Marvel Cinematic Universe Movies and Streaming Series Discussion

[Ru1977]

You are correct assuming the sequel really happens. And the Joker movies are separate as well.

 

[joshsquash729]

You know.... it wasn't a bad idea if they just had better direction and better writers and better ... everything. There's literally no reason we can't have Battinson movies that are entirely separate from a Batman/Superman JL team-up. In fact, I -believe- The Batman still takes place in a separate universe from the new Superman, right?

I believe that was/is the plan, yeah, unless Gunn changed his mind, but he seems to have always thought that audiences were smart enough to know the difference. Since Matt Reeves also went down the "grounded in realism" route, I don't know if having heroes with superpowers in his universe would fit. But plans could always change- some folks think that's why it's taken so long to get Part 2 going, is because he was told he has to work in other heroes. Obviously all speculation, but believe what you will.

 

[Damien]

You are correct assuming the sequel really happens. And the Joker movies are separate as well.

I actually forgot about the Joker movies because I hate that they even exist. But yeah, them too.

I believe that was/is the plan, yeah, unless Gunn changed his mind, but he seems to have always thought that audiences were smart enough to know the difference. Since Matt Reeves also went down the "grounded in realism" route, I don't know if having heroes with superpowers in his universe would fit. But plans could always change- some folks think that's why it's taken so long to get Part 2 going, is because he was told he has to work in other heroes. Obviously all speculation, but believe what you will.

I would hate if they switched it up and included Battinson. I just think you need to approach Batman totally differently from the beginning if you want to include him with the JL. Batman that has once or twice thrown on Kryptonite knucke-dusters and punched up Superman when he's being a dick is a VERY different Batman from the guy that gets fucked up if he tries to beat up too many skinny teenagers at once.

 

[joshsquash729]

I would hate if they switched it up and included Battinson. I just think you need to approach Batman totally differently from the beginning if you want to include him with the JL. Batman that has once or twice thrown on Kryptonite knucke-dusters and punched up Superman when he's being a dick is a VERY different Batman from the guy that gets fucked up if he tries to beat up too many skinny teenagers at once.

Agreed. If this Batman pretty much died from a direct shotgun blast, he'd get demolished by any sort of superpowered threat. From the sound of things, with Brave and the Bold being the first Batman movie of the new DCU, it feels like a very safe bet that it'll be a separate Batman than Battinson. If they want to work in Damian Wayne like it seems they do, then I don't know if Pattinson is quite old enough. In real life, maybe, but I can't remember how old this Bruce is supposed to be in-universe. You know there's always rumors and speculation that any given Batman will start to incorporate other heroes- I remember all that talk happening with the Nolan movies as well- but I enjoy ones that can stand on their own.

That's really the only thing that has me excited for whatever the DCU Batman ends up being- him existing in this larger world means we can finally return to the more fantastical villains and don't have to worry about grounding them in realism. Give me monstrous Clayface, give me Man-Bat, give me Killer Croc and Solomon Grundy and Mad Hatter- the whole shebang!

 

[Damien]

Agreed. If this Batman pretty much died from a direct shotgun blast, he'd get demolished by any sort of superpowered threat. From the sound of things, with Brave and the Bold being the first Batman movie of the new DCU, it feels like a very safe bet that it'll be a separate Batman than Battinson. If they want to work in Damian Wayne like it seems they do, then I don't know if Pattinson is quite old enough. In real life, maybe, but I can't remember how old this Bruce is supposed to be in-universe. You know there's always rumors and speculation that any given Batman will start to incorporate other heroes- I remember all that talk happening with the Nolan movies as well- but I enjoy ones that can stand on their own.

That's really the only thing that has me excited for whatever the DCU Batman ends up being- him existing in this larger world means we can finally return to the more fantastical villains and don't have to worry about grounding them in realism. Give me monstrous Clayface, give me Man-Bat, give me Killer Croc and Solomon Grundy and Mad Hatter- the whole shebang!

Agreed across the board. I really like Battinson, but it's clearly a sort've not long after 'Year One,' as it were. He's been active for a little bit, but he's still learning what it means to be Batman. He only just finally learned he needs to be a hero - that's pretty much what that entire movie was about. Definitely wouldn't peg him as being old enough for Damien Wayne. And also just... Damien requires other elements that I don't see being present with this character; like having interacted with Talia for long enough to have a baby with her, long enough AGO for Damien to not be a toddler. It just doesn't line up.


Aaand, also hard agree that I'm pretty stoked to see some CRAZY Batman shit. I want monster versions of Clayface and Killer Croc pretty bad. I want a Justice League Unlimited version of Batman where he has the badassery and toys to literally hang in a fight with Darkseid. I don't think we've ever really had that Batman in movie form yet and we -deserve- it.

 

[fac]

I doubt they reboot/recast the MCU as a whole.

1 - I suspect they wouldn't want to try to plan for the shared universe again - as it expanded, the ability of the films to connect and the overall storyline stay clear with production delays, casting issues, strikes, etc., makes it logistically hard to manage. Plus actors may not want to commit to 9 films again. The interconnectedness resulted, I think, in too many fans became accustomed to the characters all interacting and then were disappointed when things stood alone or didn't include their favorites (just look at the box office for Eternals and Thunderbolts - the further you get from the core the harder it is to sell at this point). I think if they decide to reboot, it will be with stand alone characters in their own movies series - the IM universe, the Cap universe, the Thor universe, the X-Men universe - and if they decide to do teamups it should be smaller or more focused like DP & Wolvie, and not telegraphed as being as interconnected.

2 - They may not need to recast. Not sure how far we are from studios licensing actors to be essentially voice over actors/motion capture performers for their own AI/computer generated performances, but 10 years from now I am sure if Disney thought it was worth it they could drop $25 million on Chris Evans doorstep to have a fully computer generated yet live action looking Cap adventure with Evans looking like he did in 2011. We've already seen some of it with the de-aging technology, or characters like Thanos or Vision.

3 - If they did want to reboot, there is too much money in the current MCU IP that it is likely easier to hand-wave how this is a new Tony Stark for some "comic book reason" than to start over. So if we got a new IM, I'd figure out some multiverse reason for him to exist. No need to break the major continuity and they are clearly trying to increase the connections and not remove them. Pretty sure this is why Disney has had the Fox-Men cameos - not only does it provide some fun moments, but also it doesn't relegate the X-Men films to "the past" when they still would like to monetize them, even if they recast for the MCU. Same with connecting the three Spideys together - if you are 12 years old in 2025, and into the MCU, those older Spideys are now on your radar as part of the story - if they hadn't done that, it would be like coming out of Batman v Superman and wondering if you watch the Keaton and Reeves films, as in you wouldn't because that was "old" or "different" Batman and Superman. So DP & Wolvie have made Blade, Elektra, FF etc. connected to the MCU now (although this concept works better if you aren't connecting in the R-rated world of DP but in the PG-13 world of Spidey NWH).


Also, no doubt in my mind this Doom is connected to Stark. For comic fans the villains have history, but for movie and plot purposes, that history is secondary and therefore malleable compared to the heroes. Apart from Darth Vader and horror series, no villain sells tickets. Could Doom reach that level? Maybe, but if it turns out he is alternate world Stark who built a suit of armor, learned magic, and became a despot instead of some random friend of Reed Richards from some unknown country, so be it.

My theory, which won't happen - during Tony's snap to fix things he inadvertently thought about "fixing" Sokovia, and the stones granted his request, like a monkey's paw thing, and he has become the genius yet arrogant leader of Sokovia who does not know he had been Stark, and where his desire to "save" the world has been left unchecked without people like Pepper, or Happy, or Rhodey, or Cap, or others to mitigate that, and he did slide into being the "strongman" leader who believes the world would be better if he was in charge, and he has dabbled in things like magic along with his armor. Just an idea.

 

[joshsquash729]

Apart from Darth Vader and horror series, no villain sells tickets.

I'd argue that Joker sells tickets, for better or worse. I think the only reason Folie a Deux didn't was the musical aspect of it. If it had just been a straight sequel, even if it had told more or less the same story, one could argue that way more people would've turned up. Same with something like Jurassic Park- it feels weird to call the dinosaurs the "villain" moreso than the antagonists; they don't really have a motivation, but audiences definitely turn up for them over the human heroes.

At the end of the day, it's inevitable for the MCU to reboot in some way. There's no perfect way to do it- they're gonna lose viewers whether they keep the same characters and recast or if they forego those characters entirely to focus on other ones. They'll also inevitably gain some new viewers who are interested in the new actor or story. Some audiences will hate whatever newness there is, some will love it and prefer it over the old. Such is the comic industry as a whole. As long as they continue to put thought and care into it all and give things time to find and build their audience, I'm sure we'll be fine. The Marvel side of things doesn't seem to be quite as bad as Star Wars is in terms of quick, knee-jerk reactions to try and please angry fans.

 

[Damien]

I doubt they reboot/recast the MCU as a whole.

Just conversationally, I think there are some important push-backs to this, but not in an argumentative way. Just stuff to consider.

1 - I suspect they wouldn't want to try to plan for the shared universe again - as it expanded, the ability of the films to connect and the overall storyline stay clear with production delays, casting issues, strikes, etc., makes it logistically hard to manage. Plus actors may not want to commit to 9 films again.

For the actors, I think it depends on who you get. Listening to interviews and stuff, it seems like lots of actors get pretty excited about guaranteed work. Look how excited TV actors get when they get something like a two season renewal. I think this is a more valid point against getting big name, established (and often aging) actors. Tom Cruise doesn't need a 9 movie deal. He doesn't need to care about being employed ever again. Tom Holland doesn't need a 9 movie deal -today-. He's super rich -because- of his MCU deal. But would Tom Holland have happily signed on to a 9 movie deal when he was originally cast as Spider-Man? You bet.
I think that's what we'd be looking at, if it went that direction.

Also, I think it's fair to say, if it was all planned out from the start then you could meticulously plan which films actors would appear in and not back yourself into a corner with 'oh shit, we need this guy but he only has two movies left on his contract.' Which is kind've what happened... constantly.. with the current MCU.

As for not wanting a shared universe; that I just don't agree with. I think Disney sees (or at least believes) that's where the money is. The worldwide gross of Wolverine & Deadpool - introducing both characters to the MCU proper, did more than double the worldwide gross of Logan - widely regarded as the best X-Men movie pre-MCU. There's no way Disney doesn't make a decision based on numbers like that, I would expect.

2 - They may not need to recast. Not sure how far we are from studios licensing actors to be essentially voice over actors/motion capture performers for their own AI/computer generated performances, but 10 years from now I am sure if Disney thought it was worth it they could drop $25 million on Chris Evans doorstep to have a fully computer generated yet live action looking Cap adventure with Evans looking like he did in 2011. We've already seen some of it with the de-aging technology, or characters like Thanos or Vision.

I honestly don't even want to think about this kind of ghoulish shit. But it's also worth noting that some actors have come out against this very idea and we don't know who would or wouldn't be willing to sell themselves out like this. I mean, does 25 million dollars change Chris Evans' life? - A guy whose net worth is over 100-120 million dollars already and could, with just some regular investments, live extremely well for the rest of his life without ever working again?
Even James Earl Jones is on record that he only sold his voice rights to Disney because being Vader meant so much to him and he wanted that legacy to continue. Given how seemingly easy it has been for MCU actors to just be like 'I don't want to play this character anymore despite being perfectly capable of doing so' - I don't think they have the same attachment, generally.

3 - If they did want to reboot, there is too much money in the current MCU IP that it is likely easier to hand-wave how this is a new Tony Stark for some "comic book reason" than to start over

I would say the counterpoint to this is that the current MCU has a shelf-life. They've boxed themselves out of ever using certain storylines or characters unless they start over somehow. And one could argue that recasting characters and trying to maintain that it's still the same MCU might not go over very well with fans that have so long associated certain actors with those characters. When Red Guardian is played by the same dude, but someone totally different is playing Steve Rogers, that might just feel weirder and less immersive than just starting from scratch.

I think there are people at Marvel/Disney that will see the value in being able to literally start over and tell stories that they weren't able to tell in the existing iteration of the MCU. Especially as the move closer to feeling like the MCU as it exists right now has run its course and has diminishing returns. At the end, I imagine we both agree, it's going to be a numbers game based on what Disney thinks is going to make them the most money.

Also, no doubt in my mind this Doom is connected to Stark. For comic fans the villains have history, but for movie and plot purposes, that history is secondary and therefore malleable compared to the heroes. Apart from Darth Vader and horror series, no villain sells tickets. Could Doom reach that level? Maybe, but if it turns out he is alternate world Stark who built a suit of armor, learned magic, and became a despot instead of some random friend of Reed Richards from some unknown country, so be it.

That is kind of my expectation of where this is going. Although I'm guessing, based on absolutely nothing, that this is just going to be an alternate universe version of Stark rather than 'our' Stark inadvertently doing a thing.

 

[AceofKnaves]

I want a Justice League Unlimited version of Batman where he has the badassery and toys to literally hang in a fight with Darkseid.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

Give me my omni-capable polymath, “most dangerous man on the planet”, glorious Grant Morrison Batman who can take down the League singly or all at once, all by himself, and who looks gods in the eye and says “you blinked”.


Also villains can totally sell tickets, we need way more villain movies and way less movies where the “heroes” are thin-skinned dickbabies who get butthurt and fight each other.

 

[joshsquash729]

Regarding villains- I think we need to return to villains actually being villains. I'm all for a well-rounded villain with believable motivations, and who doesn't love a good tragic backstory, but I don't need every single one of them to be redeemed at the end. Yeah, yeah- every villain is the hero of their own story, but if we're not following them explicitly, then they shouldn't be the hero. Even then, there's plenty of room for unlikable protagonists. I want a villain who does bad things and enjoys doing them, and when they're about to be taken down doesn't show remorse or regret.

I think this is something that everyone is guilty of- Marvel, DC, even non-superhero franchises. These Sony spin-offs could've been at least a little better (not that that's saying much) if they just allowed the villains to be villains. And I don't mean just turning them into a hero who's not afraid to kill. I think that's part of why I loved The Penguin so much, aside from the great writing and acting- they were all pretty terrible people, and the only redeemable character got betrayed and killed in the end. Yet I still love Oz and Sofia- not because either necessarily has the slightest bit of humanity left, but because they're brought to life so fully and deliciously by the actors and writers, and moreover, they love doing bad things if it means getting what they want. That's the sort of ruthlessness I'd love to see brought to Doom.

 

[AceofKnaves]

Regarding villains- I think we need to return to villains actually being villains. I'm all for a well-rounded villain with believable motivations, and who doesn't love a good tragic backstory, but I don't need every single one of them to be redeemed at the end.

Ahhhh I have been SCREAMING this since Spider-man 2. They did Doc Ock SO dirty by crushing him into the shape of a “reluctant” villain.
“Redeemable” villains should be the exception, not the rule. And frankly, I think we’ve kinda done ourselves a disservice as a society by trying to recast truly bad folks as somehow “good inside” or having noble intentions or whatever. Real life isn’t even like that most of the time. Just look around. And I’m not saying comic book media should be “realistic”: indeed, I think comic movies have often suffered by trying to be too much of the “real world” . . . but that said, it’s really OK for a bad guy to be interesting and complicated and charismatic but also JUST BAD. I don’t need to feel sorry for Doc Ock. He’s a sadistic psychopath who wants to dominate and control. He’s all the power with none of the responsibility, and THAT is what makes him a foil for Peter, not some “d’aww he’s my mentor” nonsense.

Anyway: I think we are ready for some real bad guys again.

 

[Damien]

I think part of the problem is shitty writers that have conflated 'understandable/relatable' with 'redeemable.' Just because we can understand why a villain does something, what their motivations are, what their fears and beliefs are, doesn't mean we have to sympathize with any of it, and it surely doesn't mean that having those things makes them secretly not so bad.

I'm also FULLY on board with having villains that -were- decent people, got pushed to the edge, and became irredeemable. That's okay too. It's okay to feel bad for how a character got here, and still realize they can't be saved. Punisher is an example of this. He cannot be saved. He will NEVER stop being a serial killer until he's dead. No amount of 'healing and good vibes' is going to change his mind.

 

[Fletch]

It looks like the MCU is really in need of an onramp for new audience members. There are going to be voters next year who weren't even alive when Iron Man came out.

Despite some great word of mouth, the supposed capstone of Phase 5, the Thunderbolts, is still trying to just break even. Meanwhile (sort of), I suspect Fantastic Four will rake in the dough. Partially because of its lighter tone, but mostly I believe because it's a new thing: their own story with new characters, untethered from any previous MCU history.

I don't personally think that calls for a reboot, but it sounds like that's what they're aiming for anyways with Secret Wars.

 

[docsilence]

Convo swerved into one of my favorite topics. I used to teach a course on writing sympathetic villains and I don't anymore because honestly, we need more UN-sympathetic villains. I sometimes wonder what we did to ourselves culturally by requiring every villain to have a tragic story that explains their behavior (my favorite it them trying to redeem Cruella Deville, a woman who SKINS PUPPIES).

I mean I get it, people love that stuff, they eat it up, but every single real-world villain is an irredeemable piece of shit. To harm others without regret is monster behavior and they really exist. Real world villainy is greed, bigotry, hatred, misogyny, selfishness, cruelty... It's HARD to find a real world redeemable villain. And really, real world villains aren't the kind of people you go "oh, I understand why he did that evil thing, he was wrong but I get it!" Real villains do an evil thing and then gather people around them *who agree with that evil behavior.*

I actually have a ton of respect for Suzanne Collins because when I saw they were doing a President Snow sequel I was like "we do NOT need a sympathetic backstory for the guy who created the Hunger Games" and she spent the whole book showing us what an irredeemable, unlikable piece of shit he is. She might be the one working writer who gets it and has the clout to do something about it.

That being said, I liked Loki's redemption arc. But I also liked how Agatha was still a monster at the end of her show. I think the character of Valentina from the comics deserved better, but the MCU Valentina hasn't shown a hint of redemption in her. Just took me a full minute and a half to remember who the actual villain was in Brave New World. Curious to see how they handle Galactus - he's more destructive force of cosmic nature than villain, the unavoidable ruin.

 

[Damien]

It looks like the MCU is really in need of an onramp for new audience members.

That's definitely something we can agree on.
I feel the same way about comics, to be honest. I read comics and even I don't know what the fuck is going on anymore.

I sometimes wonder what we did to ourselves culturally by requiring every villain to have a tragic story that explains their behavior

We started trying to appeal to the majority, and the majority contains a LOT of fucking cunts that want their own shitty attitudes excused for them with 'well, sometimes good people can be FORCED to think and do bad things.' I really don't think it's any deeper than that.

I mean I get it, people love that stuff, they eat it up, but every single real-world villain is an irredeemable piece of shit. To harm others without regret is monster behavior and they really exist. Real world villainy is greed, bigotry, hatred, misogyny, selfishness, cruelty... It's HARD to find a real world redeemable villain. And really, real world villains aren't the kind of people you go "oh, I understand why he did that evil thing, he was wrong but I get it!" Real villains do an evil thing and then gather people around them *who agree with that evil behavior.*

I ~think~ the idea of the redeemable villain, or more specifically the complex villain that isn't necessarily a bad person somehow, is rooted in history. I'd even argue some of the tropes start there - both with historical records and with mythology/folklore/etc. We have no choice but to take a far more nuanced view of historical figures than we would of modern figures (that is to say - people that lived after the Industrial Revolution). We contextualize the actions of historical figures (and mythological figures) based on their time's social norms, expectations, and even survival mechanisms/requirements.
You simply cannot judge Alfred the Great or Saladin by the same morality and ethics as you would Tom Cruise or Joe Biden. It wouldn't be fair to do so. In fact, it's something I get pretty upset when I see people trying to do because it usually comes with the blatant requirement to gloss over massive elements of history. Like saying "well, Harald Hardrada should have outlawed slavery if he was a good person." I mean, he wasn't a good person but even if he was that isn't reasonable.

Anyway, that's getting really deep in the weeds. The point I'm taking too long to get to is that we look at the nuance required to contextualize these historical figures and think we can apply that logic to EVERYONE. We took away this lesson that if William the Bastard could do truly terrible things without actually being considered a truly terrible person, then ANYONE at ANY time can do truly terrible things without being considered a terrible person. And boy did we eat that up, as you said.

That being said, I liked Loki's redemption arc. But I also liked how Agatha was still a monster at the end of her show. I think the character of Valentina from the comics deserved better, but the MCU Valentina hasn't shown a hint of redemption in her. Just took me a full minute and a half to remember who the actual villain was in Brave New World. Curious to see how they handle Galactus - he's more destructive force of cosmic nature than villain, the unavoidable ruin.

Loki's redemption arc was really good, but I actually like it for another reason; I think it plays on the above. I think it plays off the idea that the Gods - supernatural, super-human beings, do not operate by normal human morality. Just as they don't do in the myths and sagas. Loki -can- murder a bunch of people and try to subjugate entire planets and within the context of his people and his cultural morality - he's not necessarily EVIL, capital E. He's just kinda.. existing. He's 'being Loki' - in all that entails. The ability to joke and be mischievous one day, and violently suppress a human population the next day is part and parcel to what makes them so distinctly not us. And that, in fact, Loki's redemption arc wasn't about becoming more good. Loki's redemption arc, just like Thor's in Thor's first movie, was about becoming more HUMAN.

Galactus needs to be treated as a force of nature. He should be the villain only in the way that a tornado is the villain in Twister. As above, he should be beyond human understanding of morality and ethics. That's a tough movie to make, I think, because the good guys need to mostly play off each other and how to avoid disaster, rather than how to beat the bad guy.