Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Christopher R Taylor]

"I'm just saying these motherf###in politicians..." "You do Not use that language in My House!" "Sorry momma"

 

If there's one person that could make Samuel L Jackson realistically toe the line, its Pam Grier.  I can just see him face downcast, toe scratching in the dirt like a little kid.

 

Of course, I think that's the point for Marvel; they want their movies to decode as slightly unconventional action movies, not as full-on superhero movies. While perfectly valid, it is nonetheless quite disappointing (for me).

 

Well for the guys in charge of Marvel, several of them have stated they didn't like old comics and hated the old Superhero patterns.  Its a deliberate move away from the tropes we grew up with of secret IDs etc.  For the movie industry, they don't quite get superhero stories, but they understand flashy action stories, so they make those with guys in kinda-costumes with unusual abilities.  Its something they're comfortable with.  Not very many can work out spider-Man or Wonder Woman... or Superman.  The ones that can, do it well (Sam Raimi, for example) and prove it can be done.

[Bazza]

Speaking of action movie vs superhero movie; afterwards watching Batman Begins at the cinema, it felt like an action movie with a superhero, not a superhero film. The key scene for this assessment is the truck exploding in the underground parking lot.

[zslane]

Well for the guys in charge of Marvel, several of them have stated they didn't like old comics and hated the old Superhero patterns.  Its a deliberate move away from the tropes we grew up with of secret IDs etc.

 

They have a lot in common with Tim Kring, another Hollywood twit who didn't "get" superheroes either.

[Lord Liaden]

There are characters for whom Secret IDs make sense, and others for whom they don't. Bruce Wayne needs one because the mystery of the Batman is a big part of his terrifying image; plus many of his actions are legally questionable. Clark Kent and Peter Parker need one because aside from their powers, they're regular guys with loved ones they can't protect 24/7. OTOH Steve Rogers was made to be a very public symbol of his country, so you'd expect everyone to know who he is. Tony Stark is a billionaire with a head full of tech and national defense secrets, his face recognized around the world. He could hardly have a bigger bullseye on his back just because he wears a metal suit.

 

But for much of the past in comics, heroes with secret IDs often appeared obsessive over them, closely guarding them from friends, family, even their superhero team mates. IMO it's more reasonable to find a middle ground.

[bigdamnhero]

Cap's costume in Winter Soldier is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It is needlessly dark and completely mundane in its design. Take away the silver star and stripes and he looks like any number of paramilitary mooks you've seen in espionage thrillers since the first Bourne movie came out. There's nothing about it that reads "superhero".

You're not wrong, but I think you're missing the point. That "stealth suit" was made deliberately dark to sharpen the contrast when he switched back to the brighter WWII costume at the end, symbolizing Cap coming out of the shadows of being a SHIELD operative and becoming a superhero again. Marvel is agreeing with you here.

 

Well for the guys in charge of Marvel, several of them have stated they didn't like old comics and hated the old Superhero patterns.  Its a deliberate move away from the tropes we grew up with of secret IDs etc.

I could be wrong, but I think most of that came from Quesada, who is (thankfully) no longer calling the shots. I've certainly never heard/read Feige saying anything along those lines?

 

You're right about Marvel downplaying the SID trope, tho. I think they feel it's been done to death, and they want to distinguish themselves not only from the past, but also from DC where SIDs are a more central part of the major characters. So far the only MCU character I wish they had gone the SID route with was Ant-Man, because Scott had a compelling reason for one.

[bigdamnhero]

Tony Stark is a billionaire with a head full of tech and national defense secrets, his face recognized around the world. He could hardly have a bigger bullseye on his back just because he wears a metal suit.

Plus, Tony is a narcissistic attention-whore who thought he was invincible before he became a superhero, and has a history of not thinking through the consequences of his actions. I always thought him maintaining an SID (even from the other Avengers!) made little sense in the comics, and I cheered at "I am Iron Man."

 

But for much of the past in comics, heroes with secret IDs often appeared obsessive over them, closely guarding them from friends, family, even their superhero team mates.

That's a great point too. Keeping your SID a secret from your enemies & the public is one thing; but the obsession with keeping your HID a secret from your friends & loved ones was often overplayed, frequently putting their DNPCs at more risk. A non-comics example is Buffy keeping everything hidden from her Mom, thus keeping Joyce ignorant of the existence of vampire or how to protect herself from them; made no sense except as a dramatic conceit.

 

IMO it's more reasonable to find a middle ground.

Agreed. Tho personally I do think they've leaned a little too far in the other direction; I think at this point the only heroes with SIDs are Spidey and Daredevil? (Incidentally I thought Defenders handled that contrast well.) So I wouldn't mind a couple more "traditional" SID heroes.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Iron Man announcing his name made sense, and was a great move.  But that should have been the exception and clearly through the events of his story arc, its been a really stupid decision.  It shouldn't be the standard, it should be the exception, for character reasons.  I mean Steve Rogers had a secret ID in the past, but doesn't really need one now: he has no friends or family left, he only hangs out with other heroes, etc.  But the rest have good reason to keep their identity secret.

 

The problem is the same problem that has Spider-Man whipping his mask off through most of every movie: actors hate to have their face covered.  They are egotistical and incredibly self-absorbed on average, and most of them are challenged to act a scene without showing their face.  It takes real skill and talent to do it.

[zslane]

While Cap may not need to hide his identity, his costume serves other more important purposes. He and his costume are symbols of freedom, hope, heroism, and American values. And that includes the mask with the wings and big white "A". The idea of putting him into a dark costume to somehow mirror the shadowy, morally questionable character of SHIELD is Marvel trying to be too clever by half, I feel. Moreover, the whole "we can't trust our government" (or its agencies, especially the covert ones) angle is something I find incredibly tedious, it having dominated action thrillers for the last twenty years or so now.

[Lord Liaden]

What you're describing was the whole point of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The darker costume suited that context. Cap hasn't been in the darker suit in the movies since.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The idea of putting him into a dark costume to somehow mirror the shadowy, morally questionable character of SHIELD is Marvel trying to be too clever by half, I feel. 

 

It is, but in that movie it worked as symbolism.  Of course, now he's not going to wear the Cap suit at all.  If my government was as corrupt, evil, and idiotic as the one in his world I probably wouldn't either.  They've gone way overboard with government as enemy because its safe (everybody has a grudge with the government).

 

[zslane]

What you're describing was the whole point of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The darker costume suited that context. Cap hasn't been in the darker suit in the movies since.

 

Well, if we're talking about symbolism, I would argue (with the writers) that keeping Cap in a brighter outfit would better symbolize his core values--and his unwavering commitment to them--even (especially!) during shadowy government operations he was ordered (or hoodwinked) to participate in. I think the Russos just wanted to make Cap look "badass and kewl", despite the fact that the symbolic message of the costume did not at all fit his character.

[Lord Liaden]

It is, but in that movie it worked as symbolism.  Of course, now he's not going to wear the Cap suit at all.  If my government was as corrupt, evil, and idiotic as the one in his world I probably wouldn't either.  They've gone way overboard with government as enemy because its safe (everybody has a grudge with the government).

 

 

I honestly don't see that. The worst government excesses we saw in the movies were under the manipulation of Hydra. The debate between Nick Fury and Steve Rogers that we witnessed early in Winter Soldier, over the use of the super-helicarriers, outlined their differing positions, neither of which was unreasonable given their relative priorities, freedom versus security. Ditto the debate in Civil War concerning governments of the entire world understandably concerned over a small group of very powerful individuals acting as they saw fit around the globe, with no supervision or accountability, and sometimes dire consequences.

 

WE know that our heroes are virtuous and have the Earth's best interests at heart; but few people within the MCU know them as well as the audience. Those intentions also haven't kept them from doing some things which haven't turned out so well.

 

Well, if we're talking about symbolism, I would argue (with the writers) that keeping Cap in a brighter outfit would better symbolize his core values--and his unwavering commitment to them--even (especially!) during shadowy government operations he was ordered (or hoodwinked) to participate in. I think the Russos just wanted to make Cap look "badass and kewl", despite the fact that the symbolic message of the costume did not at all fit his character.

 

We can agree to disagree, then.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The debate between Nick Fury and Steve Rogers that we witnessed early in Winter Soldier, over the use of the super-helicarriers, outlined their differing positions, neither of which was unreasonable given their relative priorities, freedom versus security. Ditto the debate in Civil War concerning governments of the entire world understandably concerned over a small group of very powerful individuals acting as they saw fit around the globe, with no supervision or accountability, and sometimes dire consequences

 

 

Because the movies had to cram a lot in, and because it would have been kind of boring to action movie fans, neither of those 'debates' was given even 1/59th of the time they needed to be remotely effective or compelling.  Extremely obvious, blatant responses and arguments were left out because they were moving the plot along.  They were contrived to reach a specific, certain end, because that's where the writer needed the story to go.

 

So what I'm saying is that: you're reading a ton into them that wasn't in the dialog, because you're filling it in with your mind to your preference.  Neither side gave very good arguments, and gave up rapidly.

[bigdamnhero]

LL keeps saying most everything I wanted to say (but better) so mostly just put me down as "What he said."

 

Re Cap: I thought his identity was known during the war days? I know that's true in the MCU, as he's filmed in his Army uniform and introduced by name at the awards ceremony he blows off. And given that he had no living family, no personal life outside the war, and all his friends were fighting alongside him, he (and the Army) had no reason to keep his identity secret. And certainly once he's believed dead and they're making museum exhibits about him, trying to "reclaim' an SID would make zero sense.

 

As for the other Avengers: Thor is a full time god, which is way more interesting than Dr. Don Blake ever was. Clint & Natasha are super-cops, whose identities are already public; Nat has no family, and Clint's is already well-hidden. As for Banner, I'm sure he'd *love* to keep his identity secret, but Gen. Ross had no reason to respect that. (I can't remember when Hulk's SID was outed in the comics, but IIRC it was pretty early on?)

 

So I agree in general that I'd prefer to see a couple more SIDS for balance. But I don't think it made sense for any of the Big 6.

 

You're not wrong about wanting to show the actors' faces. But as you pointed out, they do that whether they have an SID or not.

[zslane]

Secret identities are only useful, from a storytelling standpoint, if you plan to tell stories in which the hero's private life is endangered by their vigilante activities. The Daredevil series spends enough time with Foggy and Karen to make it apparent what the cost of being discovered could be for Matt. But they don't really do that in the MCU films, so secret identities don't have much dramatic value, and serve little to no narrative function there. Not having them in the movies isn't much of a loss, as far as I'm concerned.

[Lord Liaden]

So what I'm saying is that: you're reading a ton into them that wasn't in the dialog, because you're filling it in with your mind to your preference.  Neither side gave very good arguments, and gave up rapidly.

 

I'm agreeing to disagree a lot tonight.

[Lord Liaden]

Secret identities are only useful, from a storytelling standpoint, if you plan to tell stories in which the hero's private life is endangered by their vigilante activities. The Daredevil series spends enough time with Foggy and Karen to make it apparent what the cost of being discovered could be for Matt. But they don't really do that in the MCU films, so secret identities don't have much dramatic value, and serve little to no narrative function there. Not having them in the movies isn't much of a loss, as far as I'm concerned.

 

OTOH the uncovering of Spider-Man's SID by the Vulture in Homecoming made a pretty dramatic impact, and leaves potential future repercussions.

[Bazza]

You're not wrong about wanting to show the actors' faces. But as you pointed out, they do that whether they have an SID or not.

 

That's more to do with the requirements of hiring actors -- why pay for an actor and hide their face? This is most likely the reason the actors throw off the "mask" as often as possible. 

 

I would imagine if this is were IRL the heroes, would take better care to keep the "mask" on. 

[Bazza]

We interrupt our regular discussion with some breaking news. 

Tom Hiddleston Still Doesn’t Quite Understand Loki
http://screenrant.com/thor-3-ragnarok-loki-tom-hiddleston-return/

Tom Hiddleston:
 

“It is a source of constant surprise to me that I’m still here. I never expected that when I started playing him. I feel a huge responsibility to deliver the character people know, even though it’s been four years since I last played him, and also to try to take him in new directions.”
 
“I’ve spent six or seven years of my life trying to get to the bottom of what exactly it is that he wants. When he seems to get close to what he wants-power, acceptance, belonging-he changes direction. I think that is the thing that keeps him interesting in a way. He’s cunning and transformative and changeable, and will do everything he can to survive. He’s the trickster. He’s the God of mischief.”

“When I put on the costume, the make-up and wig for the first time for this film and looked in the mirror, I thought to myself, ‘Wow, there he is.’ It was like seeing an old friend. It was good to see him, in a way. I feel like I know him.”

[mrinku]

This is the MCU thread, so the X-Men and Fantastic Four are sort of out of it, but both are relevant to the secret ID angle. FF are the standard bearers for Public ID, while the X-Men have more reason than most to keep their existence secret (not that they seem particularly good at it).

[bigdamnhero]

OTOH the uncovering of Spider-Man's SID by the Vulture in Homecoming made a pretty dramatic impact, and leaves potential future repercussions.

Exactly. It's all about what types of stories you want to tell. Spidey & DD's SIDs are integral to their characters, in part because they're "street level" and have people to protect. The Avengers have bigger problems. And having a Public ID doesn't mean you can't tell stories about how it impacts their lives (see Tony in IM3 & Clint in A: AofU), it just changes the nature of the impact. As someone pointed out above, Pepper Potts is CEO of Stark International; she'd be a target whether people know she's Iron Man's girlfriend or not.

 

Tom Hiddleston Still Doesn’t Quite Understand Loki

Which seems appropriate, since Loki still doesn't quite understand Loki. I think Hiddleston is spot on: you can never fully understand Loki because Loki is always changing.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Loki is consistently wicked and deceptive, I'm not super fond of emo Loki the whiny boy who has the sadz Odin doesn't love him best.

[zslane]

OTOH the uncovering of Spider-Man's SID by the Vulture in Homecoming made a pretty dramatic impact, and leaves potential future repercussions.

 

How is that the other hand? In the case of Spider-Man, I think we can agree to agree. :-)

[slikmar]

OTOH the uncovering of Spider-Man's SID by the Vulture in Homecoming made a pretty dramatic impact, and leaves potential future repercussions.

I would agree and add, since you compare it to DD's SID, that the fact Kingpin knows his secret and who his friends are is huge. That's why Matt was basically forced(?) to point out that Kingpin has someone he cares about and that Matt could make problems for. I remember this being a big thing between Spider-man and Kingpin (he was spidey's villain first) that personal would be left out and the fight would never be brought home, as at that time, Vanessa supposedly knew nothing about Fisk's other life. It was one of the other reasons the shooting of Aunt May, accidental as it was, was more annoying.

[mrinku]

And let's not forget the time in the comics that Kingpin DID destroy Matt Murdock. One of Miller's best bits of writing.