Avengers Infinity War - HERE BE SPOILERS!

[drowland]

22 minutes ago, Mrshadow008 said:

Also many is this thread are assuming that Spider-Man’s and Gamoras deaths can not possibly be permanent because they both have upcoming sequels. It is quite possible they are both permanent and here’s why. Guardians of the galaxy 2 takes place 4 years before infinity year and Spider-Man homecoming takes place 2 years before infinity war. Now the plan for Spider-Man has been stated they plan to do a sequel for each year of high school starting with his sophomore year which was obviously homecoming. So the second one would take place a year before infinity war which also means he would also most likely be a senior by the time Thanos shows up. Which means that both guardians 3 and homecoming 2 and 3 could both realistically take place before infinity war. So there is the possibility that both deaths could very well be permanent while not likely it is very possible within the timeline the mcu has currently set up 

 

Not sure about the Guardians but Feige’s already confirmed the Spider-Man movie coming in July 2019 will take place after the events of A4.  That movie will be kicking off phase 4 of the MCU.  I don’t see them doing a movie for Guardians Taking place before IW or A4 unless the story ties into present/future events like Captain Marvel will with A4.  

 

The interesting thing about that is how are they going to market Spider-Man Homecoming 2 when it comes out two months after A4?  They usually start marketing 5-6 months out.  

[Momma There Goes That Man]

5 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 Now you sound naive thinking the person in charge doesn't matter and neither does who they have to answer to.

 

I can't get down with your choice to leave out the comics in your opinion of any comic franchise.  By that logic, you're judging DC by the deplorable job Snyder has done with the live action movies.  Professor X and Magneto are based off MLK and Malcom X and Stan Lee wanting to find some way to talk about the Civil Rights movement, you really gonna want to throw that away because you don't like what they did with Phoenix in X3?

 

Where did I say that? I’m not leaving out the comics of my opinion of a comic franchise. But we are talking about movies specifically  here. I judge the movies based on the movies and comics based on the comics. I don’t project character motivations and plot points from the comics into the movies. If they show it in the movie, I evaluate it based on that. I’m not critiquing comic book Cap based on the movies. I am critiquing MCU movie Cap based on his motivations, dialogue and the plot points shown in the movies.   

 

Do you do the reverse as well? Do you judge and think of DC comics/characters based on the DC movies? 

 

The movies have to be judged on their own merits. You can’t praise a ****ty film adaptation (in general not saying the MCu is this) that’s based on a book just because the book is amazing. That’s all I’m saying. 

[Llevron]

So when do they introduce Squirl Girl?

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, Mrshadow008 said:

 Also many is this thread are assuming that Spider-Man’s and Gamoras deaths can not possibly be permanent because they both have upcoming sequels. It is quite possible they are both permanent and here’s why.

Nah, Spidey and Black Panther are cash cows. So, you can't kill 'em off. More importantly, Dr. Strange went through millions of alternate timelines to find the one way to defeat Thanos and save everyone. Clearly, that foreshadows that Strange surrendering the stone without a fight or struggle is part of that one way. Hence, using comic book logic... everyone's death means that they must win and everyone will be reborn.

[ixcuincle]

It's obvious the deaths aren't permanent 

 

Heck, Vision's "death" was even reversed 

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Where did I say that? I’m not leaving out the comics of my opinion of a comic franchise. But we are talking about movies specifically  here. I judge the movies based on the movies and comics based on the comics. I don’t project character motivations and plot points from the comics into the movies. If they show it in the movie, I evaluate it based on that. I’m not critiquing comic book Cap based on the movies. I am critiquing MCU movie Cap based on his motivations, dialogue and the plot points shown in the movies.   

 

Do you do the reverse as well? Do you judge and think of DC comics/characters based on the DC movies? 

 

The movies have to be judged on their own merits. You can’t praise a ****ty film adaptation (in general not saying the MCu is this) that’s based on a book just because the book is amazing. That’s all I’m saying. 

 

So below is what you said so that's why I took it the way I did:

 

 

11 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

I dont care about the comics. In the movies, none of that is reflected. 

 

 

I get your frustration, but I'm telling you, that's not fair, you shouldn't hold it against the movies for not explaining everything that's in the comics.  We see film adaptations of books all the time, and for me, that's the way I look at these comic book movies when I can tell they are trying to stay close to the source material. Some straight disrespect the cannon so badly that I basically want to ignore them.

 

Yes, the DC movies (and Marvel movies) matter in how I view the comics if I can tell they are trying to stay close to the source material.  We see timeline contradictions and different interpretations of these characters all the time in the comics because some of them have been around for a very very long time, seeing that in TV or film interpretations doesnt shock me at all, I don't understand why it would shock anyone else.

 

At the end of the day, I still look at the comics as the source material, not the other way around.  If a director wants to base his movie off off the comics, I expect artistic license and that if he/she tried to explain everything in the movie that was explained in the comics, the movie would always be twice as long.  It's the same thing you see with other movie adaptations of books.

 

What your talking about almost sounds like the MCCU is a completely different universe then what's in the comics even though it's based on the comics.  That doesn't make sense.

 

PS:  anyone can correct me in this, but Batman the Animated Series was a big deal because it expanded on the villains in a way that what people liked seeped into the comics.  Harley Quinn is a perfect example of this, she started in the show and was so popular she ended up in the comics.  I'm not sure how I feel about the tail wagging the dog in regards to stuff like cartoons, movies, and video games (Injustice comes to mind) in regards to cannon.  It's a bigger discussion for me then an infinity war thread, I'd need to look at where books fit into Star Wars and Star Trek franchises to compare and formulate a better opinion on this (since books came after both started, opposite of comics, but that closest thing that comes to mind) 

 

 

[justice98]

13 hours ago, Mrshadow008 said:

Also many is this thread are assuming that Spider-Man’s and Gamoras deaths can not possibly be permanent because they both have upcoming sequels. It is quite possible they are both permanent and here’s why. Guardians of the galaxy 2 takes place 4 years before infinity year and Spider-Man homecoming takes place 2 years before infinity war. Now the plan for Spider-Man has been stated they plan to do a sequel for each year of high school starting with his sophomore year which was obviously homecoming. So the second one would take place a year before infinity war which also means he would also most likely be a senior by the time Thanos shows up. Which means that both guardians 3 and homecoming 2 and 3 could both realistically take place before infinity war. So there is the possibility that both deaths could very well be permanent while not likely it is very possible within the timeline the mcu has currently set up 

 

Sony would be never go along with Marvel killing off Spider-Man, or doing anything that would otherwise restrict the property's future opportunities in any way.  

 

So yeah, they probably will make Spidey 2 take place before IW similar to Ant-Man 2, but I would bet anything the character isnt permanently dead.

 

On 5/5/2018 at 9:52 PM, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Why did that even hurt him anyway? Hes a robot he doesn’t have nerves and he can turn into a ghost and float thru solid objects. Why does a stab suddenly near fatally wound him 

 

stark is a human and was stabbed by the most powerful being in the universe, sprayed a little icy hot on it and he was good to go 

 

The glaive itself is a pretty powerful weapon.  It can basically cut through anything in the universe.  And Vision noted it prevented him from phasing.  It's not just a mundane, nondescript weapon.

[justice98]

12 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Where did I say that? I’m not leaving out the comics of my opinion of a comic franchise. But we are talking about movies specifically  here. I judge the movies based on the movies and comics based on the comics. I don’t project character motivations and plot points from the comics into the movies. If they show it in the movie, I evaluate it based on that. I’m not critiquing comic book Cap based on the movies. I am critiquing MCU movie Cap based on his motivations, dialogue and the plot points shown in the movies.   

 

Do you do the reverse as well? Do you judge and think of DC comics/characters based on the DC movies? 

 

The movies have to be judged on their own merits. You can’t praise a ****ty film adaptation (in general not saying the MCu is this) that’s based on a book just because the book is amazing. That’s all I’m saying. 

 

But they always incorporate things from the comics that are not fully explained to the uninitiated.  There is a certain shorthand in these movies that sometimes makes things make more sense.

[Going Commando]

One last point about Civil War:  To accept that the Superhuman Registration Act is good and that supporting it is the right move, you have to ultimately accept that the government is better suited for policing and directing the Avengers than literally the most heroic beings in the universe are at doing so.

 

I think it's clear that Stark was in a funk in Civil War and that he wasn't thinking clearly due to the profound grief and guilt he felt over both creating Ultron and the loss of his parents.

[Zguy28]

12 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

One last point about Civil War:  To accept that the Superhuman Registration Act is good and that supporting it is the right move, you have to ultimately accept that the government is better suited for policing and directing the Avengers than literally the most heroic beings in the universe are at doing so.

 

I think it's clear that Stark was in a funk in Civil War and that he wasn't thinking clearly due to the profound grief and guilt he felt over both creating Ultron and the loss of his parents.

Which was done (creating Ultron/tinkering with the Mind Stone) without consulting the rest of the team. It wasn't Cap that drove the wedge, it was Stark. Saying Cap caused the split of the team with his decision is ignoring this. Ultimately I don't care, nor do I have to decide which one I agree with, because its fiction.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

21 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

One last point about Civil War:  To accept that the Superhuman Registration Act is good and that supporting it is the right move, you have to ultimately accept that the government is better suited for policing and directing the Avengers than literally the most heroic beings in the universe are at doing so.

 

I think it's clear that Stark was in a funk in Civil War and that he wasn't thinking clearly due to the profound grief and guilt he felt over both creating Ultron and the loss of his parents.

 

It was not the Superhuman Registration Act from the comics tho. It was the Sokovia Accords which we don't actually get a whole lot of details on to know that it is similar based on what is presented in the movie. What is shown, it really just sounds like it amounts to getting approval before they run their missions or that the Accords would require them to go on missions, which we can assume would be in agreement with all the countries in the Accords. Which is another point, it wasn't one country that would be controlling them, it was the entire world basically, 117 nations.

 

The Avengers are protectors of the world, the world should have some say in that, especially when the Avengers are racking up collateral damage and deaths in massive levels whenever they see fit. They could show up, wipe out an entire city "helping" without anyone knowing what is happening or why etc.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, justice98 said:

But they always incorporate things from the comics that are not fully explained to the uninitiated.  There is a certain shorthand in these movies that sometimes makes things make more sense.

 

They have some nods to the comics but regarding plot details and character motivations, we can only go by what is presented in the movies. These movies aren't written for people that have read comic books for 30 years. They have to stand on their own or the causal audience will think these movies are incomplete and make no sense. As such, the motivations for and risk/reward for Cap in the movie are pretty weak and costly. 

 

Oh well. it's been beaten to death at this point.

Anyway...

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

19 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

It was not the Superhuman Registration Act from the comics tho. 

 

It's just called differently to better fit the events leading up to it.  It's run by UN instead of US, but Thunderbolt Ross (who has been established as untrustworthy) is still running it.  Huge part of it was keeping heroes indefinitely without trial if they violated the accords, which being unconstitutional I still don't understand why you think Cap should've supported it anyway.

 

I mean, if you insist on going on only what you get from the movies then you're right, we should just drop this.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

12 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

What your talking about almost sounds like the MCCU is a completely different universe then what's in the comics even though it's based on the comics.  That doesn't make sense.

 

Yes, it is. It is based on the comics but is not the same as the comic book universe. Hence why they are retelling stories and have new origins etc for characters. It doesn't make sense for it to be the same. They are based on the same universe and adapting stories from the comics but you have to view them separately. Otherwise, explain why the xmen arent here and all the other nonsense that happens in comics doesn't happen in the movies. 

 

The movies are standalone from the comics. They tell comic stories, some more differently than others but the characters are different, the details are different etc. It's not even fair to the movies to pull your 30 year comic book history and project it onto the characters and stories in the movies. 

 

The Dark Knight Trilogy was loosely based on several Batman comics and graphic novels. However, I am not assuming that Jim Gordon's daughter Batgirl exists in the dark knight trilogy or even that she will at some point because it's never shown in the movies.

 

You're basically making fan fiction at this point and interpreting the movies how you want to based on your history with the comic books. that's fine if you want to do that but it doesn't make the character motivations or plot any different for the rest of that aren't doing that. 

Just now, Renegade7 said:

Huge part of it was keeping heroes indefinitely without trial if they violated the accords, which being unconstitutional I still don't understand why you think Cap should've supported it anyway.

 

See again, this is never mentioned in the movies so how would anyone know that unless they read the comics? You can't bring that into the movies, it makes no sense to do so. 

[Bang]

saw it over the weekend..   great movie.

I really liked Thanos,, instead of just giving us a big bad guy, they gave us a character with depth. Very well done.

I loved his henchmen, especially Ebony Maw..  the telekinesis effects with him were awesome.

 

As to all the deaths.. I was most surprised by Dr. Strange. Typically, he's above all of that stuff, protected. Black Panther was also a surprise.

But permanence?

This is Marvel. Death is never permanent. There is a Time gem... Thanos used it to put Vision's stone back together. Captain Marvel using it to restore everyone is highly likely.

 

Hulk was a bit of a mystery, though. Hulk did not get angrier and stronger as Hulk does. Thanos took him down physically, which is practically impossible. I get that it demonstrates how powerful Thanos is, but Hulk just doesn't go down that easily, and he certainly doesn't get 'scared'... so i am not sure what all that was about.  Thanos maybe could physically take the Hulk, but Hulk's main 'power' is that he can continue to gain strength, never gets tired, has a healing factor that is more powerful than Wolverine's, and will keep getting up, and keep getting stronger. Hulk does not get cowed. He gets mad.

 

I really did enjoy Dr. Strange in this movie.. i liked the Dr. Strange movie a lot, and I thought his character really shined in this film. Cumberbatch is the absolute perfect choice to play him. I also really liked the scenes with the cloak, Iron Man and Spiderman,, good comic relief, but not too much. Swatting Captain America's hand was funny.

 

Thor showed up. I really liked that. Thor has been a lot of comic relief in the previous movies, and when he shows up in Wakanda with the axe.. holy smokes, that was awesome. THAT is Thor.

 

Fun movie. Can't wait for more. Keep making them, and i will keep buying tickets. They are based on the comics,, sort of.  This movie held elements of both The early 90s Infinity Gauntlet story and the 20-13 "Infinity" crossover series.

Marvel movies seem to alternate between the traditional universe and characters, and the Ultimate universe and characters...  like they choose the best elements of each and work it into something that is current. (except Hulk... he never has been much of a team player... even if Bruce banner was, typically once Hulk showed up he fought everyone in front of him, heroes included.  And if they ever do get around to explaining why he was where he was in Thor Ragnarok,, well, lets jut say he wouldn't be too happy to see any of them again. no little "i'm back" appearance. More like a "Hulk back to kill everyone and smash everything!"  and on a personal note, i'd love it if Hulk used Hulk vernacular..  Bug-man, Blue-Man, Long-Hair.. etc. etc. Hulk has nothing but contempt for everything and everyone.)

 

~Bang

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Yes, it is. It is based on the comics but is not the same as the comic book universe. Hence why they are retelling stories and have new origins etc for characters. It doesn't make sense for it to be the same. They are based on the same universe and adapting stories from the comics but you have to view them separately. Otherwise, explain why the xmen arent here and all the other nonsense that happens in comics doesn't happen in the movies. 

 

The movies are standalone from the comics. They tell comic stories, some more differently than others but the characters are different, the details are different etc. It's not even fair to the movies to pull your 30 year comic book history and project it onto the characters and stories in the movies. 

 

The Dark Knight Trilogy was loosely based on several Batman comics and graphic novels. However, I am not assuming that Jim Gordon's daughter Batgirl exists in the dark knight trilogy or even that she will at some point because it's never shown in the movies.

 

You're basically making fan fiction at this point and interpreting the movies how you want to based on your history with the comic books. that's fine if you want to do that but it doesn't make the character motivations or plot any different for the rest of that aren't doing that. 

 

See again, this is never mentioned in the movies so how would anyone know that unless they read the comics? You can't bring that into the movies, it makes no sense to do so. 

 

This isn't the Dark Knight Trilogy we're talking about, Civil War was an actual series and the movie is based on it considering what they already establish what was in MCCU and who they had rights to.  Them keeping people indefinitely without trial was addressed in the movie, and that's what they were doing to the heroes who got captured after the airport fight.  You can also look online for better explanation of events in the MCCU if you need clarification.

 

I disagree with you on trying to say what happened in the comics doesn't matter in regards to the movies.  If you've ever gone into a movie where you read the book first, do you just assume everything is done from scratch, or that they are sticking to the book unless they say otherwise and where?  You're doing the same thing you're accusing me of by saying the movies are meant to be interpreted based on the way you see it, not the way its meant to be seen. 

 

Have you ever sat down and listened to an interview of any of the directors on the MCCU universe to understand what they were trying to do with each movie?

[First Colony]

21 hours ago, ixcuincle said:

I recently watched GoTG 1 and 2 this weekend, I was curious why they never showed Thanos going after the Power Stone in Infinity War, as it was put safely in the hands of the Nova Corps on Xandar at the ending of 1. And if he did go after it, why didn't John C Reilly or Glenn Close warn the Guardians of the Galaxy that someone was trying to take the stone? 

 

The cynic in me says they didn't show this because they didn't want to pay John C Reilly or Glen Close to be in this movie.

[The Evil Genius]

Bang..I think Thor:Ragnarok explains some of the Banner/Hulk problems. 

 

They had some issues....speaking of which. What happened to the Revengers? ?

[justice98]

5 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Bang..I think Thor:Ragnarok explains some of the Banner/Hulk problems. 

 

They had some issues....speaking of which. What happened to the Revengers? ?

 

Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't care less about Banner.  He's not that compelling where I wanna see an entire movie of him and literally 1 minute of Hulk.

[Bang]

16 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Bang..I think Thor:Ragnarok explains some of the Banner/Hulk problems. 

 

They had some issues....speaking of which. What happened to the Revengers? ?

Assuming you've read "Planet Hulk".. i think it would be a fun movie on it's own, but I think there's some legal issue with more hulk standalone movies?

Hulk has never liked the Avengers, he has viewed them as enemies since Avengers #3. He was a Defender, and he never did like it when he had to work with them, but he did call them his "friends". Dr. Strange should have a rapport with Hulk, Hulk trusts him, but he doesn't much like him. (like anyone else.)

 

It would also be able to introduce Silver Surfer... since it seems the FF are never going to be in the movie-verse, I would love to see them be able to bring in the Surfer and Galactus somehow. I thought the Surfer looked GREAT in the second FF movie. Too good to leave on the sidelines,, especially since he is one of their more popular secondary characters.

 

Now, in looking at the ending, who Fury was trying to call before Samuel L. Jackson's contract was up..it got me thinking about other characters along the Thanos mythos,, namely Adam Warlock. I'd be interested to see what they could do with him, because the first Warlock appearances were as if Marvel was trying to use him as a Jesus figure... but the later storylines that took him into a much more cosmic power was really cool, and he does have an infinity gem, i think.

Didn't we see a cocoon in one of the movies in the background, foreshadowing Warlock?

 

~Bang

10 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't care less about Banner.  He's not that compelling where I wanna see an entire movie of him and literally 1 minute of Hulk.

Definitely. We KNOW they can do Hulk right.. the opening scenes of Age of Ultron showed that. Berserk raging killing machine.

Frankly, i'd love it if they did a movie that just has the heroes taking on an enraged Hulk. "the Ultimates" would be great. 

 

If it isn't obvious,, i love me some Hulk.

 

~Bang

[Spaceman Spiff]

Saw it for a second time this weekend, liked it even better.  The parts that I thought were slow and kinda boring (probably the only one here who doesn't like Gamora, so most scenes with her, especially where dad throws her (thankfully) off a cliff) weren't so slow and boring the second time around.

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

If they use Adam Warlock, I'd suspect he'd be introduced in a post credits scene of Captain Marvel. At least that's how I'd do it.

[Ghost of]

Did someone say Snyder did a deplorable job with the DC movies, even though Justice League was the worst because they Whedoned it up and there was something weighty and real about the Superman and Batman he was building and how it was based off comic books (if people would bother to actually read the classics of the genre and not regurgitate Comics Code nonsense as being THE platonic ideal of a character)?

 

These Marvel films are like cotton candy, tasty treats for a moment then they're gone.  What lasting impact have any of them made?  

 

Is no one else tired of cape**** movies by now? Jesus Christ

[Momma There Goes That Man]

55 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

This isn't the Dark Knight Trilogy we're talking about, Civil War was an actual series and the movie is based on it considering what they already establish what was in MCCU and who they had rights to.  Them keeping people indefinitely without trial was addressed in the movie, and that's what they were doing to the heroes who got captured after the airport fight.  You can also look online for better explanation of events in the MCCU if you need clarification.

 

These movies are written to appeal to casual audiences that have never read a comic book before, not people that spent their lives reading comic books and know what the Superhero Registration Act is. These movies HAVE to stand on their own merits or they simply do not work as movies. None of the comic book Civil War stuff was really addressed in the movie. The imprisonment was established in the movie simply by the fact that if they didn't sign the Accords, the world would recognize them as outlaws. They are then locked up. Nothing is mentioned about lack of trial or constitutional rights being violated or that being any concern among anyone in their decisions to sign or not. 

 

55 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I disagree with you on trying to say what happened in the comics doesn't matter in regards to the movies.  If you've ever gone into a movie where you read the book first, do you just assume everything is done from scratch, or that they are sticking to the book unless they say otherwise and where?  You're doing the same thing you're accusing me of by saying the movies are meant to be interpreted based on the way you see it, not the way its meant to be seen. 

 

I love The Great Gatsby book. The recent movie with Leonard DiCaprio i enjoyed quite a bit as an interpretation of that book. If the movie had not shown or completely changed Gatsby's motivations for turning to illegal activity in order to build wealth, I would have judged the movie accordingly based on if it made sense within the context of the movie. it may still have been a good movie even if they went in another direction. Separately, I would have also judged it based on it's quality as an adaptation of a book that I loved. They are compartmentalized. However, the movie didn't just assume that people would know his motivations from the book and thus they could omit them from the movie. That is bad storytelling and bad movie making. They are explained in the movie and in this case, they align with the book. There are lots of movies that I can enjoy as good while also being bad adaptations of the particular book or source material. 

 

The MCU movies are meant to be able to be watched and understood by people who do not know the comics. That is why they spend time establishing characters, origins, motivations etc again even though everybody in the comics is already familiar with them. Game of Thrones is another example of this. The show differs quite dramatically from the books but the show is written as a standalone piece that can be entirely understood with 0 knowledge of the books. That is exactly how the MCU movies are written and intended. 

 

Quote

You're doing the same thing you're accusing me of by saying the movies are meant to be interpreted based on the way you see it, not the way its meant to be seen.

 

Again the movie is meant to be interpreted based on what they decided to actually put in the movie. Anything else is just you bringing what you want to the characters and stories. If they wanted the comic book motivations and plot to be part of the movie, they would have included it in the movie. 

[The Evil Genius]

This one hurts.