Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well they already kind of hit on that with the last two Avengers movies and the Dr Strange one, so its in the mix, but yeah.  Its Marvel trying to make DC look derivative and lame instead of coming up with this stuff first, again.

 

I'm... underwhelmed by the alternate universe concept in comics, it makes everything a hideous mess.

[pinecone]

"We have the Time Keepers!" "Yeah? Well I have a Kang!" lol maybe

[Greywind]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I'm... underwhelmed by the alternate universe concept in comics, it makes everything a hideous mess.

 

Right up there with time travel.

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Well they already kind of hit on that with the last two Avengers movies and the Dr Strange one, so its in the mix, but yeah.  Its Marvel trying to make DC look derivative and lame instead of coming up with this stuff first, again.

 

I'm... underwhelmed by the alternate universe concept in comics, it makes everything a hideous mess.

 

26 minutes ago, Greywind said:

 

Right up there with time travel.

 

Not quite.  Time travel involves 2 loathsome alternatives, philosophically:

1.  Paradox.  True paradox.  "I go back to kill my grandfather before my father is born."  THEN what?  

2.  Predestination.  If certain things are NOT possible...that is, time travel exists but the traveler *cannot* in some way, shape, or form, create that paradox, then predestination to some degree must follow.

 

The alternate universes theories avoid #1, and thus #2 doesn't come into play.  Time travel in a multiverse allows for a compromise, whereby you aren't actually traveling in time, but in some manner *creating* a new alternate universe.  One can even say that interactive (rather than observational) time travel is the trigger...which means time travel is EXTREMELY!!!!! hard.

In case you hadn't noticed, yes, I've spent far too long over the years thinking about this.

 

The biggest problems with alternate universes:

1.  Massive confusion.

2.  They really disrupt suspension of disbelief, at least for me.  It makes too obvious that everything is under the writers' control.  Ergo:

3.  Nothing in the story...in ANY story in these universes...really matters now, does it?  

 

Alternate universes are as bad as major retcons, IMO.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Time travel = going to a separate pocket universe was Byrne's solution for the multiverse/time travel problems but honestly it creates as many problems as it solves.

 

Just having one universe and leaving it like that is a better solution but both big comic houses seem fixated on the multiverse thing

 

I mean, its one thing if you just approach it as fun and a one off like  "Superman travels to the universe where Lex Luthor is the only hero against an evil Justice League!" story.  But if you're determined to make your universe all sciencey and plausible and "realistic" it falls into tatters.

[Bazza]

It falls into tatters because of the simple limitations of science; you’d need a super-science (which we already have under different names). 

[mattingly]

[Greywind]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Time travel = going to a separate pocket universe was Byrne's solution for the multiverse/time travel problems but honestly it creates as many problems as it solves.

 

Just having one universe and leaving it like that is a better solution but both big comic houses seem fixated on the multiverse thing

 

I mean, its one thing if you just approach it as fun and a one off like  "Superman travels to the universe where Lex Luthor is the only hero against an evil Justice League!" story.  But if you're determined to make your universe all sciencey and plausible and "realistic" it falls into tatters.

 

https://phys.org/news/2009-10-physicists-parallel-universes.html

[Ternaugh]

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

 

Not quite.  Time travel involves 2 loathsome alternatives, philosophically:

1.  Paradox.  True paradox.  "I go back to kill my grandfather before my father is born."  THEN what?  

2.  Predestination.  If certain things are NOT possible...that is, time travel exists but the traveler *cannot* in some way, shape, or form, create that paradox, then predestination to some degree must follow.

 

The alternate universes theories avoid #1, and thus #2 doesn't come into play.  Time travel in a multiverse allows for a compromise, whereby you aren't actually traveling in time, but in some manner *creating* a new alternate universe.  One can even say that interactive (rather than observational) time travel is the trigger...which means time travel is EXTREMELY!!!!! hard.

In case you hadn't noticed, yes, I've spent far too long over the years thinking about this.

 

The biggest problems with alternate universes:

1.  Massive confusion.

2.  They really disrupt suspension of disbelief, at least for me.  It makes too obvious that everything is under the writers' control.  Ergo:

3.  Nothing in the story...in ANY story in these universes...really matters now, does it?  

 

Alternate universes are as bad as major retcons, IMO.

 

All that said, I did enjoy Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

[zslane]

Physicists can speculate about multiple universes and collapsing wave functions all they want. What they won't be talking about is people physically travelling back and forth between multiple universes in the manner found in literature and movies.

[unclevlad]

I can live with the occasional dimensional hop/alternate universe storyline, particularly the What If... setups.  Where things fall apart is when they get overused.  And of course when you have the "multiple universes collide!!!" BS.  That's pure retcon.

 

9 minutes ago, zslane said:

Physicists can speculate about multiple universes and collapsing wave functions all they want. What they won't be talking about is people physically travelling back and forth between multiple universes in the manner found in literature and movies.

 

Just crossed my mind:  when that's the case, like retrieving the Time Stone in Endgame, it's pure deus ex machina.  Oh, there's no solution in this universe!!!  We're DOOMED!!!  Nah, we'll just universe-hop....  <SIGH>  When it's more like a series of What If... situations, it's probably OK, so long as it doesn't come back to directly impact the original universe.

[Matt the Bruins]

23 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

Still, it has already been strongly foreshadowed, that Loki is going to try to break the Timekeepers and their organization.  So, that is likely to be a big part of the series going forward.

Spoiler alert: Series not titled The Timekeepers and Their Sacred Timeline.

 

I wasn't thrilled by the first episode myself. Depicting the ultimate power in the universe as an absurd bureaucracy works fine in satire like The Good Place, but not so well in dramatic tales of heroism like the MCU stories Loki's been a part of so far. It makes everything seem meaningless rather than majestic, and works against the agency of the heroic characters. Most of my friends who are fans of comic book movies loved it, but I suspect Hiddleston is far less of a feature for me than for them.

[Lord Liaden]

The Time-Keepers and their Time Variance Authority are both more and less than they appear to be in the comics. Some variation of that will probably be the case in this series. I would recommend withholding final judgement until we see how it all plays out in the end.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 6/12/2021 at 12:52 AM, Bazza said:

Marvel has stated that Loki is a key series setting up many future plans. 

 

Embracing the classic comic book trope "After this issue, nothing will ever be the same!"

 

Splashed across at least one cover every couple of months, of course, and when it next appears on this title it's because we're going back to the way it was last time.

 

I'll suggest MCU is not intended to stimulate deep, philosophical discussions, but as simple entertainment.  I also credit Marvel with three TV series that each feel unique, not the same style as the others with different characters. Given "typical Hollywood", we could easily be watching solo/origin stories of the heroes who will first fight against each other in Avengers V and then be forced to come together as a team in Avengers VI.

 

Already had "the heroes fight" (Avengers; Cap Civil War) and come together to deal with massive threat (Avengers; Infinity War/Endgame), thanks.  Either something new will be somewhere between entertaining and epic, or it will fail, but just providing more of the same, while it will sell for a while (probably less risky, at least in the short term), will eventually mean "comic book movies/TV is played out - what next?"

 

We were watching Legends of Tomorrow the other day, which has changed a lot over its run.  It's drifted a long way from comic book Supers, and that drift has helped it to survive.

[Christopher R Taylor]

We'll see as time goes on but Disney Marvel has too often had the tone of Guardians of the Galaxy or Thor III for all settings and places.  That is okay in small doses or specific types of stories, but it doesn't necessarily fit or work well with everything.  You're almost waiting for the drums Badump-tshhh

[mattingly]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

You're almost waiting for the drums Badump-tshhh

 

I, for one, welcome our Badump-tshhh overlords.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I am probably overstating things, but I just don't like this slouch into Hope/Crosby road movies

 

[Scott Ruggels]

On 6/8/2021 at 8:59 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think Marvel's biggest struggle right now (like all studios) is going to be the reluctance of people to go back to movie theaters, not to mention how many shut down because of the economic disaster.

With the lifting of restrictions, a small but very hardcore group are flocking back to theaters( Myself included) provided there is something worth watching.  Also the economics of the theater have changed. 

https://arkhavencomics.com/2021/06/08/movie-theaters-are-making-a-comeback/

[Scott Ruggels]

5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

We'll see as time goes on but Disney Marvel has too often had the tone of Guardians of the Galaxy or Thor III for all settings and places.  That is okay in small doses or specific types of stories, but it doesn't necessarily fit or work well with everything.  You're almost waiting for the drums Badump-tshhh

I agree, but I think it's by director, like Taiko Watiti, or some of the other 2nd tier directors. Loki seems to be going in that direction. 

[Greywind]

Watiti apologized in advance for the humor he planned on incorporating into Love and Thunder.

[Bazza]

Well that is not a good sign. 

[Greywind]

 

His response was "Sorry in advance, suckaaaaaaa."

[unclevlad]

5 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

With the lifting of restrictions, a small but very hardcore group are flocking back to theaters( Myself included) provided there is something worth watching.  Also the economics of the theater have changed. 

https://arkhavencomics.com/2021/06/08/movie-theaters-are-making-a-comeback/

 

I'd certainly heard that the mega studios were squeezing the theaters;  hadn't heard the degree of it.  

 

Looking at the current, nice theater in town...none of the movies looks to be big-budget.  In The Heights is probably the highest-profile, but I don't think it was that expensive, relatively speaking.  The only Disney movie is Cruella, which doesn't tie into their major properties.  We'll have to wait and see how things play out when the mega-movies start coming down the track.

 

BTW:  if you follow that link, there's an interesting comment at the end.  From a person who used to be a projectionist Back In The Day, when movies were still on film.  And the comment above it asserted the cost for those prints ran around $3000...which I can believe.  

[Scott Ruggels]

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

I'd certainly heard that the mega studios were squeezing the theaters;  hadn't heard the degree of it.  

 

Looking at the current, nice theater in town...none of the movies looks to be big-budget.  In The Heights is probably the highest-profile, but I don't think it was that expensive, relatively speaking.  The only Disney movie is Cruella, which doesn't tie into their major properties.  We'll have to wait and see how things play out when the mega-movies start coming down the track.

 

BTW:  if you follow that link, there's an interesting comment at the end.  From a person who used to be a projectionist Back In The Day, when movies were still on film.  And the comment above it asserted the cost for those prints ran around $3000...which I can believe.  

Oh I believe it. One of my jobs from 2006 to 2012 was delivering prints from Technicolor to movie theaters. Four 20lb.., octagonal cans per print. Back breakers. So glad they went to locked Pelican cases holdin an HD, when the theaters switched to digital. 

[Lord Liaden]

1 minute ago, Scott Ruggels said:

One of my jobs from 2006 to 3012...

 

So how is the next millennium? Does the Earth become Waterworld after global warming? Do we finish terraforming Mars? Will we finally cure pattern baldness?