Page 1 of 14

Marvel MCU thread

Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:40 am
by SYM
http://io9.com/robert-downey-jr-may-set ... socialflow" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We may finally know what Robert Downey Jr. was talking about when he said that there he was working on a deal with Marvel to do something that wasn't Iron Man 4. According to Variety, Downey's in the final stages of negotiations that'll bring Tony Stark in to Captain America 3 and begin the movies' take on Civil War.

There's a lot to unpack in Marc Graser's Variety story. First off, Graser reports that this almost didn't happen. The original script only had Tony in it for a little bit, which would have only taken Downey three weeks to film. Downey wanted a bigger part, which angered Marvel Entertainment chief Ike Perlmutter enough that he ordered Stark cut out of the script entirely. According to Variety's sources, Kevin Feige was determined to make this happen, negotiating with Downey's reps regardless of Perlmutter's decision:

The executive needed his boss to see the big picture, considering the introduction of the Civil War story is seen as a way to drive the plots of sequels and new franchises for the next seven years, given the dramatic possibilities it offers for future films. The fallout from the government and Stark's actions would factor into a new "Avengers 4″ film and beyond that will assemble new characters being introduced like Ant-Man and Doctor Strange, among others, in their own movies.

Second, as stated above, is how integral Civil War apparently is to the next phase of Marvel movie-making. It certainly sounds like this will be the thread connecting the universe. As for the movie's take on what was a massive and controversial crossover event — I have never, not even once, heard people talk about Marvel's Civil War without it getting very heated — Variety's description sounds pretty similar to the comic:

The deal is significant for the Marvel cinematic universe considering the plot will pit Stark against Captain America's alter-ego Steve Rogers, played by Chris Evans, as they feud over the Superhero Registration Act, which forces anyone with superhuman abilities to reveal their identities to the U.S. government and agree to act as a police force for the authorities.

Stark supports the program, but Rogers does not, saying it threatens civil liberties, causing sides to be taken and Rogers, among others, to go on the run to avoid arrest. The moral question and battle with his Avengers teammate essentially makes Stark a villain of sorts in "Captain America 3," providing Downey with a meaty role he could play out into future Marvel films, including a fourth "Avengers."


Now, Entertainment Weekly says this, which would pay Downey $40 million plus backend participation, is "far from a done deal." And no one's officially commenting on this yet. There's every chance this falls apart, and Marvel either rewrites their plan entirely (unlikely) or shifts Tony's part onto someone else's shoulders.

There are other things that make this likely. And here's where we enter spoiler/rampant speculation territory.

We've got Marvel announcing a reboot of the Civil War story in the comics, which could very well be designed to put that story back into people's minds before the films come out.

And Badass Digest adds a bunch of details, making clear that this is a co-starring role for Downey. They also point out that they've heard that Avengers: Age of Ultron ends with a new Avengers team and Tony retires from superheroing, feeling responsible for the fallout of the Ultron battle. That gives him the motive to be on the side of registration, which'll be a massive shift from where he was in Iron Man 2. They also say that Natasha Romanoff's testimony in front of Congress in Captain America: The Winter Soldier was a late addition to the film. If that's true, that feeds into the general trend of Marvel additions being there to seed future films.

Finally, there's the chance that Joss Whedon made sure to set up the Cap/Iron Man conflict in Avengers, because he told us back in 2010 that Civil War comes from their existing dynamic, which culminated in Civil War in the comics and manifested in Avengers as "witty banter."

For my part, I'd guess that the rumor that Marvel's trying to get Spider-Man into its films is also related to the Civil War plan. That would give the plot even more scope. There's also the obvious connection that Chris Evans' time as Captain America is coming to an end, and doing Civil War makes killing Steve Rogers a very real possibility. Plus, with SHIELD mostly gone, there's a vaccuum for the Superhero Registration Act to step into. If Tony feels that the Avengers, as privately funded by him, was a disaster, he might turn his support to the act.

There's every reason to believe that, yes, Civil War is coming to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That's a bigger test of audience goodwill than Guardians ever was.

Re: Captain America 3: Civil War?! (Summer 2015)

Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:30 pm
by illuminati_guy
picture you posted is for upcoming civil war comic, cap 3 is coming out in may 2016

and if i've understood right cap 3 will just start the civil war and the real event is avengers 3 and the cosmic mcu is building up the phase 4 and infinity gauntlet thing. dr strange, guardians 2, inhumans and maybe hulk in space

Re: Captain America 3: Civil War?! (May 2016)

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:21 pm
by ric
Whatever. Civil war is too good and too big for the movie dudes to ignore. It will happen but they might have to push it down the line to make it feel better. Make more successful franchises THEN bring in civil war and do it right. Its way too early to do something as grand in scale as civil war and to have it feel impactful and game changing. Right now they've introduced what like maybe 6 characters. Lulz at calling that a war even if they push a bunch of underestablished dudes in there it's still not civil warry more like a brofight between motherfuckers who happen to wear costumes

Unfortunately they will push this too far and too fast for their own good and will at best have to settle for a single movie civil war precursor (which in my opinion is best done as trilogy) but they could theoretically make it work by having little movies in between but it would be hard to not fuck that up because they would always feel like they have to relate shit to the civil war and they would be walking a perilous line where it would be really easy to make poor choices that seem like good ideas during the creative process. Lulz for marvel fucking up this whole thing just so Robert Downey Jr can get paid and feed his ego

Re: Captain America 3: Civil War?! (May 2016)

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:35 pm
by ric
If they are really committed to doing this they will do it like this:
1) civil war splits everybody up
2) infinity gauntlet brings them all back
but that actually seems contrary to what they are actually doing. This is how it would more naturally build:
1) infinity gauntlet takes a couple movies to collate but when it happens there is mass destruction
2) then after that are your civil war premises already established and you can proceed in a unified manner that doesn't treat your audience like monkeys and this also gives plenty of opportunity to establish other characters like Dr strange or someone can jump off as being like the wise and formidable guardian of the last remaining infinity stone and then he is established and now he has a place in the civil war (which since it is movies doesn't have to be meditation)

Edit: and what's great about this last thing is that you can kill or almost kill people in infinity gauntlet and then bring them back in civil war for an epic moment just like the comic

Re: Captain America 3: Civil War?! (May 2016)

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:02 pm
by SYM
Speaking of Dr Strange....

http://deadline.com/2014/10/benedict-cu ... st-862815/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Captain America 3: Civil War?! (May 2016)

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:50 pm
by ric
I don't know shit about the guy but I think Dr strange is a sweet choice for a marvel movie character

Re: Captain America 3: Civil War?! (May 2016)

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:54 pm
by drizzle
basically look here: https://twitter.com/slashfilm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

confirms cap3 as civil war, 2part infinity gauntlet avengers, black panther etc

Image

Re: Captain America 3: Civil War?! (May 2016)

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:01 pm
by blastmaster
Wow!

Re: Captain America 3: Civil War?! (May 2016)

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:09 pm
by drizzle
gotta give them credit, even if some (a lot actually) of the individual entries end up fairly disposable (im2+3, thor1 etc) the overall scope and ambition of this shit is awesome. they're really doing the most to transfer that connected feeling of the comics to screen. it's funny that in the weeklys the inter-connectivity was simply way to get you to buy different titles but it became a big part of the experience of reading comic, and on screen they're doing basically doing the same - the goal is just to get you into the seats for all the titles, but the seeing and appreciating the whole spread of it becomes an attraction in itself.

Re: Captain America 3: Civil War?! (May 2016)

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:27 pm
by Truth.
whoa

Phase 3

Image

Image

Guardians 2 - May 5, 2017

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Re: Captain America 3: Civil War?! (May 2016)

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:35 pm
by The Afronaut
drizzle wrote:gotta give them credit, even if some (a lot actually) of the individual entries end up fairly disposable (im2+3, thor1 etc) the overall scope and ambition of this shit is awesome.
:leon: too true.

They didn't even talk about the Netflix stuff. The overall scope is nuts. Hope they can pull it off.

Re: Captain America 3: Civil War?! (May 2016)

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:59 pm
by Truth.
from q&a after announcements
Question about Civil War in the comics and how they will do it in the cinematic universe

Events of the whole cinematic universe will make all governments in the world want regulation. Not so much about secret identity, but about who reports to who.

Re: unofficial "upcoming marvel projects for 2015-2019" thre

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:21 pm
by illuminati_guy
so much cosmic marvel aka the best shit

Re: unofficial "upcoming marvel projects for 2015-2019" thre

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:39 pm
by ric
1 That last lineup looks sweet.
2 What is inhuman?
3 forget captain marvel I'm talking talking bout that miss marvel shit. She is way sweeter

Re: unofficial "upcoming marvel projects for 2015-2019" thre

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:57 pm
by drizzle
Inhumans is dope but I thought they would need FF and Xmen to do that one

Re: unofficial "upcoming marvel projects for 2015-2019" thre

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:00 pm
by Truth.
drizzle wrote:Inhumans is dope but I thought they would need FF and Xmen to do that one
wouldn't count Marvel out on anything at this point

when asked about Spiderman today
Will Marvel Studios join up with Sony Pictures to share the webslinger? The comics company licensed out long before they planned to launch their own studio, and there has recently been talk that the two rival studios may reach a compromise that would allow a crossover. “Anything that wasn’t specifically revealed today is either not true at all or still rumor,” Feige says.

Re: Marvel MCU thread

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:27 pm
by The Ivy League Nigga
:puke:

Re: Marvel MCU thread

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:35 pm
by Jayou Ayen
Image



39

Re: Marvel MCU thread

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:58 pm
by The Ivy League Nigga
I'm not mad, personally. Even if you like these movies though, you should be very disheartened by this announcement. This type of hegemony lines the pockets of corporations and gives the masses a few hours of entertainment, but in the long run it only hurts the industry and the artform.

I had a meeting with Marvel Studios nearly two years ago. Most of this stuff has been in the works since before then, with the order/dates already basically set. You have to understand that when they release info like this it's a carefully calculated piece of marketing, it's not because anything new is happening. It's not a new sandwich, it's the McRib. They've said/done almost nothing at all and they've got the internet going nuts.

Re: Marvel MCU thread

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:05 pm
by alpha
We get it you don't like these kind of movies. Stop trolling the threads man.

Re: Marvel MCU thread

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:07 pm
by The Ivy League Nigga
If people are gonna be cum-catchers for this shit, I'm gonna provide the dissenting viewpoint. Deal with it.

Re: unofficial "upcoming marvel projects for 2015-2019" thre

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:50 pm
by 907
Truth. wrote:
drizzle wrote:Inhumans is dope but I thought they would need FF and Xmen to do that one
wouldn't count Marvel out on anything at this point

when asked about Spiderman today
Will Marvel Studios join up with Sony Pictures to share the webslinger? The comics company licensed out long before they planned to launch their own studio, and there has recently been talk that the two rival studios may reach a compromise that would allow a crossover. “Anything that wasn’t specifically revealed today is either not true at all or still rumor,” Feige says.

I'm sure they can figure out a was to do Civil War without Spidey, but he would sure as fuck make it a lot better.

Black Panther is great, but doesn't exactly have the meaning of a Peter Parker.

Re: Marvel MCU thread

Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:06 am
by alpha
The Ivy League Nigga wrote:If people are gonna be cum-catchers for this shit, I'm gonna provide the dissenting viewpoint. Deal with it.
CYE has been needing an icesickle level troll for a while, you up for the task?

Re: unofficial "upcoming marvel projects for 2015-2019" thre

Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:32 pm
by SuperFeen
Truth. wrote:
drizzle wrote:Inhumans is dope but I thought they would need FF and Xmen to do that one
wouldn't count Marvel out on anything at this point
I think Marvel doing Inhumans is them moving on from the hope of getting Xmen back any time soon, Inhumans gives Marvel a way of including "mutants" without them being mutants, ie regular people with random powers

Re: Marvel MCU thread

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:00 am
by Ramen
About to be 2 pages and YOTMB hasn't stopped by to mention Edris Elba? Good shit.

Re: unofficial "upcoming marvel projects for 2015-2019" thre

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:22 am
by illuminati_guy
SuperFeen wrote:
Truth. wrote:
drizzle wrote:Inhumans is dope but I thought they would need FF and Xmen to do that one
wouldn't count Marvel out on anything at this point
I think Marvel doing Inhumans is them moving on from the hope of getting Xmen back any time soon, Inhumans gives Marvel a way of including "mutants" without them being mutants, ie regular people with random powers
this. feels like inhumans will be introduced in agents of s.h.i.e.l.d. i think we get some answers to these speculations in next two episodes. and there already was donnie gill blizzard in the show who is inhuman in the comics

Re: Marvel MCU thread

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:36 pm
by The Ivy League Nigga
The Ivy League Nigga wrote:I'm not mad, personally. Even if you like these movies though, you should be very disheartened by this announcement. This type of hegemony lines the pockets of corporations and gives the masses a few hours of entertainment, but in the long run it only hurts the industry and the artform.
Y'all don't hear me though...
What the movie industry is about, in 2014, is creating a sense of anticipation in its target audience that is so heightened, so nurtured, and so constant that moviegoers are effectively distracted from how infrequently their expectations are actually satisfied. Movies are no longer about the thing; they’re about the next thing, the tease, the Easter egg, the post-credit sequence, the promise of a future at which the moment we’re in can only hint.
http://grantland.com/features/2014-holl ... ox-office/

Re: Marvel MCU thread

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:46 pm
by alpha
You really are the worst. Get off your soap box. People watch these to be entertained. Sorry you don't get that.

Re: Marvel MCU thread

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:53 pm
by Hayzoos
I guess you have to strike while the iron is hot, but Marvel is overdoing it with all these movies. They are going to single handedly burst the Super Hero Movie bubble and it's gonna be really bad.

Re: Marvel MCU thread

Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 3:01 am
by Mindbender Futurama
Ramen wrote:About to be 2 pages and YOTMB hasn't stopped by to mention Edris Elba? Good shit.
:shittylikesometp:

Marvel is the Google of Hollywood. Just came outta nowhere to change the game. Now fools gotta bow down. Welcome to the future of movies.

After hitting a $200-million first weekend grand slam with 'The Avengers', it's a really silly thought to think this immense Marvel Universe-melding idea won't be a whole epic shitload of celluloid success.

Oh, and Idris Elba shoulda been the Black Panther. :smugkid: