• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Comic book movie news & discussion

Oh, then never mind.

Unless they can do the Captain Marvel thing and convince us in the trailer that the upcoming movie takes place before the movie where the character got killed off.
 
Avengers Trailer... Nuff said!

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/hA6hldpSTF8[/YOUTUBE]
 
Oh, then never mind.

Unless they can do the Captain Marvel thing and convince us in the trailer that the upcoming movie takes place before the movie where the character got killed off.

The Captain Marvel movie is set in the 1990s. In the previous trailer, she crashed to Earth and landed in a Blockbuster Video store. Fury looks a lot younger and has two eyes. The LA subway looks brand new. Her childhood flashbacks look to be in the 70s or 80s.

- - - Updated - - -

Avengers Trailer... Nuff said!

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/hA6hldpSTF8[/YOUTUBE]

I'm glad that they didn't show much. I hope they continue to not show much.
 
Oh, then never mind.

Unless they can do the Captain Marvel thing and convince us in the trailer that the upcoming movie takes place before the movie where the character got killed off.

The Captain Marvel movie is set in the 1990s. In the previous trailer, she crashed to Earth and landed in a Blockbuster Video store. Fury looks a lot younger and has two eyes. The LA subway looks brand new. Her childhood flashbacks look to be in the 70s or 80s.

I can't tell. Are you correcting me?
 
Oh, then never mind.

Unless they can do the Captain Marvel thing and convince us in the trailer that the upcoming movie takes place before the movie where the character got killed off.

The Captain Marvel movie is set in the 1990s. In the previous trailer, she crashed to Earth and landed in a Blockbuster Video store. Fury looks a lot younger and has two eyes. The LA subway looks brand new. Her childhood flashbacks look to be in the 70s or 80s.

I can't tell. Are you correcting me?

You said that the movie needs to be set before the events of The Snap in Avengers three. It is in fact set two decades ago, which more than meets what you were asking for.
 
I can't tell. Are you correcting me?

You said that the movie needs to be set before the events of The Snap in Avengers three. It is in fact set two decades ago, which more than meets what you were asking for.

Right. But I'm not talking about Captain Marvel's movie. I only mentioned it as an example of what they could do with the new Spider-Man movie.

The original complaint was, why show a trailer for an upcoming movie about a character that supposedly died last year? Doesn't that strongly suggest that the character will be resurrected?

I suggested perhaps we could save the trailer until after A4 is released, even during the credits. (That would be a first, as far as I know.) But you nixed that by announcing that the new Spider-Man trailer will be seen everywhere before A4 is released.

So then I counter-suggested that perhaps the new Spider-Man trailer could inform everyone that the upcoming Spider-Man movie will take place shortly before A3's events took place--thus keeping the fate of Spider-Man in the dark. The new Spider-Man movie doesn't have to take place in the 1990s--it only has to take place before The Snap in order to be both internally consistent (within the MCU) and not a major spoiler for A4.
 
I can't tell. Are you correcting me?

You said that the movie needs to be set before the events of The Snap in Avengers three. It is in fact set two decades ago, which more than meets what you were asking for.

Right. But I'm not talking about Captain Marvel's movie. I only mentioned it as an example of what they could do with the new Spider-Man movie.

The original complaint was, why show a trailer for an upcoming movie about a character that supposedly died last year? Doesn't that strongly suggest that the character will be resurrected?

I suggested perhaps we could save the trailer until after A4 is released, even during the credits. (That would be a first, as far as I know.) But you nixed that by announcing that the new Spider-Man trailer will be seen everywhere before A4 is released.

So then I counter-suggested that perhaps the new Spider-Man trailer could inform everyone that the upcoming Spider-Man movie will take place shortly before A3's events took place--thus keeping the fate of Spider-Man in the dark. The new Spider-Man movie doesn't have to take place in the 1990s--it only has to take place before The Snap in order to be both internally consistent (within the MCU) and not a major spoiler for A4.

Ah, sorry. That was my confusion then. The Captain Marvel trailer came out between our responses and I have the attention span of a HEY LOOK, SOMETHING SHINY! OVER THERE! THERE'S SOMETHING SHINY OVER THERE!
 
I like to get excited about trailers, and I get that when a trailer is really good people talk about it, which generates buzz for an upcoming movie, but part of me is getting bummed that they reveal a little too much in those trailers.

Like the time WB/DC put the big Wonder Woman reveal in the trailers for Batman vs Superman, when the structure of the movie itself suggests that the reveal of Wonder Woman was supposed to be a surprise.
 
Oh, then never mind.

Unless they can do the Captain Marvel thing and convince us in the trailer that the upcoming movie takes place before the movie where the character got killed off.

Unfortunately, I think the title "Spider-Man: Far from Home" already lets the cat out of the bag. Spider-Man was far from home, on the planet Titan, when the snap happened, so presumably that is where he will be when the universe is set right in Avengers 4 and he will have to make his way home from there. At least that's the way I have thought about it since the title was announced. I could be wrong, but I guess we will see when the trailer is released. If we see a lot of Spidey in space, or at least places that are definitely not on Earth, then that would seal the deal for me.
 
Is there anyone anywhere in the world who knows even the slightest thing about comics that thinks the people that died in Infinity War are really dead for good forever? :D :D

As for the Avengers trailer, it's a resounding "meh" from me. The Marvel movies in general are adequate superhero flicks, from pretty darned good to pretty damned awful. Infinity War was slightly better than average to me, just judging by this trailer this one looks wholly uninteresting to me. I'll likely catch it on disc.
 
Oh, then never mind.

Unless they can do the Captain Marvel thing and convince us in the trailer that the upcoming movie takes place before the movie where the character got killed off.

Unfortunately, I think the title "Spider-Man: Far from Home" already lets the cat out of the bag. Spider-Man was far from home, on the planet Titan, when the snap happened, so presumably that is where he will be when the universe is set right in Avengers 4 and he will have to make his way home from there. At least that's the way I have thought about it since the title was announced. I could be wrong, but I guess we will see when the trailer is released. If we see a lot of Spidey in space, or at least places that are definitely not on Earth, then that would seal the deal for me.


They've already been filming in Europe, and it looks like Peter's high school chums are on some kind of field trip in Europe. Mysterio will be the villain. So I'm guessing that the "far from home" is referring to Europe, not a moon of Saturn.

 
Already, Hamada has shown that he is not going to try and make every DC movie like the Nolan Batman movies and instead understands that each movie needs its own separate tone, themes, etc.

Tone sameness is the problem I had with recent Marvel movies like Thor Ragnorak. It was too goofily comedic. like it was trying to be Guardians. And everyone delivered the same type of punchlines, regardless of character.

The Netflix Marvel series are at least very different from the movies, in styles I've been liking. So of course those are cancelled.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
They need more Superman, though. He wanders onscreen every couple of years and everybody loses their shit about the fact that Superman is there and it's the most hyped up and reported on thing that they do. The people who own the character rights should loosen up whatever is it that they've gone and shoved up their asses and just give him a damn show instead of trying to get people excited by saying "Look, now we're adding Batman ... 's cousin".

But a lot of what makes this version of Supergirl so interesting is that they've borrowed an awful lot of classic Superman stories and re-adapted it to her. If they add too much Superman, the lack of good available stories to tell becomes apparent.

I disagree. I think the best episodes in that series are when they do their own thing and don't try to rehash Superman story lines. That just focuses attention on how they're stuck with the B-listers and don't have rights to the main characters which audiences are more interested in.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
They need more Superman, though. He wanders onscreen every couple of years and everybody loses their shit about the fact that Superman is there and it's the most hyped up and reported on thing that they do. The people who own the character rights should loosen up whatever is it that they've gone and shoved up their asses and just give him a damn show instead of trying to get people excited by saying "Look, now we're adding Batman ... 's cousin".

But a lot of what makes this version of Supergirl so interesting is that they've borrowed an awful lot of classic Superman stories and re-adapted it to her. If they add too much Superman, the lack of good available stories to tell becomes apparent.

I disagree. I think the best episodes in that series are when they do their own thing and don't try to rehash Superman story lines. That just focuses attention on how they're stuck with the B-listers and don't have rights to the main characters which audiences are more interested in.

Fair enough, but they do a lot of it.

And I lost interest in Arrow because they kept adapting Batman stories and kept trying to turn him into *Batman, but with a bow" instead of the Green Arrow I knew from the comic books.
 
And I lost interest in Arrow because they kept adapting Batman stories and kept trying to turn him into *Batman, but with a bow" instead of the Green Arrow I knew from the comic books.

I got tired of Arrow because of all the "I must lie to them to protect them", "But you lied to me, I can never trust you!!!" which was pretty much every character.

But I did see a recent episode, and Felicity has toughened up.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/nVJh6Xv8V0g[/YOUTUBE]

 
And I lost interest in Arrow because they kept adapting Batman stories and kept trying to turn him into *Batman, but with a bow" instead of the Green Arrow I knew from the comic books.

I got tired of Arrow because of all the "I must lie to them to protect them", "But you lied to me, I can never trust you!!!" which was pretty much every character.

But I did see a recent episode, and Felicity has toughened up.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/nVJh6Xv8V0g[/YOUTUBE]


The first season drew men in. I thought "Wow, how are they going to go from this revenge-crazed vigilante into the swashbuckling social justice guy from the comic books? I bet this journey will be interesting! Instead, they went from revenge-crazed vigilante guy to less-lethal revenge-crazed vigilante Batman-knockoff, at which point I promptly lost interest.

I know there are a lot of different incarnations of Green Arrow, but the character in the TV show doesn't seem like any of them, at least not any that I recognize. :(



Anyway, it's interesting to watch all the people complain about the Captain Marvel trailers. Part of the problem is the story they're telling doesn't lend itself to good fodder for trailers.

In the comic books, the defining moment of Carol Danvers' life was when the X-Men villain Rogue permanently stole her powers and personality. This led to Rogue doing a heel-face turn from villain to hero as well as a permanent identity crisis, but for Danvers, it meant she had to begin the long process of rebuilding her life and rebuilding herself.

In the comic books, she was simply and completely erased (at least her powers and memories were erased) and she had to rebuild herself and her life from scratch.

It looks like the movie will involve Carol having an accident involving Kree technology, then the Kree will give her superpowers to use her as a weapon in their war against the Skrulls, and the Kree wipe her memory to make her easier to control. So it's the same story in that she has been erased and has to rebuild/remake herself.

And that's what leads to a lot of complaints about the trailer (and I confess, I was one of the complainers).

Because of the nature of the story, we're going to have a lot of flashback sequences in which she seems to have no personality of her own because she doesn't. That's the story. She's had her personality erased and has to figure out how to build a new one. I'm sure it will make for a compelling movie, but right now it's a story that results in a trailer with a lot of wooden, personality-free facial expressions.
 
[YOUTUBE]hq9gb5FAZXA[/YOUTUBE]

There have been a lot of incarnations of Steve Rogers over the years.

If you ask me, the best implementation of the character is to suck in people who are moved by jingoism, then use the character to deliver messages they would have trouble accepting any other way, such as the way he was brought back in the 1960s to point out that much of the jingoism surrounding the debates about the Vietnam War were kind of anti-American, or how MCU Steve Rogers was used to point out to Republicans that maybe the PATRIOT act wasn't such a good idea after all (Winter Soldier).

I still argue that with both Captain America and the copycat Guardian from DC comics, the most interesting incarnation of the hero was the black guy without superpowers.
 
Ya, but he kept getting arrested on the way to fight villains, so he wasn’t too effective.
 
Back
Top Bottom