Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Bazza]

TeamTony as TeamOdin is not an option.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Scarlet Witch flying!

 

Hype!

[Starlord]

Black Panther.  Cool.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Seriously. That trailer was phenomenal. Hopefully the film lives up. And yes, Panther is looking good.

[NuSoardGraphite]

TeamTony as TeamOdin is not an option.

TeamOdin is busy holding off Ragnorak.

[zslane]

The rather small scale of the MCU, so far, reveals itself here. In the comics, the "civil war" divided a roster of dozens (if not hundreds in the background) of characters. Here, each side has only a handful.

 

But this is just a symptom of a deeper problem. The MCU feels small due to the decision to make The Avengers the only superteam in the world, with no other heroes or villains (than the ones put front and center in the movies or on tv) to make it all feel more filled out. As a result, this "civil war" feels almost inconsequential, where the stakes are very personal and don't really impact more than about twenty individuals on Earth. The title feels a bit misleading in that sense. A civil war usually has catastrophic consequences for entire societies. This isn't a civil war so much as a difference of opinion between a few super buddies.

[薔薇語]

Or the state declaring one of the biggest legends a target and rupturing the team that was entrusted to keep everyone safe. If this becomes a media spectacle we can easily start to see things go south for the world. All in all, the MCU is small, that is true. But that doesn't always come out as the deciding issue. Most comics and movies are character pieces. We read civil war not to just see super on super violence in large scale but to watch the journey of individuals as they struggle with an oppressive state and rebellious former friends. So the essence of Civil War would most certainly still seem to be there.

 

Soar.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Thus the decision to make Civil War a Captain America Movie rathet than an Avengers movie or a stand alone crossover film.

 

What I would like to have seen them do was introduce more heroes, the Defenders etc, then have the Civil war play itself out over a Cap film, an Iron Man film, a Defenderss mini-series and a season of Agents of Shield then resolve itself over a a stand alone film. But I think audiences would have becomed fatigued with the storyline, so one film and half of a season of Agents of Shield will have to do.

[Starlord]

Eh, its just a title.

[Lord Liaden]

The rather small scale of the MCU, so far, reveals itself here. In the comics, the "civil war" divided a roster of dozens (if not hundreds in the background) of characters. Here, each side has only a handful.

 

But this is just a symptom of a deeper problem. The MCU feels small due to the decision to make The Avengers the only superteam in the world, with no other heroes or villains (than the ones put front and center in the movies or on tv) to make it all feel more filled out. As a result, this "civil war" feels almost inconsequential, where the stakes are very personal and don't really impact more than about twenty individuals on Earth. The title feels a bit misleading in that sense. A civil war usually has catastrophic consequences for entire societies. This isn't a civil war so much as a difference of opinion between a few super buddies.

 

IMHO part of the "problem," if you want to call it that, is that many Marvel properties are in the hands of other studios. Two of them with the largest roster of attached characters, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four, can't be used by Marvel for their own movies. Spider-Man is just a recent addition, through an exceptional cross-studio shared production agreement.

 

But I believe it's also worth remembering that Marvel Comics have been around since 1961. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has only existed since 2008. And a big portion of these movies' fan base know the characters only through the movies. There's only so much time and energy you can devote to introducing new characters in movies. These things aren't comic books, massed produced on cheap paper through the efforts of a handful of producers. These big-budget movies require a small army of artistic and technical talent, working with expensive equipment for months and sometimes years; all of which has to be paid for.

 

Remember when we were all amazed when the first Avengers movie managed to balance more than half a dozen main protagonists? Maybe we've become spoiled in thinking they can just keep throwing more and more characters into a movie.

 

However, for me the (relatively) small number of protagonists in the upcoming Civil War helps focus the action and the stories down to their key components. IMHO it makes them seem more important, not less. Over the past seven years, these few people have caused the world to face the reality of threatening alien life and beings with godlike power; exposed corruption at the heart of the world's premier security agency while preventing its subverters from seizing world power; caused the devastation of at least two cities and massive destruction around the globe. They're famous, they're symbols, and they're polarizing influences. As Nick Fury said, they can't be matched, can't be controlled. The actions of this small number of heroes have repercussions far exceeding their numbers.

[sinanju]

The rather small scale of the MCU, so far, reveals itself here. In the comics, the "civil war" divided a roster of dozens (if not hundreds in the background) of characters. Here, each side has only a handful.

 

But this is just a symptom of a deeper problem. The MCU feels small due to the decision to make The Avengers the only superteam in the world, with no other heroes or villains (than the ones put front and center in the movies or on tv) to make it all feel more filled out. As a result, this "civil war" feels almost inconsequential, where the stakes are very personal and don't really impact more than about twenty individuals on Earth. The title feels a bit misleading in that sense. A civil war usually has catastrophic consequences for entire societies. This isn't a civil war so much as a difference of opinion between a few super buddies.

 

The MCU may feel small, but remember that it officially includes all the newly-emerging Inhumans from the Agents of SHIELD storylines. Which means that the demand for registration is, presumably, aimed not just at the famous faces of the Avengers--but at all the previously-normal humans (Americans!) who have had superpowers thrust upon them by no fault of their own.

 

Demanding that they register themselves when they've done nothing wrong--and may never do anything wrong--is just the sort of thing that would stick in Steve Rogers' craw. Presumption of Innocence, yo. Plus, you know, the necessity for specific warrants for searches and arrests and so forth. I can easily see Steve getting exercised over this kind of draconian response, not so much on his own behalf--he's been a soldier, after all--or even on behalf of the Avengers (who all have some level of fame and/or wealth and power), but because of John Q. Citizen, who is being treated like an enemy simply because he now has powers he never asked for.

 

Story-telling-wise, focusing on a few characters is probably the best way to go, but it would be pretty easy to show that this issue actually involves hundreds, if not thousands (maybe millions?) of previously normal people in the US (and possibly elsewhere, if registration is an international or multi-national effort).

[zslane]

Yeah, I guess you're right.

 

Three of the most prominent sources for heroes and villains are out of reach of Marvel (X-Men and the entire mutant roster of allies, villains, and organizations, the Fantastic Four, and Spider-Man). That alone accounts for quite a lot of characters, but I don't think I appreciated just how many characters that eliminates from the MCU until I really thought about it.

 

And then you have characters that operate on a much smaller scale, like Daredevil and Luke Cage and such. Marvel is adding them to the MCU it's just that they are being really slow and methodical about it. They could be mentioning these characters in the dialog of others, especially on Agents of SHIELD where they have weekly opportunities to make the MCU feel fleshed out, but I guess activity on such a small, localized level as Hell's Kitchen isn't going to capture the attention of SHIELD or The Avengers given the kinds of threats they have to focus on.

 

It's a tough problem, but I keep thinking about how Lord of the Rings only focused on roughly one year in Middle-Earth (once Frodo and friends set out from the Shire) and on nine main characters and a handful of prominent supporting characters. Yet Tolkien managed to convey the notion that there were many thousands of years of history with great heroes and titanic struggles that dwarfed (no pun intended) the events of the current story. And all just with hints and slight mentions and off-hand remarks and so on. Game of Thrones probably does a better job of conveying the grand scale of Westeros than any Marvel movie or tv series does in conveying the grand scale of the MCU. And I can't help but think that is because Marvel has decided that there simply aren't very many other heroes and villains in the MCU yet. The MCU doesn't have that lived-in feel because hardly any heroes or villains live in it yet.

[Old Man]

I prefer it that way, to be honest. I'm reminded of the Highlander universe--the first movie made it seem like there might have been a few dozen immortals. By the end of the TV series there must have been hundreds, if not thousands, plus the watchers, all of which really bent the whole secret war angle. It's like the difference between low fantasy and high fantasy.

 

Tangentially, the power of the offhand remark for worldbuilding is known.

 

Escape from New York: "You flew the Gullfire over Leningrad."

 

Ronin: "Don't I know you?" "Vienna." "Ah!"

 

ANH: "General Kenobi, you served my father during the Clone Wars..."

[zslane]

I guess I prefer the MCU to feel like 616, at least to the extent that is possible. I started reading Marvel comics in the 70s. By then it had a decade of established continuity that made it all feel epic and "lived in". I didn't watch 616 grow from nothing with one hero team (the FF) and slowly build its roster year by year. And I don't want to watch the MCU do that either necessarily. I want it to already feel big and teeming with super life. I mean, I know I'm never going to get that, but the choice not to go that way is part of what fuels my lingering disatisfaction with the MCU as a whole.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the parts of the MCU we do get to see. I just wish there was a greater sense of more going on (and having gone on for a long time) here on little old Earth than just the "main events" that are shown to us directly. For instance, the reveal that Hydra has a history that goes back to ancient times shouldn't have felt like such a surprise when it was mentioned on Agents of SHIELD. Hints to that effect should have started with Red Skull dialogue and reinforced in subtle ways on Agents of SHIELD and, maybe even in Winter Soldier which made a plot point out of the government stockpiling Hydra tech.

[bigbywolfe]

Why? It was just as much of a surprise when it was revealed in the comics, wasn't it? The origin of Hydra has changed multiple times and was one of Marvel's earliest retcons. It's entirely unreasonable to expect the MCU to spring fully formed into existence. The idea of wasting screen time in a movie to mention a plot twist that may never come up in a show that may have never been made is ridiculous.

[Greywind]

I prefer it that way, to be honest. I'm reminded of the Highlander universe--the first movie made it seem like there might have been a few dozen immortals. By the end of the TV series there must have been hundreds, if not thousands, plus the watchers, all of which really bent the whole secret war angle. It's like the difference between low fantasy and high fantasy.

 

Highlander was intended as a stand-alone movie. Hence, the few who remain: Connor MacLeod, the Kurgan, Kastagir, Fasil, Kim and Valisek. We saw Connor take Fasil and Kurgan take Kastagir, with the implication he was responsible for Valisek. Kim was lost footage and he surrendered to the Kurgan. This was the Gathering.

 

The series was made because the movie/s are popular. Particularly in Europe, which is why the series was partially produced and filmed in Paris. We saw with Richie, Cimmoli and Nick Wolfe that new Immortals were being spun out of wherever it was they came from.

[zslane]

You don't have Red Skull hint at the long history of Hydra just in the hopes that it will connect up with some future tv show that "may never get made," no. You mention it because it lends depth and a sense of history (if not mystique) to the MCU itself. It's what good writers do, even the ones without a crystal ball revealing the future direction of the MCU. You plant seeds like that so that your fictional world feels richer and more authentic. If you done that often enough and well enough, then future movies and shows have all kinds of threads to attach to, creating a more elaborate and sophisticated narrative fabric.

 

That's not ridiculous, it's called world building. And if you're any good at it, you do a lot of it before you get too far with your franchise and all those opportunities to plant those seeds have passed you by. It is the antithesis of the "make it up as you go along" method of storytelling, which is notoriously difficult to do well. And when you have decades of source material to draw from, there is no excuse for failing to make use of it.

[薔薇語]

I generally agree that dropping hints here and there is good and something that I enjoy seeing. But there is a cost to every hint. There are a million and one things that Marvel could hint at in every movie but even if every single one only required 1 second to do, that is still going to be longer than the whole of the movie. And thus picking and choosing which ones are important is vital to the planning and production phase. Add to that that there is a limit to how much you can shoot. Every bit that makes the movie longer is a bit that costs the studio more money - and they want to see a return on investment. And if we are adding in hints that are more or less mystic and unclear and NEVER get cleared up in the movie series, then we are wasting money. After all, these movies are not designed to be advertisers for the comics; if I recall correctly, Marvel hasn't even seen that big of an uptake in readership despite all the movies. No, so adding in cryptic and un-noticeable lines about something that will never be explored is a bad business decision. 

So, now a days the studio has a stronger vision of what will be coming up and what they can expect to incorporate into the mythos of the MCU. Thus adding in an extra minute of "cryptic" foreshadowing is acceptable. But then again, having one writing team and director incorporate that into one movie that then binds the 'creative talent' of the next team and director is only going to cause contention - afterall, you never know when you will have a turn coat talent like Josh Wheadon show up who just wants to throw out your whole masterful plan. So minimizing stuff like that is probably best from a business perspective. 

 

Soar. 

[Psybolt]

I think Marvel Studios have done a great job of incorporating characters into the MCU.  Let's face facts, the MCU has two or maybe three movies a year to add to the MCU continuity.  The Agents of SHIELD (while I love the show) cannot be used to introduce things for the movies because people who go to the movies do not watch AoS.  There is a considerable drop off in number of people who watch the TV show compared to how many go to the theater.  So anyone who is introduced in the TV show is still going to have to be introduced in a movie if it crosses over.  It is the reason why Coulson has yet to return to the big screen.  Because there are plenty of people out there who only know Coulson as the agent who died in the first Avengers movie.  If he showed up, it would require time to explain to the masses and the films only have a limited amount of time.

 

But the movies have introduced Klaw, Sharon Carter, Hank Pym, Ant Man, Wasp, Crossbones, Dr. Helen Cho... and will be bringing us Stephen Strange, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Inhumans, a variety of Asgardians (perhaps Hela or Enchantress if the rumors are to be believed), Baron Mordo, among others (including the MCU version of Spider-man!)

 

As for Civil War, the feel of it being a smaller, more personal story is a tone that I really like.  It seemed to me that there was unbelievable hate for the Civil War comic series here on the boards, and the storyline just does not fit into the MCU as it was.  Taking the source material and adapting it seems to make sense and there is no denying that the trailer brought it.  We just had major worldwide consequences in Age of Ultron.  Making this story something that brings major upheaval to a smaller group of people sounds like a great idea to me. 

 

I have enjoyed everything that Marvel Studios have done so far.  Some more than others, but they have not had a clunker yet.  Daredevil and Jessica Jones have been sensational.  At some point they might crossover, but I think that has to be carefully considered.  It should not be done just to fill space in the background of the Civil War movie.

[Starlord]

Look, Civil War obviously refers to 'brothers fighting brothers'.  I don't have a problem with it.  I'm just wondering if Steve ends up turning himself in for execution at the end.  That's interesting to me.  Not massive amounts of characters being ambivalent as to whose side they are on.  In the end, Civil War was Iron Man vs. Cap.  Other than that it was just a bunch of big fights between supers.  

[Lord Liaden]

I've been thinking a fair bit about the Civil War movie trailer. As I've posted in the past on this very forum, I suspected cinematic Tony Stark's and Steve Rogers's positions would be reversed compared to their comic-book versions. Steve was raised with the ideals of serving his country, and trained to follow the chain of command as a soldier; while Tony has always resented and defied authority and been suspicious of people in power. Yet this trailer makes it look like they'll be much closer to the philosophy they espouse in the Civil War comic series.

 

On reflecting over the history of the MCU, though, I'm beginning to see a logical evolution in the perspectives of these two men which may be behind their change of heart. As we saw in Age of Ultron, Tony Stark is haunted by his vision of coming alien invasion, and wants to create a unified world defense against it. He's also seen first-hand what terrible harm uncontrolled super-beings can wreak, even with good intentions as with himself and Ultron; even his innocent friends, like Bruce Banner. OTOH Steve Rogers has seen that blindly following orders and suppressing your good conscience while performing questionable acts, can allow great evil to grow under your very nose. And he's now witnessing those orders being directed against his closest friend, in a way he believes is unjustified.

[Starlord]

Will The Vision secretly pretend to be under Stark's command and then, at the last minute, betray Tony to help Steve as in the comic? MWAHHHAAAAHAAAA!

[Greywind]

From the looks of things, Bucky is being eyed as a terrorist. Steve is seeing Bucky as a victim of Hydra.

[Lord Liaden]

It looked like the UN General Assembly being bombed at the beginning of the trailer. Bucky seems to be claiming he didn't do it, and Steve seems to believe him. I will go on record now as predicting that

Baron Zemo, who we now know Daniel Bruhl will be playing in Civil War, planted that bomb and framed Winter Soldier for it, to prompt just this sort of government crackdown on superheroes, and conflict between the Avengers.

 

[Bazza]

'Jessica Jones' Boss on Losing Carol Danvers, Exploring Rape Responsibly and Season 2

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jessica-jones-rape-season-two-842318

 

Is there room for a second season of Jessica Jones before The Defenders in your mind?

 

I hope so. There certainly is storytelling wise. The question becomes is there actual time? There are logistics involved, because Defenders has to shoot by a certain time, contractually. Actually, I'm not sure; I'm not at all involved in those conversations, much to my dismay. The first question is whether or not we will even get a second season. The second question is, if so, when? Will it be before The Defenders or after? I'd certainly love it to be before but there are things that play into that — time, availability.