[Movies] MCU: Phase 3 And Beyond

Reactions
1,916 598 2
4ff5dfa1-de3c-44aa-85d4-3fe0bbffd7fe.gif

29388382-b3de-4673-bb34-2f2103875f20.gif

265f2b52-adc0-4b47-b6da-60ae0491d8f3.gif


Never mind, my boring ass adult opinions don't matter, it's not about me, I'm going to watch my Pennywise bullshit in peace knowing kids are having a good time somewhere else.

It's too early in the morning; I don't have the strength for this.
 
Reactions
354 55 1
I really didn't expect to see Natalie Portman back in the MCU as her performances in the first two films made it seem like this was more of a paycheck role for her than one she actually cared about.
Oh, I agree with that, but considering her part (sidekick love interest), there wasn't a lot there for her to really chew on. This time, she IS Thor, and that is an interesting departure from the characters she takes 'for the paycheck'. It's the same story line in the comics.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,338 1,090 23
Interesting to me how they have a few of those films like the Vision/Wanda one or Black Widow.

And if I need information from a TV show to understand something in a movie I just won't see that movie. I'm not watching TV, guys.
 
Reactions
883 52 2
I'll probably watch LOKI and Wanda/Vision somehow, but I do feel it unnecessary to do it like this. You don't need to "sell" Disney+ to people; it's already going to have all their god damn movies, tv shows, and everything else Disney. It has enough value for 5 bucks a month (and thats all you deserve, considering you aren't paying licensing deals for anything you already own).

This is all completely unnecessary.
 
Reactions
1,449 393 3
To me, this doesn't seem like a bad layout. I have a lot easier time taking 2 hours to watch a movie every few months than keeping track of all the monthly comic titles. And aren't the Disney+ shows supposed to be limited like the Netflix ones? I've gotten really bad at following weekly shows, to the point where I watch almost none of them, and the very few that I do, I almost always have a backlog on DVR because I just have other non-tv things to do. For me, binging a few shows here and there between movies works better for me than a weekly (or monthly) program.
 
Reactions
477 157 1
As I understand it the Disney+ shows are capped at 6-8 episodes per season, so it will be much easier to watch them than most Netflix series (always 10+), and way easier than the standard broadcast seasons with 24 episodes.

But I agree people shouldn't have to watch a show before watching a seemingly unrelated movie.
 
Reactions
2,454 703 25
aren't the Disney+ shows supposed to be limited like the Netflix ones?.
Everyone is scrambling to either acquire or create something compelling that they can make "exclusive" so you'll have to subscribe to their special service. Disney just has the advantage that they already have decades of content they've never signed away the rights to.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
816 327 13
I pretty much already gave up halfway through Agents of Shield.
These people don't ever seem to take into account delivery outside of the USA. Smaller markets just don't get everything in order/on time/at all. Same for Netflix and co. Same for inter-series exchanges. I like Arrow, I kinda like Supergirl (but the fiancee doesn't so we stopped watching), we both love the Flash...but having episodes just end with resolution in a series/season that simply isn't legally available to us is BS.
 
Reactions
1,449 393 3
Everyone is scrambling to either acquire or create something compelling that they can make "exclusive" so you'll have to subscribe to their special service. Disney just has the advantage that they already have decades of content they've never signed away the rights to.

--Patrick
I meant what Tress confirmed; that they only run 6-8 episodes. Meaning they don't require the same kind of time commitment as, say, Agents of SHIELD.
 
Reactions
1,354 355 2
As I understand it the Disney+ shows are capped at 6-8 episodes per season, so it will be much easier to watch them than most Netflix series (always 10+), and way easier than the standard broadcast seasons with 24 episodes.

But I agree people shouldn't have to watch a show before watching a seemingly unrelated movie.
If they're only 6-8 episodes, that's doable for me, then. A big reason why I haven't kept up on current shows or gotten into new ones is the 20+ episode commitment. Much as I enjoy...parts of Flash, there's just so much dull character drama in between that it's hard to stay invested. So much of it feels padded to fill out the 20+ episode run. Mind you, I felt the same about the Netflix Marvel series, too. Almost all of them would've been served better at half the amount of episodes.
 
Reactions
477 157 1
Mind you, I felt the same about the Netflix Marvel series, too. Almost all of them would've been served better at half the amount of episodes.
I agree 100%. There were obvious filler episodes and side plots that just dragged the shows down. I’m happy that Disney+ is just doing 6 episodes; anything more is unnecessary.
 
Reactions
1,303 479 6
No one is excited about Feige confirming/hinting at the first ever Fantastic Four movie?

That’s right, first ever. There has never been a Fantastic Four movie before, do you hear me?! Never.
As bad as ALL OF THEM were, I did really like Doug Jones Silver Surfer.
 
Reactions
1,303 479 6
Here's some Eternals concept art. Something I would never believe would ever be in a movie.



The one closest in the art is undoubtedly Arishem the Judge. The handle head, window eyes, symbol on chest. That's the feller that decides whether a planet/solar system/galaxy is worthy of existence. He's also the one that told Machine Man what a piece of shit he was.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
2,625 420 5

If it's a "joke" then it's a bad one. Why?

1. Loki is stylish and put-together. This look doesn't match his personal aesthetic.
2. Loki doesn't steal bits and pieces, he steals BIG. Loki doesn't smash a car window and steal the stereo, he drives off after being given the keys.
3. This is the internet, animated "GIFs" exist. If you really want to make the logo "stolen bits" then make it disguise itself at the end.
 
Reactions
1,449 393 3

If it's a "joke" then it's a bad one. Why?

1. Loki is stylish and put-together. This look doesn't match his personal aesthetic.
2. Loki doesn't steal bits and pieces, he steals BIG. Loki doesn't smash a car window and steal the stereo, he drives off after being given the keys.
3. This is the internet, animated "GIFs" exist. If you really want to make the logo "stolen bits" then make it disguise itself at the end.
I thought I read that the Loki series would have him jumping around time, so I assumed the logo was a hint to where/when he was showing up. He's also been known to disguise himself, so maybe it's due to that?
 
Reactions
1,449 393 3
I did. I disagree with the stolen part, and that it has to have a single font. They're playing Where In Time is Loki Sandiego, and I think it fits him. If Thor or Iron Man go somewhere/somewhen, they're always going to be true to themselves. Loki tries to blend and change his look or his entire personality to get what he wants. He isn't always the villain, but there's no guarantee he'll do the right thing. It's a puzzle and so is he.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
2,625 420 5
Well, it's not going to keep me from watching the show if I get a chance, but it does make me think whoever designed it would probably steal sheep.
 
Reactions
1,449 393 3
NOOOOOOOOOO!!! Sony, what's wrong with you?! Do you not like money?!

Free Spider-Man! Free Tom Holland!
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
2,625 420 5
I'm not so quick to jump to Sony being the sole ones at fault. Disney has a looooong history of being awful, so I'm assuming that they're definitely at fault here, too.
 
Reactions
864 255 0
Apparently it's because Disney wants to split profits 50/50, instead of the 5% of box office plus merchandising that they have now? I mean, I guess I could understand why Sony would think that's a massive jump, and why they'd balk. Plus, with the success of Into the Spider-Verse, maybe Sony's feeling more confident about their ability to make good Spider-Man films that fans will like and will pay to see.
 
Reactions
1,449 393 3
But one Into the Spider-verse doesn't make a good track record. And yes, ItSV may be one of the best Spider-films of all time, but that doesn't wipe away bad studio influence in Spider-Man 3, 2 mediocre Amazing Spider-Mans and whatever the hell Venom was. With Tony gone, it does mean Peter is less tethered to the rest of the MCU, but he was fitting in so well, it's a damn shame to lose him now. The MCU really needs a few younger heroes.
 
Reactions
1,303 479 6
This is Disney strong-arming something fierce. I don't really blame Sony THAT much for this. (I mean, they still share blame, but you know, fuck Disney)
 
Reactions
883 52 2
Disney strong-arming? Maybe. But Sony's massive incompetence is what lead them to that situation to begin with and may lead to it again. I'll remind everyone that the studio didn't have a whole lot of faith in ItSV until it suddenly popped on everyone's radar when the trailer dropped. That's why it's free of executive meddling. But now that it's a massive hit, the execs will have their hands all of the sequel.

Mark my words: 5-10 years from now, we'll be back in this situation again and Disney's not going to want to keep their deal with Sony... they will just offer a giant fucking pile of money for the franchise and that will be the end of it.
 
Reactions
241 17 3
Apparently it's because Disney wants to split profits 50/50, instead of the 5% of box office plus merchandising that they have now? I mean, I guess I could understand why Sony would think that's a massive jump, and why they'd balk. Plus, with the success of Into the Spider-Verse, maybe Sony's feeling more confident about their ability to make good Spider-Man films that fans will like and will pay to see.
Disney also wanted to share the costs 50/50.
 
Top