Marvel Cinematic Universe general stuff

Foxtrol

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Shuri is next in line for the throne and therefore to the duties of Black Panther.

Does the story require T'Challa to be present for her to take over? In Civil War he just became King and Black Panther when his father was killed.

There had been complaints that the MCU was a sausage festival but if Shuri does become Black Panther then Phase 4 has a big increase in female heroes.

She-Hulk
Hawkeye
Ms. Marvel
Jane Foster as the Goddess of Thunder
4 of the Eternals
Florence Pugh will continue as Black Widow (I assume)
And Scarlet Witch goes from supporting character to a lead in her own show.

Most of those gains are in TV or lesser roles (I doubt Jane Foster will be a long term Thor replacement). An improvement and something will annoy the usual folk but still plenty of 'sausage'

Foxtrol

Varik wrote: »

They're opening it to the multiverse in the next doctor strange, it's probably go along with that for FF and mutants.

Forget about the next doctor strange, they blew the doors off there being a multiverse during Endgame.

Despite the tease in the name of that upcoming movie, I don't really suspect MCU to lean too much into multiverse in the future. They spent too much time and effort building up the MCU, I just don't see them now having different universes.

I get there being difficulties with keeping logical consistency with having x-men in the same universe (like why fear mutants and not spider-man) but I'd argue the difficulties with explaining those are a lot easier than explaining a multiverse where none of the characters/races/aliens we know appear. Generally multiverses have the same people but things are different (what I expect from dr strange to dig into). To have an x-verse that lived alongside the MCU they'd have to make a case that all the characters (good and bad) we are familiar with are there in the background but just aren't 'super'.

I go with the thinking that the click leads to the fast growth of mutants and then marvel treating x-men like they did spider-man. They'll keep the focus on them being young and dealing with lower scale enemies to the school, that wouldn't get on the radar of avengers etc. They wont be in a rush to have them deal with world ending situations. They can also drip feed them into the series via other properties, Storm appearing in a Shuri Black Panther movie would be the exact sort of cameo to set up an x-men in a few years

Spon Farmer

Foxtrol wrote: »

Most of those gains are in TV or lesser roles (I doubt Jane Foster will be a long term Thor replacement). An improvement and something will annoy the usual folk but still plenty of 'sausage'

Disney and Marvel will be hoping the TV shows are as big a deal as the movies. And none of the female roles in the movies I mentioned are “lesser” - Foster is the love interest now promoted to be the super powered character , Johansson & Pugh are the main characters, and the Eternals are a team (as far as I remember) and therefore equals and half of of the team members listed are female.

I’m hoping Foster has the power for just this film and it returns to Thor for the end. I’m interested in seeing how they make her worthy of the power - she ain’t no Steve Rogers.

I think Waititi mentioned Starsharks and I’m hoping he is also introducing Beta Ray Bill. The character is nonsense but Waititi could probably make him legend.

Foxtrol

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Disney and Marvel will be hoping the TV shows are as big a deal as the movies. And none of the female roles in the movies I mentioned are “lesser” - Foster is the love interest now promoted to be the super powered character , Johansson & Pugh are the main characters, and the Eternals are a team (as far as I remember) and therefore equals and half of of the team members listed are female.

I’m hoping Foster has the power for just this film and it returns to Thor for the end. I’m interested in seeing how they make her worthy of the power - she ain’t no Steve Rogers.

I think Waititi mentioned Starsharks and I’m hoping he is also introducing Beta Ray Bill. The character is nonsense but Waititi could probably make him legend.

I'm very skeptical of that line that the shows will be as big a deal as the movies. If it was true at least one of the 'A-team' of characters would have gotten one. To me what they mean is they'll get funding so they are on par with a movie (like the Madelorian) but nothing points to them being valued the same or them putting their truly marketable properties in them. They'll use them to try to build the characters and they will likely appear in other movies but I doubt they'll ever make it to leading their own movie

As for the characters, I don't see evidence that they aren't 'lesser' roles. Foster is going to be the support in a Thor movie (likely not having powers past that point) and Eternals is an ensemble. Sure, Johansson is finally getting her movie but it took 10 years and her character is dead. If there is any role passing to Pugh, there is no way they are jumping to a level to get their own movie.

Outside of Captain Marvel there is no other living 'A-team' female character, that can hold her own movie. Despite the influx of new female heroes, Shuri taking on the mantle of Black Panther would be only the 2nd one on that level.

Sirsok

Maybe there is scope for an alternate universe after Captain America places a stone back in the wrong place, therefore having a different reality that Tilda Swinton was talking about. Seeing as Cap had to place a stone in the 70's, and that being misplaced then realistically X Men could then be created and you would have all the lore of Magneto , Logan and Prof X?

Im quite sleepy so possibly this doesnt make sense as old cap wound up in his own timeline anyway.

Brief_Lives

this might be a silly question, but is it possible to get the power of the Black Panther, without that heart shaped purple flower. Weren´t they all destroyed by Killmonger?

Spon Farmer

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'm very skeptical of that line that the shows will be as big a deal as the movies. If it was true at least one of the 'A-team' of characters would have gotten one. To me what they mean is they'll get funding so they are on par with a movie (like the Madelorian) but nothing points to them being valued the same or them putting their truly marketable properties in them. They'll use them to try to build the characters and they will likely appear in other movies but I doubt they'll ever make it to leading their own movie

As for the characters, I don't see evidence that they aren't 'lesser' roles. Foster is going to be the support in a Thor movie (likely not having powers past that point) and Eternals is an ensemble. Sure, Johansson is finally getting her movie but it took 10 years and her character is dead. If there is any role passing to Pugh, there is no way they are jumping to a level to get their own movie.

Outside of Captain Marvel there is no other living 'A-team' female character, that can hold her own movie. Despite the influx of new female heroes, Shuri taking on the mantle of Black Panther would be only the 2nd one on that level.

The "a-team" are are mostly gone. Parker and Banner are not part of Disney but I believe the arrangement allows for his use in She-Hulk like it does in the movies. Barton will have his show o pass on the bow.

Actresses are being cast as the heroes now - not just as love interests. Foster is going to be the one with the power. Avengers is also an ensemble and Back Widow was the only heroine or the bones of 10 years. I can't understand why it took them so long to ke a maBlack Widow movie.

The characters don't all need to have their own movie - plenty of male heroes solo movies -not getting solo - the simple fact is that the number of female superheroes has jumped.

Black Widow is "a team"

Spon Farmer

Brief_Lives wrote: »

this might be a silly question, but is it possible to get the power of the Black Panther, without that heart shaped purple flower. Weren´t they all destroyed by Killmonger?

Didn't Forrest Whittaker's character have a secret stash?

He had some to restart T'Challa's power, I think.

Easy enough to explain they found more.

FunLover18

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Didn't Forrest Whittaker's character have a secret stash?

He had some to restart T'Challa's power, I think.

Easy enough to explain they found more.

Lupita's character snuck in and stole one before Kill Monger burned them but I agree it will be easy enough to explain.

Midnight_EG

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Didn't Forrest Whittaker's character have a secret stash?

He had some to restart T'Challa's power, I think.

Easy enough to explain they found more.

It's as simple to say that there's more gardens across Wakanda guarded by the clans.

pixelburp

Yeah, it's MCU natural resources; there is always only a single supply in the world ... ... until there isn't.

titan18

Foxtrol wrote: »

Killmonger was so set in his beliefs that he killed himself in the end rather than let them help him. I don't see how they go a route of resurrecting him and giving him the Black Panther powers without completely ruining the character (something I don't think Jordan would be open to).

Shuri is such a logical fit for it.

You could have it it that in another multiverse Killmonger grew up in Wakanda as a normal prince so that he isn't a maniac like in the MCUverse.

He could easily move from that multiverse to take the throne and Black Panther mantle as T'Challa is still alive in the other one and he sees the need for a Black Panther in MCUverse.

Shuri imo is fine if Black Panther is a minor Avenger like in Phase 3. Imo, Shuri or the actress, doesn't have the same star power as a top Avenger to replace Captain America, Iron Man etc.

To me it was clear that Boseman and Black Panther was going to be an Avengers leader, along with Dr Strange and Captain Marvel. Shuri doesn't fill that vacuum imo. Jordan and Killmonger does imo if you can rework his past using the multiverses.

Spon Farmer

titan18 wrote: »

You could have it it that in another multiverse Killmonger grew up in Wakanda as a normal prince so that he isn't a maniac like in the MCUverse.

He could easily move from that multiverse to take the throne and Black Panther mantle as T'Challa is still alive in the other one and he sees the need for a Black Panther in MCUverse.

Shuri imo is fine if Black Panther is a minor Avenger like in Phase 3. Imo, Shuri or the actress, doesn't have the same star power as a top Avenger to replace Captain America, Iron Man etc.

To me it was clear that Boseman and Black Panther was going to be an Avengers leader, along with Dr Strange and Captain Marvel. Shuri doesn't fill that vacuum imo. Jordan and Killmonger does imo if you can rework his past using the multiverses.

Feige said (after the D23 announcement of Phase 4 I think) that the MCU is mapped out for the next five years.

T'Challa would have indeed been a leader in that and therefore vital to the overall story. Not Shuri or a convoluted reboot of Killmonger.

I expect it to be revealed (at an appropriate time) that it was Boseman's wish that T'Challa continue with another actor in his place. The character is important to black people. And he would have been aware of the plans Marvel had. He was a decent guy. There is no way he did not leave a message for Cogler, Feige and the fans.

titan18

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Feige said (after the D23 announcement of Phase 4 I think) that the MCU is mapped out for the next five years.

T'Challa would have indeed been a leader in that and therefore vital to the overall story. Not Shuri or a convoluted reboot of Killmonger.

I expect it to be revealed (at an appropriate time) that it was Boseman's wish that T'Challa continue with another actor in his place. The character is important to black people. And he would have been aware of the plans Marvel had. He was a decent guy. There is no way he did not leave a message for Cogler, Feige and the fans.

True. If they do recast, you'll need the right actor with the right presence. Filling the Black Panther mantle is one thing, but being the leader of the Avengers is another. You're not just replacing Boseman, it's replacing Evans, Downing and Hemsworth as the biggest stars.

Personally, I don't think Shuri can fill that role. Killmonger can imo. Even if they didn't go Killmonger, I'd say that both M'Baku and W'Kabi have the ability to step into the Avengers leader role easier than Shuri can. Black Panther to me is the new Captain America of the group (Captain Marvel being Thor's replacement and Doctor Strange as Iron Man). You need a physical presence imo for that role as the frontline leader.

FunLover18

titan18 wrote: »

You could have it it that in another multiverse Killmonger grew up in Wakanda as a normal prince so that he isn't a maniac like in the MCUverse.

He could easily move from that multiverse to take the throne and Black Panther mantle as T'Challa is still alive in the other one and he sees the need for a Black Panther in MCUverse.

Shuri imo is fine if Black Panther is a minor Avenger like in Phase 3. Imo, Shuri or the actress, doesn't have the same star power as a top Avenger to replace Captain America, Iron Man etc.

To me it was clear that Boseman and Black Panther was going to be an Avengers leader, along with Dr Strange and Captain Marvel. Shuri doesn't fill that vacuum imo. Jordan and Killmonger does imo if you can rework his past using the multiverses.

Chadwick Boseman didn't have a lot of star power before BP either though, probably why they made the decision to introduce both the actor and character in Civil War. Shuri is a very different character from T'Challa but I think that could make for a very interesting movie, she clearly always knew T'Challa would be king and therefore didn't have to worry about being the responsible one. If they killed him off screen she goes on a very interesting journey with the likes of Lupita Nyongo's character to help guide her.

I'm not familiar with the comics but I don't think it think it would have fitted with T'Challa's character to become leader of the Avengers which would probably require him to put his duties to Wakanda aside for long periods.

Whatever they do I'll watch it.

titan18

FunLover18 wrote: »

Chadwick Boseman didn't have a lot of star power before BP either though, probably why they made the decision to introduce both the actor and character in Civil War. Shuri is a very different character from T'Challa but I think that could make for a very interesting movie, she clearly always knew T'Challa would be king and therefore didn't have to worry about being the responsible one. If they killed him off screen she goes on a very interesting journey with the likes of Lupita Nyongo's character to help guide her.

I'm not familiar with the comics but I don't think it think it would have fitted with T'Challa's character to become leader of the Avengers which would probably require him to put his duties to Wakanda aside for long periods.

Whatever they do I'll watch it.

Very few of the avengers had any star power before their roles tbf. Boseman had a presence which helped playing T'Challa I think, and helps the Black Panther character fill the void of Captain America (I know Falcon technically is doing that but Falcon and Winter Soldier will never be top tier Avengers imo). You want the honourable, will be there in the front line fighting, leading others character, which imo, Boseman and Black Panther were. Shuri as Black Panther isn't really going to have a physical presence for frontline fighting imo. She's flitting on the edges using her tech ability and smarts. She'd be a decent choice as Black Panther imo, but not as the Avengers leader that Captain America was, which I felt Boseman's Black Panther was.

FunLover18

titan18 wrote: »

Very few of the avengers had any star power before their roles tbf. Boseman had a presence which helped playing T'Challa I think, and helps the Black Panther character fill the void of Captain America (I know Falcon technically is doing that but Falcon and Winter Soldier will never be top tier Avengers imo). You want the honourable, will be there in the front line fighting, leading others character, which imo, Boseman and Black Panther were. Shuri as Black Panther isn't really going to have a physical presence for frontline fighting imo. She's flitting on the edges using her tech ability and smarts. She'd be a decent choice as Black Panther imo, but not as the Avengers leader that Captain America was, which I felt Boseman's Black Panther was.

I think it would be a very bad move from a PR perspective to have a black man become Captain America and relegate him to TV. I know that's what they have done but F&WS is surely about him getting used to being CA, I would hope Mackie would show up in Avengers movies in future and get his own at some point, he very similar to Steve which is why Steve chose him. I see what you mean about Shuri but I would like to see BP be there own thing, showing up in Avengers films for sure but not actually being one of that makes sense.

titan18

FunLover18 wrote: »

I think it would be a very bad move from a PR perspective to have a black man become Captain America and relegate him to TV. I know that's what they have done but F&WS is surely about him getting used to being CA, I would hope Mackie would show up in Avengers movies in future and get his own at some point, he very similar to Steve which is why Steve chose him. I see what you mean about Shuri but I would like to see BP be there own thing, showing up in Avengers films for sure but not actually being one of that makes sense.

Oh I'd agree and I don't think Falcon will be relegated to TV. Captain America is relegated as an Avengers leader though. Falcon will carry the shield and be in the crossovers, but there's no solo film planned. When there's another Avengers film and a big villain though, I think he's there.

Maybe they'll change plans but it felt like Black Panther was being set up as an Avengers leader, along with Captain Marvel and Dr Strange) and taking the place of Captain America, Iron Man and Thor. To me, thats who it felt Disney were putting the push behind as their new stars. 3 good actors, diverse enough and fill 3 separate roles and who you can accept will have differences of opinion due to their upbringings. Spiderman is the only other star but they're limited with him cos of Sony. Can't push him too much.

Shuri can do the black panther films and be a side Avenger. I don't think she fits as the leader of the Avengers like TChalla did.

Spon Farmer

titan18 wrote: »

True. If they do recast, you'll need the right actor with the right presence. Filling the Black Panther mantle is one thing, but being the leader of the Avengers is another. You're not just replacing Boseman, it's replacing Evans, Downing and Hemsworth as the biggest stars.

Personally, I don't think Shuri can fill that role. Killmonger can imo. Even if they didn't go Killmonger, I'd say that both M'Baku and W'Kabi have the ability to step into the Avengers leader role easier than Shuri can. Black Panther to me is the new Captain America of the group (Captain Marvel being Thor's replacement and Doctor Strange as Iron Man). You need a physical presence imo for that role as the frontline leader.

W'Kabi ?

The guy who helped Killmonger tear Wakanda in two?

No way is he an Avenger or worthy of the suit.

M'Baku is a fun character and a great warrior but he is not a replacement for T'Challa.

titan18

I see they've announced Black Widow is pushed to May and everything else for next year pushed back now as a result

CastorTroy

Was reading that on ign
https://www.ign.com/articles/disney-postpones-black-widow-shang-chi-eternals-and-many-more-films

Here is the full list of Disney release date changes:

DEATH ON THE NILE (20th) previously dated on 10/23/20 moves to 12/18/20
THE EMPTY MAN (20th) previously dated on 12/4/20 moves to 10/23/20
BLACK WIDOW (Disney) previously dated on 11/6/20 moves to 5/7/21
ETERNALS (Disney) previously dated on 2/12/21 moves to 11/5/21
SHANG CHI AND THE LEGEND OF THE TEN RINGS (Disney) previously dated on 5/7/21 moves to 7/9/21
UNTITLED DISNEY EVENT FILM (Disney) previously dated on 7/9/21 is removed from schedule
DEEP WATER (20th) previously dated on 11/13/20 moves to 8/13/21
UNTITLED 20TH CENTURY (20th) previously dated on 8/13/21 is removed from schedule
WEST SIDE STORY (20th) previously dated on 12/18/20 moves to 12/10/21
THE KING’S MAN (20th) previously dated on 2/26/21 moves to 2/12/21

Spon Farmer

titan18 wrote: »

I see they've announced Black Widow is pushed to May and everything else for next year pushed back now as a result

Just signing in the report that.

Thank goodness.

Hopefully WB will do the same with Wonder Woman and Dune. I want Bond to move to.

Mitch Connor

I'd prefer Cinema's to have content that they can play when open now, so that they still exist to show movies in 2021.

FunLover18

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'd prefer Cinema's to have content that they can play when open now, so that they still exist to show movies in 2021.

It's a bit of a Catch-22, release a movie now and you don't make any money, hold back and there will most certainly be less cinemas to open in. Tenet has made just over 250 million. I'd love to know what WB thought they'd get in the circumstances but that's a bomb and it's clearly spooked Disney. Universal were very clever in hindsight moving FF9 back a full year.

StinkyMunkey

Out of curiosity I checked MCU phase 4 and I can say I'm totally underwhelmed.

For me, MCU seen its heyday come to an end with the last avengers movie. I've enjoyed every Marvel movie to date except Black Panter (all style, no substance), but I can't say I'm particularly looking forward to what's happening in Phase 4 bar Thor & Spiderman.

A large part of the MCU universe for me was the cross over between the characters on such a grand scale. I just don't see that happening again on any level close to what the Avengers was.

I think The MCU universe has run its course and gone are the days where I'd be excited about seeing the next Marvel movie and just where that would bring us next.

titan18

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'd prefer Cinema's to have content that they can play when open now, so that they still exist to show movies in 2021.

Yup, I went to see Tenet but that's the only film I've seen in cinema since early March with The Invisible Man. They can show all these old films like, but I can watch them safely from my own home and not bother with covid.

Foxtrol

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Out of curiosity I checked MCU phase 4 and I can say I'm totally underwhelmed.

For me, MCU seen its heyday come to an end with the last avengers movie. I've enjoyed every Marvel movie to date except Black Panter (all style, no substance), but I can't say I'm particularly looking forward to what's happening in Phase 4 bar Thor & Spiderman.

A large part of the MCU universe for me was the cross over between the characters on such a grand scale. I just don't see that happening again on any level close to what the Avengers was.

I think The MCU universe has run its course and gone are the days where I'd be excited about seeing the next Marvel movie and just where that would bring us next.

If anything I found the opposite of the bold, on 'substance' it hit deeper themes than most MCU and developed one of the best villians. On 'style', the CGI and fight scenes on the other hand were poor.

On your larger point, I'm again looking at things from the opposite perspective. MCU hit its peak with the last Avengers movies and now is rebuilding. It'll be slow and they won't see the same box office returns but you don't get the pay off for huge cross overs unless you take your time and build to it, see Justice League for how that goes wrong.

Yes, I'm similarly keen for Thor and Spiderman sequels but I'm more interested in the MCU characters I've barely heard of in phase 4 and then seeing Marvel's take on properties that their getting their hands on for the first time in the MCU, F4, X-universe, and Blade.

Looking back to 2013, I was much more looking forward to seeing the Iron Man and Thor sequels than the GOTG that I never heard of (how can they have a talking racoon in the world of Captain America?). How wrong I was.

Spon Farmer

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'd prefer Cinema's to have content that they can play when open now, so that they still exist to show movies in 2021.

Not enough people anywhere are going now.

No movie is going to pull in enough to even break even.

What sense is there in releasing a blockbuster that fail at the office? What sense is there in releasing an independent movie, etc. that will be ignored?

Spon Farmer

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Out of curiosity I checked MCU phase 4 and I can say I'm totally underwhelmed.

For me, MCU seen its heyday come to an end with the last avengers movie. I've enjoyed every Marvel movie to date except Black Panter (all style, no substance), but I can't say I'm particularly looking forward to what's happening in Phase 4 bar Thor & Spiderman.

A large part of the MCU universe for me was the cross over between the characters on such a grand scale. I just don't see that happening again on any level close to what the Avengers was.

I think The MCU universe has run its course and gone are the days where I'd be excited about seeing the next Marvel movie and just where that would bring us next.

I'm not still looking forward to the MCU movies and now the excitement is in it being different.

Spon Farmer

titan18 wrote: »

Yup, I went to see Tenet but that's the only film I've seen in cinema since early March with The Invisible Man. They can show all these old films like, but I can watch them safely from my own home and not bother with covid.

Same for new movies. People don't want to go to cinemas because of the worry of Covid. The studios have seen that people will not go.

So why release anything?