Marvel Cinematic Universe

With Disney+ being just $6.99/month (or less if you bundle it with Hulu and ESPN+), I can definitely see Netflix taking a hit. Especially since I'm guessing Netflix will be losing a lot of content. I'm undecided about buying Disney+, but even if I did, and kept my Netflix and Hulu-with-ads, I'd still be paying way less than I would if I used any of the shitty cable or satellite companies around here.

Yeah. I feel like the Black Widow film should have come out instead of Captain Marvel. I don't dislike Captain Marvel like it seems many on the internet do, but she really wasn't needed in Endgame, and her being known to Fury in the past made him seem an idiot in retrospect. I feel like other characters could have done the things she did in the movie, and getting more focus on Natasha beforehand would have made her death more impactful.

I suppose really, that's not so different than what they had going in earlier phases with the Guardians films and the more spacey/Asgardian aspects of the Thor films. There will just presumably be more franchises off-world. I'm pretty cool with it. I'm assuming that the stories will all eventually interweave with the introduction of the next big bad.

The comments about the sequel being the first scary MCU film came directly from the director at the Comic Con panel, and Feige and Cumberbatch both said something to that effect as well. Of course, it could be bullshit, who knows.

I've started reading Jason Aaron's Mighty Thor run because it sounded cool and I wanted to see what the movie would be based on. I agree in theory that it seems idiotic to use Thor as a title when it's his name, but when reading the story, I think it mostly works. Thor Odinson takes it really hard when he becomes unworthy of Mjolnir. He is the one who gives Jane his name, although he doesn't know her identity at first, after he watches her fight and sees how well the hammer responds to her. Other people, like his mama and Jane herself, in her human persona, basically tell him he's being a doofus about this, though, anticipating, I suppose, some of the more vocal readers' reactions.

I think the idea was to reinforce that she has the same strengths/powers and is equally worthy. And considering that Spider-Man's suggested names for her in the comics are Thunder-woman, Thorita, or Lady Hammer Pants, I think plain old Thor was the best choice. When Odinson speaks to Jane!Thor before learning who she is, he usually just calls her "goddess of thunder." Jane kept her identity a secret from most everyone because Odin in particular was also raging about her "stealing his son's birthright" and doing shit like sending the Destroyer to kill her instead of focusing on real problems. She's also not the only person in this run to pick up a Mjolnir and call herself Thor, although the other was short-lived. Jane was worthy of the hammer once before, in a "What If?" comic from the 70s. She called herself Thordis then, which I suppose isn't exactly terrible, although the comic honestly is.

In general, I think it's lazy writing to make a female character by Rule 63-ing a male character. But Jane is already her own established character, and the writing in the comics so far at least does the idea justice, so I have high hopes for the film. Given how I like all the rest of the films I've seen in the MCU, I'm sure I'll enjoy this one regardless.

There was a Marvel one-shot on the blu-ray of Thor: The Dark World called "All Hail the King" that dealt with the actor!Mandarin in jail and ended with an attack on him supposedly ordered by the real Mandarin, and I only know this because I just rewatched Thor 2 the other day. Iron Man 3 was pretty weak from what I remember; I don't know why they'd choose to expand on that lore, especially without Iron Man himself.

Yeah, I had the same feel. I can't say I'm very interested in this right now, but maybe when it gets closer to time, the trailers will blow me away or something.

I agree. I've only seen season 1 of Jessica Jones, so I'm also glad that all of that hasn't been required. I feel like the Disney+ stuff is going to be the opposite, though. They flat out said at Comic Con that Wandavision would directly tie into the Dr. Strange sequel, and I feel like the other shows will probably be equally as important. There's a rumor that Loki could be back for Thor 4 after his show (not sure the source/accuracy), and I have a feeling that the Hawkeye show will be used to introduce Kate Bishop as Hawkeye and ease Jeremy Renner out of the franchise. If it's true as you say later in your post that Jeremy Renner hates working with Marvel Studios, that would make sense.

I think the show could be a sort of filler, showing the two settling into their new roles, so that when a Captain America 4 or another Avengers movie is released, Sam is already established as Cap and there won't have to be any sort of origin story for him.

I agree with all of this. I would assume, though, if Vision turned up in, say, Dr. Strange 2, that they'd throw in some quick recap or something to try and get the people who don't watch Disney+ up to speed.

First of all, the Loki logo looks like shit. I hope they tweak that, it's awful. With that out of the way, I'm fond of the character because I feel like he was the victim of really shitty parenting and I enjoy the dynamic between him and Thor in all three of the Thor films, but I can't say I've ever been a Loki fangirl. I suppose its that Draco in Leather Pants phenomenon. I do think the character had a lot of potential and I'm not sure why they decided to kill him off (if he is dead, who knows), but him returning isn't something I especially care about. I agree with you about it being weird following a Loki who hasn't had any of the character development we've seen in later appearances of the character. If they insist on bringing back the character into the movies, I'd honestly prefer another fake-out death by Infinity War Loki than this alternate timeline Loki, because as you say, it's the same as they'll be doing with Gamora in Guardians 3 (probably unpopular opinion, but I wouldn't have been disappointed if Gamora had dusted with the rest of Thanos' army. I know it's comics, but it's cheap to kill characters off and bring them back again like that).

Yeah, I'm kind of confused a bit with Guardians 3 now that we know Thor will be back before then. Maybe the Guardians will cameo briefly in the beginning of Thor 4 and then fly off to have their own adventure for their own film? I guess we'll find out.

 

^ I've seen conflicting reports on whether or not Sony and Disney have come to an agreement RE: Spider-Man, so I'm not really sure where it's all standing. I've also heard that the previous deal included a third stand-alone film (not sure about the truth of this, either), so if that's the case, it would give a chance to wrap up Peter's run in the MCU and let him bow out gracefully. Then Sony could do whatever with the character, I suppose. As you said, the core Avengers are either dead or gone their separate ways anyhow, so it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for Peter to back away and focus more on his neighborhood. He was really only ever involved with the Avengers because of Tony, anyhow. But without a third film or, I suppose, a limited TV series, I think the switch back to Sony control will be really jarring.

The popular thing seems to be to blame Sony for this mess, but I can't help feeling like Disney is being a massive prick. What, they don't have enough money yet that they have to play these games? Now they've played themselves if Sony walks away, because they were building up this Iron Man Jr crap and now that's fucked.

 

Eh, I don't love Spider-Man and feel like there are plenty of other characters for Marvel to fool with, so I'm not exactly crying over here. I think if Sony got good writers, it'd be easy enough to extract Spider-Man from the MCU. Peter's life is pretty shit as of the mid-credit scene from Far From Home, so focus on him dealing with that. They wouldn't be able to mention or feature Fury, Happy, or Tony, but I think if they actually tried, they could make it work. I actually wouldn't mind less Tony influence even if a deal is made. I thought Tony being Mysterio's reason for villainy was the weakest part of the story. In any case, I'm hoping Sony wouldn't be so lame as to reboot the franchise again.

On the MCU side, the slate looks full enough without another Spider-Man film, and there haven't been any mega team-ups announced where his presence would be missed. If the MCU is really desperate for someone to step up to replace Tony/RDJ as a headliner, why not Thor? He's been there since the beginning, and Hemsworth seems like he actually wants to make more movies, as opposed to actors like RDJ or Evans who noped out when their contracts were up. Or if you want another iron-suited guy, Rhodey's there chilling and he's been pretty underrated in the series thus far in my opinion. I guess I'm a little confused why Marvel went in the direction they did with Far From Home when they had to have known there was a chance Sony wouldn't want to renew their deal.

 

Yeah, the execs and shareholders got to get theirs, you know? I think they're probably making a mistake. I think after the success of Into the Spider-verse, Sony decided that they can actually make good Spider-Man films and that they probably didn't need Marvel's involvement anymore, and Disney got greedy so it was even easier for Sony to walk away. Only Sony doesn't have the greatest track record with Spider-Man based films, and the fans are pissed at everyone.

Endgame is a good film, in my opinion, but it's also a lot of fanservice for those who've been following the series all these years. If you don't care that much about the MCU, I don't think Endgame would be particularly impactful. And I agree with you about Uncle Ben. That was one thing I was glad about with how they brought Tom Holland into the MCU, that they didn't feel like they had to do the same old origin story again. Although I do find it weird that Uncle Ben is barely even referenced by Holland's character. I suppose they gave all of Uncle Ben's role to Tony Stark, which in hindsight was a pretty big mistake now that we're here.

I like Ragnarok a lot as a stand alone film. I don't care for it as much when I look at it as the third of the Thor series. It spends a lot of its time shitting on the characters and set-up from the first two films, and, unpopular opinion, I actually like the first two films. *shrugs* Taika Waititi is returning to direct (and write) the fourth film, so it will no doubt be similar in tone to Ragnarok, which I figure most fans will be happy about.

 

I think I've only seen the first Raimi film and liked it fine enough. I've seen both of the Andrew Garfield films and liked them both, even though that's another unpopular opinion. I think Sony would probably do fine if they'd back off and let the director of the film actually do their job. I feel like studio interference is a lot of the reason behind the worst of the superhero films, both Sony-made and in the MCU. That and shitty and/or undeveloped villains, also a problem in both Sony and the MCU.

I think there was a throwaway line in maybe Homecoming where Peter said something like "after all that May's been through lately", presumably referencing Ben's death. Someone with sharper eyes than me also pointed out somewhere on reddit or in a youtube comment (can't remember where I saw it) that Peter was using a suitcase that had Ben's initials on it in Far From Home. I don't really care about Uncle Ben, I just think it's a little weird he wasn't more important, even if they didn't want to rehash the Spider-Man origin story in the MCU. With no prior emotional connection shown between Peter and Uncle Ben, and Sony unable (I would assume) to reference the emotional connection between Peter and Tony and the aftermath of its loss, I think it leaves Peter a little without a motivation.

Lol. Probably I just have poor taste.

It's interesting how all that works. Like how Universal has rights of first refusal to distribute any stand alone Hulk film, but it's totally cool for the Hulk to appear as a side character in any other character's film. I wonder how this would work with Tom Holland, who I'm assuming is under contract with Sony. If Marvel would have to recast anyway, it'd kind of defeat the purpose of a show. Unless they went with animation, maybe.

 

I've probably seen the second Raimi one as well, now that I'm thinking on it some more. Since I can't remember, I suppose I'm due for a rewatch. I've heard Spider-Man 3 sucks. Don't think I've seen it, besides clips and memes.

I think other studios don't understand that you have to put in the work to make a successful franchise (or they think they can somehow avoid doing the work and still profit). One of the failings of Amazing Spider-Man 2 was the studio pushing so hard to set up some Sinister Six film, shoehorning in shit like unnecessary villains instead of just focusing on the one story they needed to tell. They had good actors with great chemistry in Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. I also thought that film had a lot of beautiful cinematography, especially during the death scene. I ugly cried in the theater when Gwen died, even knowing it was going to happen. But the studio squandered all the good they had hoping they could cut corners and set up a universe that Marvel had to slowly build up to through multiple films. DC did the same shit with their Batman v Superman and Justice League films. All this to say that if Sony hires quality writers and directors, then backs the fuck off, they'll probably be fine. But they're probably gonna wanna do some Venom tie in crap and who knows what all.

Probably. I think it again just depends on the quality of writing going forward. When people you love die, it hurts, but you eventually have to move on with your life. I suppose since the MCU films have already laid the ground work, Peter wouldn't need to actually mention either Ben or Tony. The viewers would know that backstory is there. I wouldn't mind them trashing the whole EDITH thing. I don't remember what happened to the glasses at the end of the film, but that was a stupid thing to leave in the care of a teenager. Happy isn't necessary either, and I wouldn't mind seeing Peter more on his own, relying on his own smarts and not Tony's tech. So, I mean, it could work.

 

Maybe they've learned from their mistakes, lol. You'd think they would, anyway.

I'm kind of a Star Wars fan, but I'm not sure I could pinpoint what's wrong with the sequels. I suppose to me, it seems like there's no consistent vision guiding it all (like Feige with the MCU), and the lack of care makes the films all seem like cash grabs. I don't know if Disney is too involved and driving directors away/pushing for their own agenda or if they aren't involved enough. I also think people have found the story disappointing so far, especially since there's like 40 years of extended universe content that they could have pulled from and chose not to. I do know I'd watch any of the prequels before I'd watch The Force Awakens again, and the backlash against The Last Jedi was so bad that I still haven't gathered the energy to watch it.

I think Happy could easily be written out. He and Aunt May don't work out, something already sort of set up by May's reaction when Peter asks if they're dating. And I would think he would have plenty of other responsibilities to look into, like, I dunno, helping Pepper run Stark Industries? Looking after Morgan? Palling around with Rhodey? He could go do literally anything and I wouldn't care. Peter shouldn't need him; he was Spider-Man before he met Tony Stark.

Mysterio is a Spider-Man character, so I don't think there'd be any problem bringing him back or referencing him specifically, or that he had a previous run-in with Peter and it lead to Peter's identity being revealed. I don't think it would be problematic to not mention Tony; Peter and Mysterio have issues of their own now, nor does it have to be mentioned that Mysterio takes advantage of Stark tech, since we already know this. If he's alive and/or comes into future films, it can just be assumed that any tech he uses in the future is of his own invention. And like I said before, it wouldn't bother me to never hear about EDITH again. I still can't remember what happened to the glasses at the end, but it could be assumed that Peter hands them back over to fake!Fury or hides them in his sock drawer until he feels ready to handle the responsibility without accidentally sending drones to kill his classmates. I don't know.

They have to know how popular Spider-verse is, so I don't see why they wouldn't try to get that team back, or employ a similar approach with a similarly talented team. I guess I'm just not ready to believe the worst yet. I also think that Disney and Sony will eventually come to a deal. So all this speculation will probably be for nothing.

 

Apparently they have footage of Carrie Fisher filmed before her death that they've figured out how to incorporate into the new film. I don't know if any of that would lend itself towards any sort of reunion or not. Maybe they'll do some force ghost shit at the end to get everyone together. I don't think anyone will be happy with this movie regardless, though I could be wrong.

But my point was that Happy's role, whether professional or personal, isn't important enough to need to fix. I really don't think Happy is needed in these films at all. Peter is supposed to be smart, he should be coming up with his own tech, not using Tony's shit. Peter has family and friends he can rely on for support. If he's a "friendly neighborhood Spider-Man", he doesn't need a Stark Jet to fly him around to his battles. As I said, there are other things Happy can be doing. And, also as I said, Happy can be easily written out of their lives on a personal level by having May move on.

If Mysterio is as dead as it appears, I don't think his motives for what he did are that important. I don't think he framed Peter for his murder and outed him because he was still pissed at Tony Stark. I think all that needs to be said about his plans is that he was off his rocker and pretended to be a hero by faking attacks on the public and then "saving the day". Spider-Man saw through his schemes and stopped him, but revealed his identity, and when Mysterio realized his plan would fail, he created and released doctored footage of Spider-Man killing him and then doxxed him. Or someone in his network created and released it after his death, for revenge or for reasons of their own. If Mysterio is alive, well, then his motives have changed since his faked death to focus his rage on Spider-Man for ruining his grand plan. I don't think the name Tony Stark has to come up. I think the hardest part would be writing in a way to clear Peter's name without bringing up Nick Fury or using EDITH as some sort of proof, but I do think it could be done. And obviously how well this works would depend on how quality the writing turns out to be, same as any other film being made.

Does anyone really want yet another Spider-Man reboot? I still say a clean break could be done, with care. But something I just thought of is that this version of Spider-Man went out of their way to name Zendaya's MJ "Michelle Jones" rather than "Mary Jane Watson", so I wonder which company owns the rights to that character. Losing MJ would screw this continuity way more than writing out Happy or Tony Stark references in my opinion. Although I suppose that too could be worked around.

I mean, obviously none of this is what's best. What's best is for the Spider-Man franchise to remain in the MCU at least until this arc is complete. Tie up all the loose ends, get Peter some space from the rest of the avengers and enough time away from related events that they don't need to be referenced anymore, then move on with the character doing solo work. And I still think this will happen as Disney and Sony continue negotiations. But we'll have to wait and see.

You'd think they'd realize that happy fans spend more money, but sometimes companies are stupid like that. Or don't care if the fans are happy with the product once they have their money, which is unfortunate.

 

I just have a lot of feelings, okay! XD

I don't see this Spider-Man as being so fundamentally different from the others we've seen on screen, but I get what you're saying. I mean, I agree with you, I doubt what Sony will do with the character on its own will be well-liked by fans. But I think there's a chance that it could be.

But that's the same problem every single solo movie in the MCU faces. Since it's fresh on my mind, Thor 2's villain was going to use the reality stone to wipe out the entire universe, aka what Thanos was basically gonna do with his second snap in Endgame. But nah, that's cool, no need to bother the other avengers with something like that. *shrugs* Some of the films are smaller in scale (like Ant-Man) and it's easier to ignore that the other heroes should probably be there helping, but not all of them. And especially since many of them are based out of New York, they should be popping up in each other's stories way more often. In reality that's not feasible because of money, actors' contracts and availability, etc. If someone watching any of the other MCU films can suspend disbelief that none of the others are helping out during some villain's disaster, I think the same can be done for Spider-Man films. Hell, the other avengers should have been there in Far From Home; if Mysterio was actually telling the truth, Spider-Man was way outclassed and the world would've been doomed. But I can set that aside and just watch the film for what it is.

I think we disagree on how deeply instilled the character is in the MCU. I feel like for the most part, they kept him far enough on the fringe that it will be possible to remove him without it being a complete disaster.

Yeah, I don't know. I still think this speculation is probably going to end up ultimately pointless once Disney and Sony get over themselves and make another deal.

So, since I'm tired of thinking about Spider-Man, I believe Disney recently announced Black Panther II and a few more shows for Disney+ (Moon Knight, She-Hulk, and Ms. Marvel). I'm not sure if those are for phase 4 as well, but at least Disney is making an effort with putting new content on Disney+. I'm kinda impressed.

 

^ Yeah, I'm a bit put off by all of the streaming services as well, but it's still cheaper for me than paying for even basic cable/satellite. I also like the streaming format of putting out entire seasons at a time more than having to wait in between episodes and watch at a specific time. I'm gonna hate myself for it, but I feel like I'll probably end up with Disney+ as well. I'm part of the problem.

The video you posted about Spider-Man seemed well-thought out. It's hard keeping track of all of this, especially since it seems like no one actually knows any facts. Like, over the last day or two, I keep seeing clickbait articles about Sony approaching Disney with a new deal, something like 30% of profits and including Venom in the MCU and who knows if this is true. I do think the video does a good job reminding everyone that Disney and Sony are businesses and don't give a shit about making the fans happy if it conflicts with their profits. And I think the video is also correct in that Marvel will eventually get Spider-Man back one way or another. There was a time when it seemed impossible for the X-Men and Fantastic 4 to be in the MCU, and now we're here.

In other Marvel news, I just stumbled across this annoyingly short interview with Taika Waititi which basically says nothing, but does confirm that Thor: Love and Thunder is Chris Hemsworth's movie and his Thor is the main character. For anyone worried about him getting pushed out in favor of Jane Thor.



I don't know if there's a longer version of this or not; I couldn't find it if there is.

I've also seen reports that Robert Downey Jr. will have a cameo as Tony Stark in the Black Widow film, but it's supposedly just a deleted scene from Civil War and not newly filmed content.