[Movies] MCU: Phase 3 And Beyond

ThatNickGuy · Jul 8, 2015

Celt Z said:
I don't know about immortals, but I heard she makes fine-looking Jews.

I read that way too quick and thought you said Jaws. :Leyla:

PatrThom · Jul 8, 2015

ThatNickGuy said:
I read that way too quick and thought you said Jaws.

This demands an animated .GIF
Private Bruce

--Patrick

fade · Jul 9, 2015

Null said:
That would make sense. Honestly having May be too much older than Peter raises some odd questions. For instance, if May were portrayed as 60+, and Peter's a teenager, that means she was in her 40s when he was born, which implies that she was notably older than his parents (ie like 10 years). It makes her and Uncle Ben more like grandparents than parents. And that's not the dynamic they're going for, obviously.

This is one of the problems I had with the Harry Potter movies, too. Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman were just too old to be Lily and James's classmates. Unless they had Harry pretty late.

Null · Jul 9, 2015

fade said:
This is one of the problems I had with the Harry Potter movies, too. Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman were just too old to be Lily and James's classmates. Unless they had Harry pretty late.

To be fair, I think the actors were 10-15 years older than the characters were supposed to be. I got the impression that Sirius was supposed to be in his mid 30's when he got out of prison.

GasBandit · Jul 9, 2015

And really, to teens, everybody over 29 looks 50.

fade · Jul 9, 2015

Harry's supposed to be 11 in the first film. Rickman was 55 when the first movie came out in 2001.

Null · Jul 9, 2015

fade said:
Harry's supposed to be 11 in the first film. Rickman was 55 when the first movie came out in 2001.

So if Severus Snape were supposed to be around 40, that'd mean he was almost 30 when Harry was born. That seems... approximately okay?

GasBandit · Jul 9, 2015

fade said:
Harry's supposed to be 11 in the first film. Rickman was 55 when the first movie came out in 2001.

Null said:
So if Severus Snape were supposed to be around 40, that'd mean he was almost 30 when Harry was born. That seems... approximately okay?

Also bear in mind that Molly and Arthur Weasley were old enough to have an adult son in the first movie, though I don't recall if they were said to have been at Hogwarts at the same time as the Potters.

Ravenpoe · Jul 9, 2015

GasBandit said:
And really, to teens, everybody over 29 looks 50.

Also, magic.

Null · Jul 9, 2015

While there was almost certainly a Weasley at Hogwart's at the time (simply because there have been so many), there doesn't seem to be one in James' social circle.

AshburnerX · Jul 9, 2015

Official word from the author was that wizards live longer than humans. This is why guys like Dumbledore and Grimwald could duke it out during/before World War 2 as full grown adults and still be alive/active in the 90's (when the books happen).

PatrThom · Jul 9, 2015

Ravenpoe said:
Also, magic.

Also, acting.

--Patrick

Ravenpoe · Jul 9, 2015

PatrThom said:
Also, acting.

--Patrick

Hailey Knight · Jul 9, 2015

fade said:
This is one of the problems I had with the Harry Potter movies, too. Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman were just too old to be Lily and James's classmates. Unless they had Harry pretty late.

Lily and James's ghosts look older than they should, too.

Bubble181 · Jul 10, 2015

They all looked okay-ish to me, but then again my parents had me when they were 35 and 31. Undermined a bit by

Hermione, Ginny, whatever Draco's girl is called etc pushing out babies right out of high school, and it being implied fairly heavily this is normal for wizards - Harry's parents would have waited at least another 10 years or so.

GasBandit · Jul 10, 2015

Bubble181 said:
They all looked okay-ish to me, but then again my parents had me when they were 35 and 31. Undermined a bit by

Hermione, Ginny, whatever Draco's girl is called etc pushing out babies right out of high school, and it being implied fairly heavily this is normal for wizards - Harry's parents would have waited at least another 10 years or so.

Well there was this whole wizarding war going on for the previous generation...

Hailey Knight · Jul 11, 2015

Bubble181 said:
They all looked okay-ish to me, but then again my parents had me when they were 35 and 31. Undermined a bit by

Hermione, Ginny, whatever Draco's girl is called etc pushing out babies right out of high school, and it being implied fairly heavily this is normal for wizards - Harry's parents would have waited at least another 10 years or so.

The characters have specific ages. Lily and James Potter are 21 when they're killed by Voldemort. The actors look and dress like they're into their 30s, as if the ghosts kept aging after they died. By the last movie, Harry and his friends are only a few years younger than his parents when they died.

AshburnerX · Jul 11, 2015

You want to know what I want to know about the Harry Potter universe? What the fuck were James and Lily doing, fresh out of Hogwarts, that they had a literal PILE OF GOLD to leave Harry? I'm assuming some of that was from selling the house after they died, but Harry can literally afford the best of everything and the Weasleys can't rub two coins together until Fred and George start working. Ether they were in some shady shit or James was loaded.

Sparhawk · Jul 11, 2015

AshburnerX said:
You want to know what I want to know about the Harry Potter universe? What the fuck were James and Lily doing, fresh out of Hogwarts, that they had a literal PILE OF GOLD to leave Harry? I'm assuming some of that was from selling the house after they died, but Harry can literally afford the best of everything and the Weasleys can't rub two coins together until Fred and George start working. Ether they were in some shady shit or James was loaded.

It's mentioned in the books that lots of people donated to Harry after he "defeated" Voldy.

tegid · Jul 11, 2015

James was loaded:

"James Potter was born on 27 March, 1960 into a pure-blood wizarding family of considerable wealth."
(From: http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/James_Potter_I )

Ravenpoe · Jul 11, 2015

tegid said:
James was loaded:

"James Potter was born on 27 March, 1960 into a pure-blood wizarding family of considerable wealth."
(From: http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/James_Potter_I )

No wonder Lily chose him over Snape.

CynicismKills · Jul 16, 2015

You know exactly what's going to happen, but you'll watch this anyway.

IronBrig4 · Jul 16, 2015

I'm ready for tomorrow. My date is a Marvel fan so she's ready too. She flipped out when she saw this pic of me at Comic Con.

Edit: I just got back from watching it and it was AWESOME. It was irreverent and silly like Guardians of the Galaxy and it was refreshing to see another origin story. I'm definitely seeing it again.

phil · Jul 18, 2015

I just saw it this morning and I liked it. Certainly worth the price of admission, though I wish Edgar Wright had stayed on the whole way through. I can see his influence in places but other parts I think would have benifited with him at the helm.

Hailey Knight · Jul 18, 2015

phil said:
I just saw it this morning and I liked it. Certainly worth the price of admission, though I wish Edgar Wright had stayed on the whole way through. I can see his influence in places but other parts I think would have benifited with him at the helm.

There's a joke early in the movie that has Edgar Wright all over it, but the people I heard it from were complaining about it as if it was an ad. I could hear the joke reading between the lines, but maybe it wasn't delivered right without him.

Baskin Robbins always knows.

I won't get a chance to see it for a couple weeks.

Dei · Jul 18, 2015

I really appreciate that Marvel knows when and when not to take itself seriously. I liked this movie a lot.

sixpackshaker · Jul 18, 2015

Zero Esc said:
There's a joke early in the movie that has Edgar Wright all over it, but the people I heard it from were complaining about it as if it was an ad. I could hear the joke reading between the lines, but maybe it wasn't delivered right without him.

Baskin Robbins always knows.

I won't get a chance to see it for a couple weeks.

It was a great joke.

He was upset that he could not use Cornetto in this movie.

IronBrig4 · Jul 18, 2015

I have a feeling the DC studio employees will have a surprise when they come into work on Monday. Security will confiscate belts, shaving razors, any sharp objects, and prescription meds that can be used to overdose. They're probably on suicide watch.

Celt Z · Jul 18, 2015

IronBrig4 said:
They're probably on Suicide Squad.

CynicismKills · Jul 29, 2015

Rumors are floating around that Netflix might be looking into Thunderbolts as another show to produce with Marvel. I'm wondering who would be on the team, as some members are likely part of Sony's Spider-Man deal (though maybe it's not a problem anymore?). I would kill for Agent Venom, and others like Red Hulk or Punisher are Marvel's anyway.

AshburnerX · Jul 30, 2015

CynicismKills said:
Rumors are floating around that Netflix might be looking into Thunderbolts as another show to produce with Marvel. I'm wondering who would be on the team, as some members are likely part of Sony's Spider-Man deal (though maybe it's not a problem anymore?). I would kill for Agent Venom, and others like Red Hulk or Punisher are Marvel's anyway.

I don't think Sony's deals extend to TV. Disney has already put out a Spider-man cartoon (Ultimate Spider-man, which I dug but many did not) anyway, so it's probably not an issue.

I don't think Fox's control of X-Men & Fantastic 4 extends to TV ether, considering we've had an X-Men show on Nicktoons (Wolverine and the X-Men, which was fine) and had X-Men AND Doctor Doom on Ironman: Armored Adventures (before it got cancelled anyway).

Basically what I'm saying is that anything goes for TV, but Disney's strategy involves not supporting things they can't turn into movies right now in order to get them back.

CynicismKills · Jul 30, 2015

AshburnerX said:
I don't think Sony's deals extend to TV. Disney has already put out a Spider-man cartoon (Ultimate Spider-man, which I dug but many did not) anyway, so it's probably not an issue.

I don't think Fox's control of X-Men & Fantastic 4 extends to TV ether, considering we've had an X-Men show on Nicktoons (Wolverine and the X-Men, which was fine) and had X-Men AND Doctor Doom on Ironman: Armored Adventures (before it got cancelled anyway).

Basically what I'm saying is that anything goes for TV, but Disney's strategy involves not supporting things they can't turn into movies right now in order to get them back.

That's true. Though I wonder if it changes things being both live action and likely tying into the movie universe in some ways.

AshburnerX · Jul 30, 2015

CynicismKills said:
That's true. Though I wonder if it changes things being both live action and likely tying into the movie universe in some ways.

It would be an interesting court case. I can't think of something like that ever coming up before.

CynicismKills · Jul 30, 2015

Yeah it's unfortunate Marvel had to sell the rights off back when they were floundering, I really wonder what it'd be like if they still had full control.

AshburnerX · Jul 30, 2015

CynicismKills said:
Yeah it's unfortunate Marvel had to sell the rights off back when they were floundering, I really wonder what it'd be like if they still had full control.

The Inhumans would have been forgotten and we'd have mutants.