@h-bird It is but that's also through the lens of the audience, who in that moment (most likely) was adjusting to a new actor. That scene is still a bit jarring anytime I watched IM2, even after so many years of Cheadle and definitely preferring him. but in the context of the scene, as originally written, the surprise for the characters is that Tony's friend is there to essentially testify against him, and Rhodey basically shrugs it off and tells him it is what it is, deal.
Just one of those happenstance lines of dialogue that took on new meaning because of the actor who said it on screen. Sorta like Bartleby asking "... do I come off as gay?" in Dogma, which was not written with Ben Affleck in mind. Meanwhile, most of Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back was written to mock Ben Affleck.
Just going to throw this out there - what if Loki gets bored holding the timelines together and decides to either fix things he doesn't like or incite some cross-timeline trouble? Could he in effect be the "Beyonder" for an eventual Secret Wars?
@fac I thought of that too and wouldn't hate it. Loki may be the trickiest character now, to me, because I loved that ending so much. So wherever they take him next needs to be handled really well.
But what you're saying isn't that he goes villainous again but does this for what he sees as the greater good? It's still tricky since he was so set on letting all the timelines live as they would with freedom, and ALL of them.
Either way, I absolutely want him involved. I could see Doom wanting Loki's seat and taking it somehow then rewriting everything from there. Then the TVA could be populated with all the heroes who need to remember how things were before they can unseat Doom and put it all back. And I still think an aspect of the FF movie should be akin to Time Runs Out. Just dive right into it.
Also, if possible, I still think it would be gold to have Kat Dennings as a Loki-possessed Darcy.
Can we just have a story that isn’t dependent on what else is happening in the other stories of the MCU? I don’t need them all pointing to a new Avengers gathering to stop “Thanos” like threat.
I would have preferred another heist in Antman 3. Scott dealing with AIM and MODOK. Sam Cap can just deal with the Serpent Society. Thunderbolts vs Sentry. F4 dealing with Galactus. No need to mix em all up in Multiverse or fighting Kang. I’d prefer otherwise.
Thwipp!
When I first heard Kang getting paired with the Ant-Man crew I thought the time-traveller was coming to kill Hank as the creator of the Pym particles to put the Endgame time travel genie back in the bottle, and it was going to be the crew fighting Kang on that front. But in the end, they convince Kang that Tony's sacrifice was enough, they don't need to die just promise not to make more and give up what they have and Scott admits he never knew how it worked anyway. Successfully retires that side of the MCU. Meanwhile, Kang didn't destroy the particles but zapped them into his own laboratory and Kangs things up from there. And you can tag the Ant-Man crew back in if need be.
Could even have tagged in Hulk because as a fellow time travel mastermind, he would also have been a target. Hulk and the scientists make a lot of sense together.
@prophet As you say, it doesn't all need to be connected, and I think they have overdone the crossovers/cameos lately, and have too many characters they are trying to find time for. I think they have spread things too thin and introduced too many heroes - if everyone is a hero no one is, sort of thing.
The Marvels, for instance, I think could have worked without Kamala (even though I love Iman's portrayal), just give Carol and Monica time to work out their differences, have Carol face that she has been running away and hasn't helped the Skrulls and nearly Dark Phoenixed the Kree, and then maybe at the very end have Carol meet Kamala due to getting the band from Dar-Benn and it connecting with her band. The stories are both too busy yet too predictable with the final battle stuff.
Ant-Man didn't need full on Kang, and I feel Scott was the wrong character to go against him and win so early on. That same story could have been told just with Yellowjacket as the dictator character that appears out of nowhere that Janet helps but then regrets. But if you go with Kang, Kang needs to win, maybe wipe out that whole realm, do something that made him vengeful and terrifying and have our heroes barely escape with their lives. So far he's a guy that got beaten by Ant-Man, killed by Sylvie and outsmarted by Loki.
But ultimately, I think the main mistake was announcing it was all connected after Endgame and announcing Phase 4, 5, 6 and Kang and the multiverse and the FF were coming- let it play out on the screens, Marvel, so I don;t know if the Kang that Scott defeats is the only time we see him. The whole master plan didn't need to be laid out and I think there is no reason I needed to know the title of the next big Avengers 2-part film 5 years or more before it will hit the screen. Compare that to the end of Phase 1 - only the true comic fans new about the Infinity Gauntlet, so although they were building to something, it wasn't explicitly stated as in "see that stone Loki has in his staff and the glowing box that the Red Skull had - we'll pay that off in 8 years in Avengers Infinity War" and it was hard to know how long it might take to get there. Which made it fun. They eventually announced it, but it was a few years later and by then the story made it clear that was the "endgame".
@ru1977 Loki has a tragic ending really, and if they never revisit him again I would be OK with that, but there is also some interesting things to explore - will he be tempted to fix his mistakes? Can he? Could he restore Asgard? Will he get bored? Will his ego accept that no one knows what he is doing or will that bug him?
@fac I agree it was a mistake to announce so much ahead. Knowing the next year or two is plenty to me, even if it does take my mind off what's coming out next a bit more than I like. Knowing a good chunk of the saga was way too much.
I disagree with the connections being overdone though. I don't think it's all connected, nor does it seem like it has to be. Avengers movies though, which is what I was talking about, absolutely should be so I don't feel bad about suggesting connections for Avengers 5. Infinity War wasn't essential viewing for the movies that came before it (meaning, you can watch Doctor Strange and be content because that story is done, Infinity War had more for the character but not that plot), but it still played off a lot of what had happened before. I will say some of the connections since Endgame have been weak or even dead ends. Secret Invasion really sticks out in that way.
At the same time, I actually want MORE team ups. A solo movie or two is great, but Cap 3 and Thor 3 had guest stars and I felt they were better for it. A big part of why I'm still watching these movies is to see these characters interacting, and I think it's a mistake to have Avengers movies only at the end of sagas now. So yeah, more team ups please. have a series called Marvel Team Up for all I care.
And again, I feel like they haven't introduced too many heroes, except with how many releases they've had. Had they gone through with their plans to have 4-5 movies and 4-5 shows a year, introducing so many characters wouldn't have been a problem since they'd still be servicing the existing characters as well. So in effect, they did bite off more than they could chew. Just, at the time they planned to take that bite, they had plenty of room in the tummy. Instead, they're having to wait several years between appearances for some of these people.
maybe Ant-Man didn't need Kang, but a Nathaniel Richards variant could have worked if he was more in line with the tone of the Ant-Man movies.
And yeah, I agree another step in Loki's story could be really good. Guess we'll see where they take him from there.
@ru1977 I think the implication by talking about Phases and how they described the D+ shows initially is that it is all meant to be connected - even if we don't know how going into a film. I think they felt that was a good marketing strategy to make people be interested in every film or show - it worked in Phase 1 and Phase 2.
But I think what they forgot is that Phase 1 and 2 were really contained and focused - the Avengers were based on 4 main characters and their 5 films (if you include Hulk) leading up to the first Avengers, and then only another 3 films before the next Avengers (with Guardians in the mix) - with key players like Hawkeye, BW, Fury and Shield, Sam and Rhodey all introduced as part of those films. So it was only 9 core films to get to Age of Ultron (and add Wanda and Vision). And then they gave us Ant-Man, while Civil War added Black Panther and Spider-Man in the next two films, and in 12 films they built an incredibly expansive MCU (with the Guardians 2 films on the fringes.)
Then in the next three years they really only introduced Dr Strange and Capt Marvel before the Infinity War films, focusing on the existing core.
Since Endgame, they have put out 11 films (!) and a half-dozen TV shows and I think lost the tighter storytelling of having less than a dozen characters who were the "core". I'd argue it was only IM, Cap, Thor, BP and Spider-Man that really grabbed the attention of the typical fan - everyone else seems like a second tier, despite their efforts to move them up a level, and at the moment, all of the above are more or less off the board.
I will always wonder if Phase 4/5 would have been received better if the end goal of Phase 6 coming up with the FF, X-Men and Kang and Secret Wars was an unknown - so the audience could focus only on the impact of Endgame on the remining heroes, letting the old core go while bringing on the next generation of heroes, and establish the multiverse stuff - which is what they seemed to be aiming for.
But if I am told to be focused on what happens next, do I contextualize my reaction to each film as how it fits into that?
@ru1977 I think the implication by talking about Phases and how they described the D+ shows initially is that it is all meant to be connected - even if we don't know how going into a film. I think they felt that was a good marketing strategy to make people be interested in every film or show - it worked in Phase 1 and Phase 2.
I mean, it did and it didn't. Or rather, it didn't in Phase 1 and 2 as heavily as people think it did. The connection was really just little bits showing they exist in the same world, which was huge. It's like if a supporting character from John Wick suddenly appeared in Fast & the Furious. (A crossover, by the way, I would love to happen even though I've seen only one film from both series, but come on. John Wick kills people with cars too, why not the fast and the furious?)
So I dunno, I get they're all connected but I never expected a long, drawn out, several-movie plot across phases. I guess they could try that, and it would be kinda groundbreaking in a way that having Coulson show up in New Mexico for the hammer was. but Feige also always made a big deal about how whatever movie they're making is their focus at that time. yeah they think ahead somewhat, but I never expected it to be too intricate or seriously tied together. I just don't think they're capable of that, and certainly not when they have multiple productions going simultaneously.
So yeah it's good marketing but it's also not necessary. Phase 1 and 2 is where people learned they're in the same world and you gotta stay until the end of the credits. So tying them together even harder, or pretending you are I guess, is really not necessary. I guess that may get people to go see something they aren't interested in, like Eternals maybe, but... apparently not.
But I think what they forgot is that Phase 1 and 2 were really contained and focused - the Avengers were based on 4 main characters and their 5 films (if you include Hulk) leading up to the first Avengers, and then only another 3 films before the next Avengers (with Guardians in the mix) - with key players like Hawkeye, BW, Fury and Shield, Sam and Rhodey all introduced as part of those films. So it was only 9 core films to get to Age of Ultron (and add Wanda and Vision). And then they gave us Ant-Man, while Civil War added Black Panther and Spider-Man in the next two films, and in 12 films they built an incredibly expansive MCU (with the Guardians 2 films on the fringes.)
And I agree, which is why I think if they're introducing new characters, it can only work if they are really doing enough releases to also still service the current characters as well. It's actually something Sony did kinda right, even if it was partly due to legal obligations, but they released three Spider-man movies between Doctor Strange and Doctor Strange 2. (Also between Guardians 2 and 3, but that's a different story.) So again, for every Eternals, yeah, you need to also include a Spider-Man or Black Panther movie. For every Shang Chi, also put out a Cap movie etc. I don't want JUST old or JUST new, but a mix of them would probably keep the stew at the right flavor.
Then in the next three years they really only introduced Dr Strange and Capt Marvel before the Infinity War films, focusing on the existing core.
Since Endgame, they have put out 11 films (!) and a half-dozen TV shows and I think lost the tighter storytelling of having less than a dozen characters who were the "core". I'd argue it was only IM, Cap, Thor, BP and Spider-Man that really grabbed the attention of the typical fan - everyone else seems like a second tier, despite their efforts to move them up a level, and at the moment, all of the above are more or less off the board.
And the whole concept of a 'core' group is also lost because.... to me, phases 4 and 5 (and maybe 6 once that happens) really feels like a single, extended phase. It feels as varied and unfocused as phase 2, and maybe even just as good a ratio of enjoyed/won't watch again.
I will always wonder if Phase 4/5 would have been received better if the end goal of Phase 6 coming up with the FF, X-Men and Kang and Secret Wars was an unknown - so the audience could focus only on the impact of Endgame on the remining heroes, letting the old core go while bringing on the next generation of heroes, and establish the multiverse stuff - which is what they seemed to be aiming for.
I really don't know either. I wasn't really thinking much about mutants, Kang, or the FF when watching Love & Thunder or MOM. but I also have always been of the mind that the Infinity Saga didn't feel all that cohesive either and didn't see all that much setup toward Thanos. Yeah, you have a couple of credit scenes that don't really fit in with the later movies themselves, but they sure got us excited for what was to come. (Even Thor's credit scene with Loki and Selvig doesn't fit well with the Avengers movie it was setting up with not much time between them.)
I dunno. I guess my point (which I can barely come up with one because I'm exhausted and getting over being sick, so my mind is all over the place) is... I think previous phases weren't as great as maybe people remember them. They weren't all that connected and they didn't really set up the greater saga plot too often. but they were entertaining at least, and that's harder to say as often lately. I still don't think there's a big idea that will solve everything, like 'do less productions!' I don't think less means better. Better means better, so I guess maybe spend more time on the scripts really. Quit with the half baked writing. I don't even think the writers they've been using deserve to be tossed into the street, but get these people to do another draft. And pay them to do it since that was an issue before (these writers were paid for only so many drafts rather than being paid to see it from first draft to the edit, when you may still need a writer.)
But of course, it never hurts to remind me how Iron Man was almost entirely improvised, but that's more of a testament to the talents of the cast and (as much as I don't like admitting it) Favreau.
But if I am told to be focused on what happens next, do I contextualize my reaction to each film as how it fits into that?
Probably, yeah, but this chapter (or solo movie, as the case may be) still needs to stand up on its own. Otherwise they really should make this a tv show. it's a lot easier to forget about lackluster episodes when you have a couple dozen of them in a year.
They should just recast Kang. He’s too good of a character to sideline. Marvel just needs to recast and bring back a lot of core Avengers characters. A reboot with the original Avengers would be cool.
... it didn't in Phase 1 and 2 as heavily as people think it did. The connection was really just little bits showing they exist in the same world, which was huge.....I get they're all connected but I never expected a long, drawn out, several-movie plot across phases. I guess they could try that, and it would be kinda groundbreaking in a way that having Coulson show up in New Mexico for the hammer was. but Feige also always made a big deal about how whatever movie they're making is their focus at that time.
That's fair, I think by the time they announced Thor 1 and Cap 1 they had mentioned doing an Avengers 1, so we knew it was building a bit, with Fury and Coulson as the connective tissue. I didn't mean to imply that the films were just chapters in a bigger story and didn't have to stand alone, but by the time you get to Endgame they kind of are in how the character dynamics and experiences have built on each other.
Maybe I should explain it this way - there seemed to be a clear, linear direction though the first 3 phases even while the movies stood on their own. So far I am not seeing anything linear like that - which would be fine if the films didn't seem like setups for the next step. It is a little of what is both good and bad about "mystery/mythology" shows like X-Files or Lost, I think trying to figure out the hints to the bigger picture can distract from the actual episodes, but at the same time makes it feel more epic and interesting.
And the whole concept of a 'core' group is also lost because.... to me, phases 4 and 5 (and maybe 6 once that happens) really feels like a single, extended phase. It feels as varied and unfocused as phase 2, and maybe even just as good a ratio of enjoyed/won't watch again.
That said what I was trying to say, just seems unfocused and broad. There wasn't really an "end" to Phase 4 in a storytelling sense as it just sort of continued into Phase 5, we'll see if Thunderbolts or Captain America forms a conclusion of sorts to Phase 5. Phase 1 ended with the Avengers forming, Phase 2 ended with the team together but the cracks starting to show a bit (I honestly consider Civil War the end of Phase 2, storytelling wise, as they needed to overcome that breakup and learn from it to succeed at the end of Phase 3).
I wasn't really thinking much about mutants, Kang, or the FF when watching Love & Thunder or MOM. but I also have always been of the mind that the Infinity Saga didn't feel all that cohesive either and didn't see all that much setup toward Thanos. Yeah, you have a couple of credit scenes that don't really fit in with the later movies themselves, but they sure got us excited for what was to come.
I think previous phases weren't as great as maybe people remember them. They weren't all that connected and they didn't really set up the greater saga plot too often. but they were entertaining at least, and that's harder to say as often lately.
I wasn't really thinking about X-Men or FF either but then they drop them into places like MoM and The Marvels and so they are sometimes the part that makes the most impact for that reason - I feel like the Illuminati in MoM kid of stole the show a bit too much?
I do think the Infinity Saga was more cohesive than that - build the Avengers via the main 3 characters films, introduce the rest here and there along the way with SHIELD, and establish the Infinity Stones threat by having them pop up as a key thing in half of the films - Cap 1, Thor 2, Loki's staff, GotG 1, Doctor Strange 1, Captain Marvel. It succeeded because it wasn't trying to do too much.
I think the current slate kind of has the same goal - build up the next group of heroes and integrate the FF and X-Men, and focus on the Multiverse and how that is a threat, with Kang being the embodiment of that threat.
Anyway, I am not nearly as negative about it as I sound, I still have enjoyed most of the recent output, even if they are mostly OK and not great. I think the run from Cap 2 to Endgame was so solid it is hard to match.
@akatsuki The thing I've learned is all the fans have different ideas of who Marvel should go forward, and I can't really say any of them are wrong.
@akatsuki I agree, I'd probably have Kang variants be played by different actors at this point, maybe not recast as much as each time he shows up he looks different, like we had with the Peter Parkers and will likely have with the X-Men.
I will be curious if the multiverse option might tempt them to bring in a new Tony Stark.
And a reminder What If... Season 2 started today. First ep was OK.
That's fair, I think by the time they announced Thor 1 and Cap 1 they had mentioned doing an Avengers 1, so we knew it was building a bit, with Fury and Coulson as the connective tissue. I didn't mean to imply that the films were just chapters in a bigger story and didn't have to stand alone, but by the time you get to Endgame they kind of are in how the character dynamics and experiences have built on each other.
Thank you for explaining, and you're right. The momentum definitely ramped up as the saga progressed, and rightfully so. Part of the problem may be an audience inherently wants things faster. Yes, it took three phases to get to the big, mega blowout of a team up, but should that always be the case? It took them over a decade to get there the first time, and now (even counting with covid etc) it's currently planned to take them around HALF that time, with way more hours of content, and it STILL feels like it's taking too long. They didn't even lean on the multiverse aspect as much as I was afraid they would.
Maybe I should explain it this way - there seemed to be a clear, linear direction though the first 3 phases even while the movies stood on their own. So far I am not seeing anything linear like that - which would be fine if the films didn't seem like setups for the next step. It is a little of what is both good and bad about "mystery/mythology" shows like X-Files or Lost, I think trying to figure out the hints to the bigger picture can distract from the actual episodes, but at the same time makes it feel more epic and interesting.
And again, you are correct with the linear direction. Steve and Tony, if nothing else, definitely did. And both collided in Civil War, which was entirely reliant on what both had been through up to that point, and had massive impact on Infinity War that followed. So yeah, I totally concede on that.
And maybe they didn't have to have that kinda character throughline in this saga, except with maybe... I dunno... Loki could be one, and the Kang variants to some extent, but to me it felt like they were building toward something with the macguffins. The Ten Rings, the bangle, kang's tech, and so on. Shang Chi's credit scene made a thing about that, and I kinda felt like that was gonna lend to a greater plot. Not necessarily about that particular thing, but how all the things relate. And that may well still be the case, but it's crawling there. if every thing movie or show gives another hint, clue, or even solution to that plot, it would have been something. Instead, it's just another set-up for the I've-lost-count-how-many set-ups they've set-up in the Set-Up Saga.
And the whole concept of a 'core' group is also lost because.... to me, phases 4 and 5 (and maybe 6 once that happens) really feels like a single, extended phase. It feels as varied and unfocused as phase 2, and maybe even just as good a ratio of enjoyed/won't watch again.
That said what I was trying to say, just seems unfocused and broad. There wasn't really an "end" to Phase 4 in a storytelling sense as it just sort of continued into Phase 5, we'll see if Thunderbolts or Captain America forms a conclusion of sorts to Phase 5. Phase 1 ended with the Avengers forming, Phase 2 ended with the team together but the cracks starting to show a bit (I honestly consider Civil War the end of Phase 2, storytelling wise, as they needed to overcome that breakup and learn from it to succeed at the end of Phase 3).
That's absolutely true with Phase 4. I had to look it up to remember which film closed it. And while Wakanda Forever certainly feels like an ending, it didn't feel like an ending to a phase. So I guess that's why the phases bleed together. Avengers and Age of Ultron, and clearly Endgame, felt like a culmination. So I guess, to go back to my 'cosmic doodad' plot, they could have had the final release in phase 4 wrap up that plot, or at least explain it, and still (since I know they have to do this) set up how those thingies will come into play in the future. Maybe The Marvels could have been that movie, I dunno. yeah it would have been hackneyed having the villain collecting thingies all over again, so I'd prefer something else.
I wasn't really thinking about X-Men or FF either but then they drop them into places like MoM and The Marvels and so they are sometimes the part that makes the most impact for that reason - I feel like the Illuminati in MoM kid of stole the show a bit too much?
I see your point, once again. And for me anyway, the Illuminati stole the show because they were really interesting (not just in and of themselves but also amidst a movie I wasn't too excited during already). And like you said, had they done those teases without officially saying "yeah, oh you better believe they are coming.... in 2025!" then maybe those teases and such would have landed better.
It feels like we keep coming back to 'they really just shouldn't have announced so much so early". If nothing else, that would have helped a lot with the constant release date shifting.
I do think the Infinity Saga was more cohesive than that - build the Avengers via the main 3 characters films, introduce the rest here and there along the way with SHIELD, and establish the Infinity Stones threat by having them pop up as a key thing in half of the films - Cap 1, Thor 2, Loki's staff, GotG 1, Doctor Strange 1, Captain Marvel. It succeeded because it wasn't trying to do too much.
I think the current slate kind of has the same goal - build up the next group of heroes and integrate the FF and X-Men, and focus on the Multiverse and how that is a threat, with Kang being the embodiment of that threat.
yeah, you're probably right about that being their goal. And I think I finally can see why people feel like it wasn't cohesive when thinking of things like Eternals and even Black Widow. Black Widow, which I did actually enjoy, REALLY should have been done years before. It should have been a Phase 3 movie, probably in August 2016. I know that means the cast would have been different but that's what should have happened. it probably would have done a lot better (I mean, aside from the covid thing), and wouldn't have stuck out the way it did.
Eternals, as much as I love it, needed ONE connection. it didn't earn its inclusion, and the big thing I keep seeing is "when is the rest of the world gonna acknowledge that giant stature in the ocean", which to me really says "when is that movie going to connect in some manner beyond dropping Avengers names". Yeah, having the statue appear or even be mentioned in Thunderbolts would be smart, but it's also still not enough. This is an example just off the top of my head ONLY to illustrate the type of idea I mean, but something like a Kang variant exploiting the Celestial tech used to create the Eternals. Or the adaptive qualities of Kro. Something like that, some kinda pay off for the greater plot of the saga. SOMETHING. And strictly as an Eternals fan, I don't feel it needs that, but as a MCU fan, it's necessary.
Anyway, I am not nearly as negative about it as I sound, I still have enjoyed most of the recent output, even if they are mostly OK and not great. I think the run from Cap 2 to Endgame was so solid it is hard to match.
I completely agree. I'm even thinking of giving Love and Thunder another try. I'm still keen to watch what they have planned to release, even after some (personal opinion) misfires. I'm still excited to see Deadpool 3 and really interested in FF, and also will always go see the Avengers movies and Spider-Mans. I'm also enthusiastic for Thunderbolts. I've never been big on Blade though, and I'm waiting for a trailer for Cap 4 before I form any feelings.
At the same time, I'm still hoping for things like Alpha Flight to be a movie. Or even a series! I'd gleefully take six episodes of Alpha Flight. I. Cannot. Wait! for Born Again. I don't even care if the violence is toned down some. I get he's violent, and I'm sure he will be, but I'm not super hung up on needing lots of blood and bruises as long as the plot is great. Not good, not okay; for me Daredevil has to be great or don't do it. It's definitely the Marvel version of Book of Boba Fett for me. I'm excited for it but if it doesn't blow my skirt all the way up, I will likely complain about it on here for years.
Latest Post: NECA TMNT Mirage Line Our newest member: Ronaldunula Recent Posts Unread Posts
