When asked why they didn't interfere with Thanos, they said they were instructed not to interfere unless it involved the Deviants. But IIRC that's exactly what he was in the comics.
Are they changing Thanos' origin to be something else? It would work perfectly well if they did change it.
When asked why they didn't interfere with Thanos, they said they were instructed not to interfere unless it involved the Deviants. But IIRC that's exactly what he was in the comics.
Are they changing Thanos' origin to be something else? It would work perfectly well if they did change it.
I've never read a Thanos-related comic book but, movie-wise, Thanos is a Titan from Titan. The Eternals trailer is, so far as I'm aware, the first time the word "Deviant" as a proper noun has appeared in an MCU property.
When asked why they didn't interfere with Thanos, they said they were instructed not to interfere unless it involved the Deviants. But IIRC that's exactly what he was in the comics.
Are they changing Thanos' origin to be something else? It would work perfectly well if they did change it.
I've never read a Thanos-related comic book but, movie-wise, Thanos is a Titan from Titan. The Eternals trailer is, so far as I'm aware, the first time the word "Deviant" as a proper noun has appeared in an MCU property.
In the comics, I believe Titan is a second enclave built by the Eternals who left Earth after a civil war, and all Titans are Eternals
It might be easier for them just to say "there are aliens living on Titan" and dust their hands, but it's so close to Earth that it's kinda weird
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I get the strong impression that MCU titan is in no way related to our solar system's Titan. If it were, Earth wouldn't exist or be something Thanos needed briefing on.
And hopefully they can keep Variants and Deviants organized and easy for people to follow along with.
I get the strong impression that MCU titan is in no way related to our solar system's Titan. If it were, Earth wouldn't exist or be something Thanos needed briefing on.
And hopefully they can keep Variants and Deviants organized and easy for people to follow along with.
Ah you might be right; it might be a planet in another system, which is a bit confusing but probably less confusing than all the Eternal/Deviant stuff in the comics
I'm curious about the background of Titan and its inhabitants but it's probably best left unexplained
As mentioned, in the comics, Titans were a second enclave of Eternals, of which Thanos is one. He just had a recessive Deviant gene, which is why he looks like a giant prune.
I'm pretty sure they've dropped that for the mcu.
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I kind of like how Richard Madden's character is basically "Superman but yellow eye-lasers." They don't even give a shit. Marvel apparently decided that since the best version DC could come up with was on the CW it was fair game for them to just say "Okay we'll do him justice on the big screen" and make him part of an ensemble of weirdos in probably the biggest gamble film they've made in seven years.
How long until Marvel just says fuck it and brings in Hyperion, who may or may not be played by Henry Cavill.
Just to be mean, they even give him a mustache.
+19
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
As mentioned, in the comics, Titans were a second enclave of Eternals, of which Thanos is one. He just had a recessive Deviant gene, which is why he looks like a giant prune.
I'm pretty sure they've dropped that for the mcu.
I agree. MCU Titan appears to be just a planet that used to be home to a very powerful yet mortal alien race which Thanos is a survivor if not the sole remainder.
I kind of like how Richard Madden's character is basically "Superman but yellow eye-lasers." They don't even give a shit. Marvel apparently decided that since the best version DC could come up with was on the CW it was fair game for them to just say "Okay we'll do him justice on the big screen" and make him part of an ensemble of weirdos in probably the biggest gamble film they've made in seven years.
How long until Marvel just says fuck it and brings in Hyperion, who may or may not be played by Henry Cavill.
When asked why they didn't interfere with Thanos, they said they were instructed not to interfere unless it involved the Deviants. But IIRC that's exactly what he was in the comics.
Are they changing Thanos' origin to be something else? It would work perfectly well if they did change it.
Also, in IW he was only on Earth for a couple minutes. Just long enough to get the mind stone and snap his fingers.
Wouldn’t have killed the Eternals to lend a hand in Endgame though. Even that battle had Thanos on Earth for an hour or more.
I get the strong impression that MCU titan is in no way related to our solar system's Titan. If it were, Earth wouldn't exist or be something Thanos needed briefing on.
And hopefully they can keep Variants and Deviants organized and easy for people to follow along with.
Ah you might be right; it might be a planet in another system, which is a bit confusing but probably less confusing than all the Eternal/Deviant stuff in the comics
I'm curious about the background of Titan and its inhabitants but it's probably best left unexplained
The fight with Iron Man, Strange, etc. was on Titan. After Thanos portaled away and the snap left Stark and Nebula stranded, the stranding doesn't seem like it would have been a problem if they were still in Sol system given that it's Stark.
Also, the Titan where they fought had a breathable atmosphere and at least one moon of its own. Titan-the-moon most assuredly does not.
I kind of like how Richard Madden's character is basically "Superman but yellow eye-lasers." They don't even give a shit. Marvel apparently decided that since the best version DC could come up with was on the CW it was fair game for them to just say "Okay we'll do him justice on the big screen" and make him part of an ensemble of weirdos in probably the biggest gamble film they've made in seven years.
How long until Marvel just says fuck it and brings in Hyperion, who may or may not be played by Henry Cavill.
Kinda hype for Eternals if only because this is the first time I'll be going into an MCU thing 100% blind with no clue who anyone is or how they connect to anything. It's certainly a movie that exists and that's all I know.
Thor: the Dark World is definitely a low point for the MCU though.
I'm going to go with the reverse of those two because Thor: The Dark World has Darcy giving Jane 15 different kinds of shit on a date.
+6
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
Thor: the Dark World, while the least of the MCU, is still a perfectly decent mindless action movie, in my opinion. While bland in many ways, it also has a lot of really excellent scenes with Thor and Loki, and that counts a lot for me personally.
My main issue with IM3 is how frivolous it feels. Even the Mandarin fake out feels dated. He mentions native americans as a means to shame the American legacy (while appropriate for real life, movies don't handle this with a deft hand). It feels a little hollow to use natives as props for your movie. Marvel movies probably shouldn't touch that with a ten inch pole.
I'm thinking IM3 is more offensive than Thor 2. I'm okay with them tackling PTSD and anxiety from a hero's perspective, but not using the deaths of real life thousands to illustrate it.
Local H Jay on
+1
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
I can't take most Thor 2 criticism seriously because Iron Man 2 should be firmly holding the bottom spot of your MCU rankings and notions to the contrary are clearly personal and not objective. You can dislike any or all MCU movies more than Iron Man 2, but if you want me to believe that Iron Man 2 succeeds on any critical metric in comparison to your MCU Most Hated you're going to have to show your work
I can't take most Thor 2 criticism seriously because Iron Man 2 should be firmly holding the bottom spot of your MCU rankings and notions to the contrary are clearly personal and not objective. You can dislike any or all MCU movies more than Iron Man 2, but if you want me to believe that Iron Man 2 succeeds on any critical metric in comparison to your MCU Most Hated you're going to have to show your work
I'd honestly be more curious to hear why you believe Iron Man 2 should be rated so low; I don't even think of it as the worst film in the Iron Man series.
Im3 definitely gets bonus points for starting with Blue by Effiel 65
And slicked hair, single earring jon favreau
I dunno. That struck me as lazy. Having him look like Travolta in Pulp Fiction isn’t a bad gag, but then you stop and realize that it would have been 5 years since that movie came out…
Thor 2 and IM 2 are completely forgettable, as in I can't remember anything about them except that one bit in each, you know the bit, the teleporting fight that was kinda interesting and the race track suitcase suit. They're both examples IMO of Marvel getting a little greedy, IM2 especially, about setting up wider universes and overarching stories.
IM3 is bad because it's boring. There are better ways to explore PTSD than keeping your main character out of the suit for most of the runtime, faking out on his arch nemesis, and the main villain being upset he got snubbed. It was a waste of the Extremis plot as well.
0
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
IM3 is bad because it's boring. There are better ways to explore PTSD than keeping your main character out of the suit for most of the runtime, faking out on his arch nemesis, and the main villain being upset he got snubbed. It was a waste of the Extremis plot as well.
IM3s villain woes are the result of Perlmutter. Rebecca Hall was meant to be the villain, Killian wasn’t even originally in it. It’s the source of the infamous ‘girls don’t sell toys’ line from Perlmutter.
I’m not excusing the final product, but it should have been a different movie.
IM3 is bad because it's boring. There are better ways to explore PTSD than keeping your main character out of the suit for most of the runtime, faking out on his arch nemesis, and the main villain being upset he got snubbed. It was a waste of the Extremis plot as well.
IM3s villain woes are the result of Perlmutter. Rebecca Hall was meant to be the villain, Killian wasn’t even originally in it. It’s the source of the infamous ‘girls don’t sell toys’ line from Perlmutter.
I’m not excusing the final product, but it should have been a different movie.
How would it have been drastically different though? Presumably, all roads lead back to big CGI fest and Gwyneth Paltrow saving the day?
IM3 is bad because it's boring. There are better ways to explore PTSD than keeping your main character out of the suit for most of the runtime, faking out on his arch nemesis, and the main villain being upset he got snubbed. It was a waste of the Extremis plot as well.
IM3s villain woes are the result of Perlmutter. Rebecca Hall was meant to be the villain, Killian wasn’t even originally in it. It’s the source of the infamous ‘girls don’t sell toys’ line from Perlmutter.
I’m not excusing the final product, but it should have been a different movie.
How would it have been drastically different though? Presumably, all roads lead back to big CGI fest and Gwyneth Paltrow saving the day?
Not drastically but I'd prefer Hall's scientist over Guy Pearce's boring Stane retread without any of Stane's charisma or personality. The IM films have a problem with recycling male corrupt CEO's.
+5
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
I can't take most Thor 2 criticism seriously because Iron Man 2 should be firmly holding the bottom spot of your MCU rankings and notions to the contrary are clearly personal and not objective. You can dislike any or all MCU movies more than Iron Man 2, but if you want me to believe that Iron Man 2 succeeds on any critical metric in comparison to your MCU Most Hated you're going to have to show your work
Counterpoint: IM2 has Sam Rockwell chewing lots of scenery. And lollipops.
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I like all the MCU movies. Thor 2 holds a special place in my heart because it had Malekith and The Dark Elves. Being a fan of Warhammer, I want more of them.
IM3 is bad because it's boring. There are better ways to explore PTSD than keeping your main character out of the suit for most of the runtime, faking out on his arch nemesis, and the main villain being upset he got snubbed. It was a waste of the Extremis plot as well.
IM3s villain woes are the result of Perlmutter. Rebecca Hall was meant to be the villain, Killian wasn’t even originally in it. It’s the source of the infamous ‘girls don’t sell toys’ line from Perlmutter.
I’m not excusing the final product, but it should have been a different movie.
How would it have been drastically different though? Presumably, all roads lead back to big CGI fest and Gwyneth Paltrow saving the day?
Oh shit, I just remembered that! The thought of Pepper Potts as this secret superhero (with her Rescue suit) still appeals to me, even if the actress decidedly doesn't.
... I wonder if their kid inherited any of that. I know Ironheart is next on the docket for anything IM related, but it would be really cool to have her pop up in future stories.
I can't take most Thor 2 criticism seriously because Iron Man 2 should be firmly holding the bottom spot of your MCU rankings and notions to the contrary are clearly personal and not objective. You can dislike any or all MCU movies more than Iron Man 2, but if you want me to believe that Iron Man 2 succeeds on any critical metric in comparison to your MCU Most Hated you're going to have to show your work
I'd honestly be more curious to hear why you believe Iron Man 2 should be rated so low; I don't even think of it as the worst film in the Iron Man series.
It's a gigantic mess of a movie and for a variety of reasons. Besides just the woeful use of its actors, it tries the "No Script" setup of Iron Man 1 but 1) Is trying to lift parts of the "Demon in a bottle" storyline to do the heavy lifting for the movie, which is a challenging choice to improv, 2) Are prevented from using alcoholism in the story and instead shoehorn in... blood poisoning which is not remotely the same beats, 3) Are forced to detour to put in MCU/Avengers setup which clearly takes time away from the actual plot of the movie. 4) Which is why Justin Hammer and Whiplash have only one scene each with Stark and then one scene together. Tony spends more time talking to Nick Fury than either of the villains. 5) the ending is a muddled mess because it's clear nobody has any reason to care by that point, cue the cgi punchup where Rhodey is firsf a puppet and then a joke (the Ex-Wife) and Whiplash would rather blow himself up than be in this movie any longer.
Tony Stark cures his alcoholismself-destructive behaviors inability to cope with his own mortality by building a better ARC Reactor. How's that for a satisfying payoff to Tony's IM2 journey! It's almost like when he built the ARC Reactor in IM1 except with zero of the emotional weight of Yensin dying or Tony learning a lesson in morality and ethics!
Posts
Are they changing Thanos' origin to be something else? It would work perfectly well if they did change it.
I've never read a Thanos-related comic book but, movie-wise, Thanos is a Titan from Titan. The Eternals trailer is, so far as I'm aware, the first time the word "Deviant" as a proper noun has appeared in an MCU property.
In the comics, I believe Titan is a second enclave built by the Eternals who left Earth after a civil war, and all Titans are Eternals
It might be easier for them just to say "there are aliens living on Titan" and dust their hands, but it's so close to Earth that it's kinda weird
And hopefully they can keep Variants and Deviants organized and easy for people to follow along with.
Ah you might be right; it might be a planet in another system, which is a bit confusing but probably less confusing than all the Eternal/Deviant stuff in the comics
I'm curious about the background of Titan and its inhabitants but it's probably best left unexplained
I'm pretty sure they've dropped that for the mcu.
Just to be mean, they even give him a mustache.
I agree. MCU Titan appears to be just a planet that used to be home to a very powerful yet mortal alien race which Thanos is a survivor if not the sole remainder.
… that would be hilarious and amazing.
Also, in IW he was only on Earth for a couple minutes. Just long enough to get the mind stone and snap his fingers.
Wouldn’t have killed the Eternals to lend a hand in Endgame though. Even that battle had Thanos on Earth for an hour or more.
The fight with Iron Man, Strange, etc. was on Titan. After Thanos portaled away and the snap left Stark and Nebula stranded, the stranding doesn't seem like it would have been a problem if they were still in Sol system given that it's Stark.
Also, the Titan where they fought had a breathable atmosphere and at least one moon of its own. Titan-the-moon most assuredly does not.
Squadron Supreme or Squadron Sinister though?
Big time possible spoilers
If this is a joke or somehow designed to mislead me I will RAGE.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Thanks Google and Entertainment Weekly, you fuckers! I just wanted to look up what show is coming out after What If?
Phase 2 is off to a terrible start with Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World
Thor: the Dark World is definitely a low point for the MCU though.
And slicked hair, single earring jon favreau
That's just me though.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
I'm going to go with the reverse of those two because Thor: The Dark World has Darcy giving Jane 15 different kinds of shit on a date.
I'm thinking IM3 is more offensive than Thor 2. I'm okay with them tackling PTSD and anxiety from a hero's perspective, but not using the deaths of real life thousands to illustrate it.
I'd honestly be more curious to hear why you believe Iron Man 2 should be rated so low; I don't even think of it as the worst film in the Iron Man series.
Also the Chris Evans cameo.
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
I dunno. That struck me as lazy. Having him look like Travolta in Pulp Fiction isn’t a bad gag, but then you stop and realize that it would have been 5 years since that movie came out…
IM3 is bad because it's boring. There are better ways to explore PTSD than keeping your main character out of the suit for most of the runtime, faking out on his arch nemesis, and the main villain being upset he got snubbed. It was a waste of the Extremis plot as well.
IM3s villain woes are the result of Perlmutter. Rebecca Hall was meant to be the villain, Killian wasn’t even originally in it. It’s the source of the infamous ‘girls don’t sell toys’ line from Perlmutter.
I’m not excusing the final product, but it should have been a different movie.
How would it have been drastically different though? Presumably, all roads lead back to big CGI fest and Gwyneth Paltrow saving the day?
Not drastically but I'd prefer Hall's scientist over Guy Pearce's boring Stane retread without any of Stane's charisma or personality. The IM films have a problem with recycling male corrupt CEO's.
Counterpoint: IM2 has Sam Rockwell chewing lots of scenery. And lollipops.
Oh shit, I just remembered that! The thought of Pepper Potts as this secret superhero (with her Rescue suit) still appeals to me, even if the actress decidedly doesn't.
... I wonder if their kid inherited any of that. I know Ironheart is next on the docket for anything IM related, but it would be really cool to have her pop up in future stories.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It's a gigantic mess of a movie and for a variety of reasons. Besides just the woeful use of its actors, it tries the "No Script" setup of Iron Man 1 but 1) Is trying to lift parts of the "Demon in a bottle" storyline to do the heavy lifting for the movie, which is a challenging choice to improv, 2) Are prevented from using alcoholism in the story and instead shoehorn in... blood poisoning which is not remotely the same beats, 3) Are forced to detour to put in MCU/Avengers setup which clearly takes time away from the actual plot of the movie. 4) Which is why Justin Hammer and Whiplash have only one scene each with Stark and then one scene together. Tony spends more time talking to Nick Fury than either of the villains. 5) the ending is a muddled mess because it's clear nobody has any reason to care by that point, cue the cgi punchup where Rhodey is firsf a puppet and then a joke (the Ex-Wife) and Whiplash would rather blow himself up than be in this movie any longer.
Tony Stark cures his alcoholism self-destructive behaviors inability to cope with his own mortality by building a better ARC Reactor. How's that for a satisfying payoff to Tony's IM2 journey! It's almost like when he built the ARC Reactor in IM1 except with zero of the emotional weight of Yensin dying or Tony learning a lesson in morality and ethics!