to the Mouse, just as Fox did...

I hope you are right. I enjoy this version of spider man much more than any other I have seen in the last two decades. A very relatable character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
696 posts
1 hour ago, TwoPiece said:

Brie Larson doesn't have any "charm"... lol

 

Oh my God!!! Another "I hate Brie Larson" clickbait youtube video! My mind is blown!!!!!!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
696 posts
7 hours ago, ExNihilo said:

The only common thing about "common sense", is that it's uncommon.

Define...lynchpin...

Lynchpin --> a thing of vital importance to an enterprise. Captain Marvel is THAT to Marvel Studios, especially since she's the hero with the company's name in her title. Marvel Studios needed her movie to be a worldwide success and it was. She's the new blood, the fresh face, Marvel's It Person who people can't stop talking about. There's nobody better to be the frontman for the new MCU. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,507 posts
3 hours ago, TwoPiece said:

Brie Larson doesn't have any "charm"... lol

 

The most annoying narrator ever. Couldn't finish watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,014 posts
On 4/30/2019 at 11:50 PM, thunsicker said:

Cap and Iron Man were NOT A-Listers before the MCU.  When Marvel was selling off movie rights in the 90’s to avoid bankruptcy there was a reason the X-Men, Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, and the Hulk were taken.  Cap and Iron Man were what was left after the A-Listers were gone.  Are they more important now?  Are they central to the MCU?  Sure.  But to say they have always been A-Listers in the marvel canon is just wrong.  And if the MCU can make Cap and Iron Man A-listers I see no reason good stories with other characters can’t make them A-Listers too.

I keep hearing this be said, but I have to disagree on some level. A-lister I think has nothing really to do with comic book sales or what rights sold first. A list is about who the main stream public knew /felt familiar with. Captain America and Iron-man were characters non-comic book people could identify even back in the 80s and 90s. In fact Cap had a horrible movie made for him i think around the late 80s (using JD Salingers son as the lead if I remember correctly).

Not saying you cant push new characters into the marketing/social media machine and manufacture "buzz" to turn someone into A list, but Cap and Ironman didn't need that. They were A list all the way intrinsically.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,669 posts
3 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Lynchpin --> a thing of vital importance to an enterprise. Captain Marvel is THAT to Marvel Studios, especially since she's the hero with the company's name in her title. Marvel Studios needed her movie to be a worldwide success and it was. She's the new blood, the fresh face, Marvel's It Person who people can't stop talking about. There's nobody better to be the frontman for the new MCU. 

I like Brie as a person, she's got this friendly, bubbly personality that plays well on the press tour.  But I think everything you said is an exaggeration.  She is by no means "of vital importance" to the franchise.  They didn't NEED her movie to be a worldwide success.  It's not like the very fabric of the MCU was riding on the success or failure of her movie.  They HOPED her movie would be a worldwide success.  What they NEEDED was for Endgame to be a worldwide success, because if it was an absolute failure, then 10 years of quality filmmaking would have all been for naught.  I assume she'll take a lead role in whatever the next phase of movies, largely because they've pushed her real hard in the comics.  Whereas DC has Wonder Woman at the forefront of their Big 3, Marvel doesn't really have a female lead with the same established history or popularity.  All this stuff about her bearing the namesake of the company or this or that, it's all pomp and circumstance.

I really hope her next movie is better than her origin.  I hope that her character is fleshed out.  I'm not being down on Captain Marvel, I just think it's better to temper one's expectations on the promise of the character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82,385 posts
2 hours ago, zhamlau said:

I keep hearing this be said, but I have to disagree on some level. A-lister I think has nothing really to do with comic book sales or what rights sold first. A list is about who the main stream public knew /felt familiar with. Captain America and Iron-man were characters non-comic book people could identify even back in the 80s and 90s. In fact Cap had a horrible movie made for him i think around the late 80s (using JD Salingers son as the lead if I remember correctly).

Not saying you cant push new characters into the marketing/social media machine and manufacture "buzz" to turn someone into A list, but Cap and Ironman didn't need that. They were A list all the way intrinsically.

 

It's actually not an accurate statement to say Cap and Iron Man were not A-list characters. They were always some of the front-forward characters used in the 1966 animated cartoons, Marvel marketing and fan collateral, and as leaders of the Avengers recognized extensively by anyone even remotely aware of Marvel Comics.

With early movie rights being sold early, Cap was touched on already. Here's Iron Man's journey.

Quote

In April 1990, Universal Studios bought the rights to develop Iron Man for the big screen, with Stuart Gordon to direct a low-budget film based on the property. By February 1996, 20th Century Fox had acquired the rights from Universal. In January 1997, Nicolas Cage expressed interest in portraying the character, while in September 1998, Tom Cruise expressed interest in producing as well as starring in an Iron Man film. Jeff Vintar and Iron Man co-creator Stan Lee co-wrote a story for Fox, which Vintar adapted into a screenplay. It included a new science-fiction origin for the character, and featured MODOK as the villain. Tom Rothman, President of Production at Fox, credited the screenplay with finally making him understand the character. In May 1999, Jeffrey Caine was hired to rewrite Vintar and Lee's -script. That October, Quentin Tarantino was approached to write and direct the film. Fox sold the rights to New Line Cinema the following December, reasoning that although the Vintar/Lee -script was strong, the studio had too many Marvel superheroes in development, and "we can't make them all."

 

By July 2000, the film was being written for New Line by Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio, and Tim McCanlies. McCanlies' -script used the idea of a Nick Fury cameo to set up his own film. In June 2001, New Line entered talks with Joss Whedon, a fan of the character, to direct, and in December 2002, McCanlies had turned in a completed -script. In December 2004, the studio attached director Nick Cassavetes to the project for a target 2006 release. Screenplay drafts were written by Alfred Gough, Miles Millar, and David Hayter, and pitted Iron Man against his father Howard Stark, who becomes War Machine. After two years of unsuccessful development, and the deal with Cassavetes falling through, New Line Cinema returned the film rights to Marvel.

 

In November 2005, Marvel Studios worked to start development from scratch, and announced Iron Man as their first independent feature, as the character was their only major one not already depicted in live action.

Like was noted by @zhamlau there already had been a Cap live film. Nic Cage and Tom Cruise were aware and interested in taking on the role of Tony Stark/Iron Man back in the 90's. The same time the Spider-Man and X-Men films were bouncing around in development.

Not to take anything away from Marvel Studios, which did its work to educate the general audience in advance prior to the 2008 film. You learn why Tim Miller is so respected at Marvel prior to Deadpool.

Quote

In order to build awareness for Iron Man from the general public, and put him on the same level of popularity as Spider-Man or Hulk, Marvel conducted focus groups to help remove the general perception that the character was a robot. After the groups proved successful, the information Marvel received helped them formulate an awareness-building plan, which included releasing three animated short films ahead of the film's release. The shorts were called "Iron Man Advertorials", and were produced by Tim Miller and Blur Studio.

Saying Iron Man and Cap were not A-listers when they were always top-of-list for animation and live productions ignores their development history. But making them household names across the globe took some extra work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,460 posts
12 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Oh my God!!! Another "I hate Brie Larson" clickbait youtube video! My mind is blown!!!!!!  

It's not "hate" and it's not "click bait". The video is full of substance. Your ignorance on the topic is unsurprisingly baffling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,460 posts
10 hours ago, I like pie said:

The most annoying narrator ever. Couldn't finish watching.

Yeah, he's not great. I didn't find him that annoying, though. The video has CC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,460 posts
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Lynchpin --> a thing of vital importance to an enterprise. Captain Marvel is THAT to Marvel Studios, especially since she's the hero with the company's name in her title. Marvel Studios needed her movie to be a worldwide success and it was. She's the new blood, the fresh face, Marvel's It Person who people can't stop talking about. There's nobody better to be the frontman for the new MCU. 

That's "linchpin". And it's not Captain Marvel.

Iron Man was not the MCU linchpin until The Avengers. Premature pedestals given to Captain Marvel are going to tip over fast,

Edited by TwoPiece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
696 posts
3 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:
10 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Lynchpin --> a thing of vital importance to an enterprise. Captain Marvel is THAT to Marvel Studios, especially since she's the hero with the company's name in her title. Marvel Studios needed her movie to be a worldwide success and it was. She's the new blood, the fresh face, Marvel's It Person who people can't stop talking about. There's nobody better to be the frontman for the new MCU. 

That's "linchpin". Racist.

"Lynchpin" is a less used but equally legitimate spelling of the word linchpin (that's your English lesson for the morning).  I used the former spelling because I simply quoted the word and spelling from another post in my reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,553 posts
7 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

That's "linchpin". And it's not Captain Marvel.

Arghh, I misspelled it as well earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,460 posts
1 minute ago, @therealsilvermane said:

"Lynchpin" is a less used but equally legitimate spelling of the word linchpin (that's your English lesson for the morning).  I used the former spelling because I simply quoted the word and spelling from another post in my reply.

It's the incorrect spelling of the correctly-spelled word. That's your English lesson for this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3