[quote=“Hokwongwei”]
MCU has kind of written itself into a corner in this regard. I was wondering during the events of Iron Man 3 why, when the president of the US is abducted by terrorists, Captain America and Nick Fury don’t jump into action. Then in The Dark World, when an alien ship crashes into London, where is Iron Man? And in The Winter Soldier, when Nick Fury is supposedly dead and Cap’n Crunch is being hunted, why don’t his friends help out? It’s going to become increasingly hard to justify the characters having their own exploits.[/quote]
I don’t think any of them were friends after the end of the Avengers. The end to that movie (after the shawarma) was them parting ways. Robin Sparkles… I mean Cobie Smulders’ character asked to Nick Fury if S.H.I.E.L.D. should just let them all go their separate ways. It explains why they don’t really get together. I think without SHIELD, most Avengers wouldn’t bother to show up for small things. In all 3 Ironman films, Ironman fights bad guys who targeted him personally, otherwise the US government has to give him orders to take out targets.
Of course that’s hard to explain why none of them show up when another Alien force invades London… One explanation is in the Avengers, they all figured out the invasion is going to take place at the Stark’s Tower, so they are already on their way before the invasion began. In the Dark World, that crap sort of just happened, the other avengers simply don’t have the time to get there before Thor took care of it.
Besides, that’s the problem with Superhero Team stories since day one…
Why? Does Captain American get carried off the field of battle by the other Avengers for a minor knee injury only to come back a few minutes later as if nothing happened?
Why? Does Captain American get carried off the field of battle by the other Avengers for a minor knee injury only to come back a few minutes later as if nothing happened?[/quote]
he just pulled off wearing the cap’s uniform really well.
Other issues aside, someone told me that for the superhero The Flash, they are casting two separate actors for their film and TV versions. Personally this feels odd to me, as it seems obvious that this could easily confuse audiences. You know, if they lack a united front with their world building/collective storytelling and whatnot.
Edit: It’s not like they recast Sam Jackson for those Marvel shows on ABC.
[quote=“Rockefeller”]Other issues aside, someone told me that for the superhero The Flash, they are casting two separate actors for their film and TV versions. Personally this feels odd to me, as it seems obvious that this could easily confuse audiences. You know, if they lack a united front with their world building/collective storytelling and whatnot.
Edit: It’s not like they recast Sam Jackson for those Marvel shows on ABC.[/quote]
If they need to have Fury on for every single episode, then they probably would recast Sam Jackson…
[quote=“Rockefeller”]Other issues aside, someone told me that for the superhero The Flash, they are casting two separate actors for their film and TV versions. Personally this feels odd to me, as it seems obvious that this could easily confuse audiences. You know, if they lack a united front with their world building/collective storytelling and whatnot.
Edit: It’s not like they recast Sam Jackson for those Marvel shows on ABC.[/quote]
That’s because they’re being handled by separate production companies and are not part of the same cinematic universe. Actually, this is happening with Marvel, too; X-Men: Days of Future Past had a version of Quicksilver played by Evan Peters, and Avengers: Age of Ultron will have a different version of him played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Not only are the actors different, the characters’ stories are likely to be completely distinct. And the X-Men version will show up in X-Men: Apocalypse as well! How’s that for confusing?
They may have further problems with characters carried between franchises. Kingpin is set to show up in the Daredevil series, but that doesn’t mean he won’t show up in one of Sony’s Spider-Man movies. I think audiences are by and large sophisticated enough to realize “This is part of the Justice League universe” or “This is not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.”
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]X-Men: Days of Future Past had a version of Quicksilver played by Evan Peters, and Avengers: Age of Ultron will have a different version of him played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Not only are the actors different, the characters’ stories are likely to be completely distinct. And the X-Men version will show up in X-Men: Apocalypse as well! How’s that for confusing?
[/quote]
Since the Avengers is set in the present, and Quick Silver from Days of Future’s past was in his teens in 1973, if those have to be the same Quick Silver then he would be at least be in his 50s in the Avenger universe
That would be pretty cool though, having a old but still really fast quick silver.
It wouldn’t make sense to combine the universes at all though. I wouldn’t believe that aliens could invade New York and Prof. X would have just been sitting by doing nothing. Or that in 1973, mutants would attack President Nixon and SHIELD wouldn’t do anything about it. It’s impossible to put them together at this point.
[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Hokwongwei”]X-Men: Days of Future Past had a version of Quicksilver played by Evan Peters, and Avengers: Age of Ultron will have a different version of him played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Not only are the actors different, the characters’ stories are likely to be completely distinct. And the X-Men version will show up in X-Men: Apocalypse as well! How’s that for confusing?
[/quote]
Since the Avengers is set in the present, and Quick Silver from Days of Future’s past was in his teens in 1973, if those have to be the same Quick Silver then he would be at least be in his 50s in the Avenger universe
That would be pretty cool though, having a old but still really fast quick silver.[/quote]
I can’t believe I’m aware enough of these issues to comment, but the X-Men movies already have an “irretrievably fucked” continuity.
Oh, superhero movies versus comics: I have nothing particularly against comics. It’s just that my limited teen experience with superhero comics (and again now with the occasional Kindle deal) pissed me off - stories never ended, there was always a cliffhanger, and footnotes advised me to pick up other issues to fill in the story. It was all such a naked money-grab. Of course I later learned about to-me more interesting comics (Saga, Y The Last Man, Sandman, Watchmen, and so on), but the superhero business model still irks me.
I think “rebooting” franchises like we saw with Spider-Man and are about to see with Batman is the exact same moneygrab scheme, and like you it really annoys me. Just let a good story end. If the story was bad, take the time to reflect on why (a few decades should do it) before you try again.
Days of Future Past mostly ironed out the continuity problems in the X-men films, but there are still a few glaring ones, like the fact that Peter Dinklage, a white short person, becomes a large black man in X-Men 3. The director basically said “lol i can’t fix them all you know” which is not the attitude I would hope for as a fan.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]I think “rebooting” franchises like we saw with Spider-Man and are about to see with Batman is the exact same moneygrab scheme, and like you it really annoys me. Just let a good story end. If the story was bad, take the time to reflect on why (a few decades should do it) before you try again.
Days of Future Past mostly ironed out the continuity problems in the X-men films, but there are still a few glaring ones, like the fact that Peter Dinklage, a white short person, becomes a large black man in X-Men 3. The director basically said “lol i can’t fix them all you know” which is not the attitude I would hope for as a fan.[/quote]
Moneygrab, shmoneygrab. The reboots turned out to be good. If Nolan didn’t decide to start his own Batman series, we’d still be stuck with images of Clooney and Kilmer as Batman today.
[quote=“Leftywang81”][quote=“Hokwongwei”]I think “rebooting” franchises like we[color=#FF0000] saw [/color]with Spider-Man and [color=#FF0000]are about to see with Batman [/color]is the exact same moneygrab scheme, and like you it really annoys me. Just let a good story end. If the story was bad, take the time to reflect on why (a few decades should do it) before you try again.
Days of Future Past mostly ironed out the continuity problems in the X-men films, but there are still a few glaring ones, like the fact that Peter Dinklage, a white short person, becomes a large black man in X-Men 3. The director basically said “lol i can’t fix them all you know” which is not the attitude I would hope for as a fan.[/quote]
Moneygrab, shmoneygrab. The reboots turned out to be good. If Nolan didn’t decide to start his own Batman series, we’d still be stuck with images of Clooney and Kilmer as Batman today.[/quote]
You haven’t seen the Star Trek/X Men mashups? A complete series.
But then the one that I would like to have a glance at is Star Trek -TOS- and Doctor Who.[/quote]
there’s also the JTL/Avengers mashup.
[/quote]
Oh, now that is horrid. I am generally not too keen on that kind of stuff.
The beauty of most of these franchises are the characters you know. But when the storytelling is pulled like taffy… that is when things can go horribly wrong.
I have read they want another try of Star Trek at TV… sigh
I have read they want another try of Star Trek at TV… sigh[/quote]
if they put intelligence back into the show then maybe it won’t be so bad. if they want to do another series with James T. Kirk then they should probably give the money to the poor.
I have read they want another try of Star Trek at TV… sigh[/quote]
if they put intelligence back into the show then maybe it won’t be so bad. if they want to do another series with James T. Kirk then they should probably give the money to the poor.[/quote]
The main trouble with the remakes is that the studio heads are thinking about how to sell to the Twilight demographic… younger and younger… Little Jimmy Kirk in preschool would be next.
[quote=“Icon”]
The main trouble with the remakes is that the studio heads are thinking about how to sell to the Twilight demographic… younger and younger… Little Jimmy Kirk in preschool would be next.[/quote]
I remember reading before they had to abandon the TV platform, producers were thinking about a series based on life in future San Francisco. Another one is set farther into the future, where the Federation began to fail, called Star Trek: Federation.
The thing I hate about the reboot movie is they destroyed the original time line. I imagine it was done so they can do a James T. Kirk leading Trek show on TV. Since that didn’t happen, it also killed off chances for any Trek shows based on the original canon.
Anyway, it might not be a bad thing that Trek never comes back. Too much canon seems to kill off originality. Enterprise was so bent on tying things to previous series, it lost the chance to be creative on its own…
