The Spoiler That Changed the World

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

MovieBob:

Mikkaddo:
/snip

What's funny is, people are SO distracted by this little inside joke, they're missing all the ACTUAL references surrounding that same part. Example: Is NO ONE the least bit curious to know how it is that Nick Fury knew Howard Stark, apparently in some kind of professional capacity? Wouldn't that make him A LOT older than he appears, potentially? Also, I haven't seen it again to verify yet, but apparently there's file-photos of Antarctica in that S.H.I.E.L.D. case - what's that about? and Fury has a marked map of Africa on his safe-house wall - Wakanda? Black Panther?

Im going to be as nice as I can about this. Anyone that knows the original Nick Fury knows he was alive in WW2. Unlike Cap, who was frozen, he was given an experimintal drug that slowed his aging, he still looks in his early forties with a touch of gray in his hair.

Now I can see why they chose the Ultimates model of Nick, how the hell else you going to get Sam Jackson?(Btw I hate the marvel's Ultimate line and hope they stick to true marvel canon) But everything about his origins should still be canon untill said otherwise in the Avengers movie.

For you to say say "Wouldnt Nick fury be older than he looks?" Tells me your completly oblivious to the Marvel-verse. Do some research, I'll give you my Marvel encyclopedia so you can at least have a laymans understanding.

Wow, I didn't realize so many people dislike Thor. I mena, he's the freaking God of thunder and lightening, what more do you want?!

I speak as someone who has had to reference Wikipedia many times reading this thread - mainly to see what is so good about Captain America, as well as to learn of Mandarin and why he's revered so.

My knowledge on the Marvel universe is contained primarily within their cinema adaptations, with some knowledge on other characters vaguely recalled from childhood cartoons (mainly X-Men and Spiderman - how I was disappointed by my favourite Gambit in Origins).

As such, I feel it necessary to state that each and every film, no matter how grounded they attempt to make the Universe in which they reside, is viewed with the same fantastical view. To the extent that all superheroes live in the same world anyway - as effort is always taken to make sure the viewer knows this is Earth.

As a result, even though Iron Man 1 did a good job of being mildly plausible within our real world constraints, it is still tarred with the "man that can shoot laser beams from his eyes" believability. In that it isn't.

But we (as in the collective majority) don't watch these films for their real world correlation, nor their continuity between each film as part of a greater mother structure. We watch them for fantastical fights, with maybe a bit of story to tie it together.

Where Bob's analogy falls flat is that the Godfather for all intents and purposes could be actual historical events and Star Wars couldn't. Iron Man and Thor are both in tone with one another.

That being said, I know what he was trying to state; in that Iron Man is no longer "believable" as he has been introduced into Thor's world. For the audience majority, he never was as he was always part of the super family.

Primus1985:

Im going to be as nice as I can about this. Anyone that knows the original Nick Fury knows he was alive in WW2. Unlike Cap, who was frozen, he was given an experimintal drug that slowed his aging, he still looks in his early forties with a touch of gray in his hair.

Um... yeah, I know. That's why I brought it up ;)

I don't know about anyone else, but the easter egg that excited me the most wasn't Cap's shield or Thor's hammer. It was when Tony started calling his little semi sentient robotic arm "U." They even had a couple of shots of a U stamped on it's hydraulics. U is for Ultron, or am I the only one who thinks that Tony's abused little robot sidekick is going to become one of the Avengers biggest foes????

P.S. I know that Ultron was created by Hank Pym, not Tony Stark, but I'm pretty sure any chance of an Ant Man movie is dead.

Rabid Badger:
I'm pretty sure any chance of an Ant Man movie is dead.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Well I hope we're still gold for a She-Hulk movie.

also - I can't believe I forgot to wait through the credits. :P

Rabid Badger:
I don't know about anyone else, but the easter egg that excited me the most wasn't Cap's shield or Thor's hammer. It was when Tony started calling his little semi sentient robotic arm "U." They even had a couple of shots of a U stamped on it's hydraulics. U is for Ultron, or am I the only one who thinks that Tony's abused little robot sidekick is going to become one of the Avengers biggest foes????

P.S. I know that Ultron was created by Hank Pym, not Tony Stark, but I'm pretty sure any chance of an Ant Man movie is dead.

I can't decide whether that's really dumb or really awesome.

Rabid Badger:
Where Bob's analogy falls flat is that the Godfather for all intents and purposes could be actual historical events and Star Wars couldn't. Iron Man and Thor are both in tone with one another.

they're really not though.

Primus1985:
Now I can see why they chose the Ultimates model of Nick, how the hell else you going to get Sam Jackson?(Btw I hate the marvel's Ultimate line and hope they stick to true marvel canon) But everything about his origins should still be canon untill said otherwise in the Avengers movie.

the movies don't really follow any comic line continuity or cannon. Rather, they are like a new series in and of themselves... like, original Iron Man, Ultimate Iron Man (which reallllly sucked, what sort of origin is that? and giving tony stark real super powers just to explain how he survives being in his SUPER ARMOR is silly), The Iron Man movies.

I was never a big fan of Marvel's Thor actually. Particularly not his design. I'd want him to be big, and fat with red hair and beard like he is in a comic I've seen based on the mythology. That would have been something.

Thats exactly why Thor never did fit in with the "realistic" movie slant things are taking, but let's face it...I'd rather they include Norse Gods than make Thor just some dude with a scientifically enhanced hammer that isn't the son of a Norse God.

We knew this was coming, so relax.

...except I like the Iron Man and Hulk movies better when there wasn't time travel, or parallel universes, or magic.

Can you imagine how freaking terrible the next Batman movie will be if the series that has been grounded in 99 percent reality introduces Killer Croc or Clayface or any character that can do something super-human like fly, shape shift, or turn invisible? The correct answer is "very freaking terrible" just in case you were thinking it would be cool. It wouldn't be cool.

Movies that ask us to suspend our belief usually only ask us to suspend our belief only so much and usually only in one or two areas. Why do you think the last Indiana Jones movie sucked so much? Because they went beyond what our suspended belief could tolerate with freaking space aliens.

I'm afraid introducing Thor into Iron Man and The Hulk's universe will be more than we as the viewers are able to accept. I'm cautiously pessimistic. But who knows, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

A fascinating perspective, and one I find I agree with. This does appear to be a change, but not sure it is a sea change. I mean, how different is Thor from iron man anyway? Just how the power comes about, the possibilities are all the same I think.

Altorin:
I actually sat through the credits, and saw this scene, and my response was a little different... it was "OH MY GOD NO! NOT THOR!!"

I mean, I like the character design in a vacuum, but I don't like him in the context of everything else.. It is exactly this "genre changing twist" described in this article that I don't like.

When I played Marvel Ultimate Alliance, the thing that bothered me the most was this twisting sense of reality. One minute you're on a SHIELD airbase, the next you're in Atlantis, Then you're in Hell, then you're in Asgard, and through the whole thing, I was just like "OMG STOP I CANT TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY AT ALL"

I'm going to see the Thor movie. I'm probably going to like it. But it's going to have to be REALLY fucking good, and make a LOT of fucking sense for it to not bring down the whole Avengers crossover movie idea in my eyes. They also better have a decent design for Thor's costume. There's been a couple throughout the years, and none of them would be very good for these awesome new film costumes.

Don't all of the marvel characters live in the same universe? Once we have the Avengers, what's to stop them from enlisting a teenage spider man or requesting the help from the X-Men? Can't wait for shit like THAT to start happening.

Just don't care for Thor's contribution. And if they try and connect that shitty Ghost Rider movie to this, I'll cry a nerdy tear

I did have a literal Nerdgasm seeing a prototype Captain America shield in Howard Stark's possession. What could that mean? Howard Stark working on Captain America before he died? That's the movie I really want to see next. What is the element that Tony Stark invented (Or rather, his father somehow invented by drawing it. Somehow that worked.) It wasn't named in the movie (I don't think). Could it be Vibranium?

I mean, the Cap shield was missing a lot of its bulk.. Howard Stark was working on the ultimate shield for Cap, to replace the kite shield shaped one from world war 2.. But didn't have the technology to create the element he knew he'd need to create the perfect shield for captain america.. and then Cap is lost in combat.. the shield and the element go unfinished.. Howard Stark passes both on to his son. It's very feasible.. maybe that was explained as vibranium and I'm postulating over the explained, but I don't think it was, I would have noticed that.

This was exactly what I was getting from it. Thor just doesn't fit, in my eyes. Spider-man or X-men could, even though those are pretty fantastical, but getting into norse mythology in my eyes seems a stretch too far. It'd probably work in isolation, but not with the rest. It's been pointed out that Iron man often has crazy outer space and time travelling adventures. I never thought that fit the character in the first place either, and the focus of the movies of not being too serious, but at least somewhat grounded was exactly the right tone for iron man.

Also, that's a very good theory on Cap's shield. It'd seem almost too coincidental that Iron man develops a new element his father was working on, the same man that had an unfinished or broken shield that's identical to Captain america's. It's far too plausible to not be true!
I laughed out loud when he used it as a paperweight as well.

I sat through Iron Man 2 specifically because I wanted to see the surprise at the end of the credits. When I saw the hammer I jumped out of my seat and screamed. I'm not even a Marvel fan, but just the thought of a Thor movie being made put me in a very happy place.

WolfThomas:
I think the Thor magic thing could be handwaved quite easily through dialogue

Captain America: So he's actually a magical god?
Iron Man: (flippantly) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (quoting A. Clark), convergent evolution, alternate univer-
Thor (entering): If only it was that easy Mr Stark

That way you can accept either explanation that he's actually a Norse gods with magic powers or just an alien with advanced technology that resembles a myth.

I hope they do it like this. I loved thor in the ultimate's because the whole "is he a god or just a schizophrenic delusional superhero" was awesome and it played out to a perfect climax in ultimate's 2.

Don't Poke My Bobcat:
I speak as someone who has had to reference Wikipedia many times reading this thread - mainly to see what is so good about Captain America, as well as to learn of Mandarin and why he's revered so.

My knowledge on the Marvel universe is contained primarily within their cinema adaptations, with some knowledge on other characters vaguely recalled from childhood cartoons (mainly X-Men and Spiderman - how I was disappointed by my favourite Gambit in Origins).

As such, I feel it necessary to state that each and every film, no matter how grounded they attempt to make the Universe in which they reside, is viewed with the same fantastical view. To the extent that all superheroes live in the same world anyway - as effort is always taken to make sure the viewer knows this is Earth.

As a result, even though Iron Man 1 did a good job of being mildly plausible within our real world constraints, it is still tarred with the "man that can shoot laser beams from his eyes" believability. In that it isn't.

But we (as in the collective majority) don't watch these films for their real world correlation, nor their continuity between each film as part of a greater mother structure. We watch them for fantastical fights, with maybe a bit of story to tie it together.

Where Bob's analogy falls flat is that the Godfather for all intents and purposes could be actual historical events and Star Wars couldn't. Iron Man and Thor are both in tone with one another.

That being said, I know what he was trying to state; in that Iron Man is no longer "believable" as he has been introduced into Thor's world. For the audience majority, he never was as he was always part of the super family.

How does iron man fit in to the "man who shoots lasers out of his eyes" concept at all? He fits into that universe but his movies were always based in science, even if it was fantasy science this is still the first time they go into the realm of magic.
Saying a magic god hammer is the same as fancy science things that don't really exist makes no sense at all. They are still two different forms of fantasy and personally I hope they let these two viewpoints challenge the other's world view as they should. Otherwise it's just a viking guy shooting lightning next to an almost cyborg while they exchange witty banter.

Don't Poke My Bobcat:
As such, I feel it necessary to state that each and every film, no matter how grounded they attempt to make the Universe in which they reside, is viewed with the same fantastical view. To the extent that all superheroes live in the same world anyway - as effort is always taken to make sure the viewer knows this is Earth.

As a result, even though Iron Man 1 did a good job of being mildly plausible within our real world constraints, it is still tarred with the "man that can shoot laser beams from his eyes" believability. In that it isn't.

Except, and this is where things get ABSOLUTELY CRAZY, the Iron Man movies don't place in the same universe as the X-Men movies.

Marvel has this lovely thing going on called the Multiverse. It's basically just a bunch (around 700, probably more) of parallel universes where they can dump alternate continuities and weird 'What-If?' stories (see: Marvel Zombies) without polluting the central universe (known as 'Earth-616'). Occasionally characters will jump from one universe to another, either for a half-assed character 'resurrections', or reasons that may involve an actual plot.

The movies? They all take place in their own segregated Universes. The X-Men series is in Earth-10005, Spider-Man gets Earth-96283, The Fantastic 4 takes place in Earth-121698, and Blade gets Earth-26320. Daredevil and Elecktra share Earth-701306, while Hulk, Iron Man, Thor and Captain America call Earth-199999 home.

But yeah... Godly Weapon showing up at the end of a movie that was built on science-based superheroes? BAD IDEA! I would have preferred Mr. SHIELD Agent standing on a boat, observing the extraction of a frozen Captain America from the chilly waters of the North Pole.

aithilin:

Dr. Dan Challis:
I'm not sure how any sane person could expect an Avengers movie to be anything other than a total disaster. In fact, I'd be willing to lay down money that it winds up being such a fiasco that it effectively sounds the death knell for comic book movies for a good decade. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Definitely agree with you there. There's a fine line between homage and fanservice, and fanservice sucks. I'll take Iron Man, but the Avengers were never very good to being with.

Why do people have to judge things before they are released?
Maybe you never got into them but I loved the ultimates comics and that seems to be the direction their going with this. Great stories and great characters, don't see why people assume it will suck based on what they know about the cartoony version of the avengers.

T_ConX:

Don't Poke My Bobcat:
As such, I feel it necessary to state that each and every film, no matter how grounded they attempt to make the Universe in which they reside, is viewed with the same fantastical view. To the extent that all superheroes live in the same world anyway - as effort is always taken to make sure the viewer knows this is Earth.

As a result, even though Iron Man 1 did a good job of being mildly plausible within our real world constraints, it is still tarred with the "man that can shoot laser beams from his eyes" believability. In that it isn't.

Except, and this is where things get ABSOLUTELY CRAZY, the Iron Man movies don't place in the same universe as the X-Men movies.

Marvel has this lovely thing going on called the Multiverse. It's basically just a bunch (around 700, probably more) of parallel universes where they can dump alternate continuities and weird 'What-If?' stories (see: Marvel Zombies) without polluting the central universe (known as 'Earth-616'). Occasionally characters will jump from one universe to another, either for a half-assed character 'resurrections', or reasons that may involve an actual plot.

The movies? They all take place in their own segregated Universes. The X-Men series is in Earth-10005, Spider-Man gets Earth-96283, The Fantastic 4 takes place in Earth-121698, and Blade gets Earth-26320. Daredevil and Elecktra share Earth-701306, while Hulk, Iron Man, Thor and Captain America call Earth-199999 home.

But yeah... Godly Weapon showing up at the end of a movie that was built on science-based superheroes? BAD IDEA! I would have preferred Mr. SHIELD Agent standing on a boat, observing the extraction of a frozen Captain America from the chilly waters of the North Pole.

That, for me, is what made the ultimates fascinating. Thor was like the psychic or new age healer in a room full of scientists and psychologists. They had ways of explaining away his powers as nothing more than the superhuman ability to control lightning or super strength, while he always claimed to be a norse god in the flesh. A good writer can take this material and make an awesome story out of it.
Yes if everybody just accepts the fact that the god of lightning is helping out, it would be pretty stupid but i really doubt thats what they're going to do.
If your unfamiliar with the ultimates series (the best way to do an avengers movie is this comic series, seriously just a scene by scene adaption would be fucking perfect) they make thor the most interesting character in the team in the sequel, at least IMO.

SPOILER*
He starts to question his own sanity as everyone around him becomes more and more convinced that he's a super powered schizophrenic. He talks to "Odin" in a cafe but is shocked when the waitress tells him there's nobody else there.
It gets even weirder in another comic series involving norse gods. Not sure if this was a "what if" or one of those "in the future" things but it's revealed that the "norse gods' were just aliens with no home planet who came to earth. Humans started giving them names like odin and thor and loki so we gave them their identity. Before they were just nomads but they stumbled across this intelligent but weak race of people and now they have an identity as gods. Almost like some kind of intergalactic schizophrenia.

I hope they don't fuck it up by just making him a magic norse god and ending it there, but I do have faith in these people.

EDIT: BTW, did you make up those universe names or did they really explain the movie versions of the heroes in one of the off canon comics? If so I really need to read that, sounds kind of funny.

derelix:

aithilin:

Dr. Dan Challis:
I'm not sure how any sane person could expect an Avengers movie to be anything other than a total disaster. In fact, I'd be willing to lay down money that it winds up being such a fiasco that it effectively sounds the death knell for comic book movies for a good decade. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Definitely agree with you there. There's a fine line between homage and fanservice, and fanservice sucks. I'll take Iron Man, but the Avengers were never very good to being with.

Why do people have to judge things before they are released?
Maybe you never got into them but I loved the ultimates comics and that seems to be the direction their going with this. Great stories and great characters, don't see why people assume it will suck based on what they know about the cartoony version of the avengers.

I read a handful of the comics, thought they were boring. You get entertainment from the franchise, good for you. Keep enjoying them, you'll probably enjoy the movie too.

I, on the other hand, read some of the Ultimates, some of the older collections my siblings had around, thought the characters were shallow and boring, thought the plots were boring, and have no desire to encourage the production of anything remotely similar.

You like them, good for you. I don't, my opinion doesn't do anything to your own.

Altorin:
Don't all of the marvel characters live in the same universe? Once we have the Avengers, what's to stop them from enlisting a teenage spider man or requesting the help from the X-Men? Can't wait for shit like THAT to start happening.

What's stopping them is that those heroes are currently owned by rival movie studios :p Why do you think they're rebooting and spinning-off the two franchises so quickly? Fear of losing the rights back to Marvel.

Personally, I think this is partially a good thing. While I lament not seeing a Spidey cameo in the Incredible Hulk's climax when they fight in New York, I've never, ever liked the idea of the x-men existing in the same universe. It makes no sense. How the hell are you supposed to use super powers as an allegory for racism, then pick and choose which super powered characters get discriminated against? Oh, Wolverine has to sit in the back of the bus, but Spiderman (who's technically a mutant anyway!) somehow gets a free pass, even though there's no realistic way for normal people to tell the bloody difference?!

What, do average joes keep a giant list in their house for reference: "Okay if he's ultra strong and wears a domed helmet, he's a filthy mutant; if he's ultra strong, wears a domed helmet, and is immortal, he's probably the hero of Asguard. If he can turn into steel, don't let him in the public swimming pool; if he wears steel, get his autograph. If he can manipulate fire, shun him from community events; if he can become fire, celebrate his arrival to community events" You'd go insane keeping all that bullshit straight!

Listen, I'll believe space radiation can make the Fantastic 4, and that Gamma Rays can make someone into a Jekyll/Hyde metaphor rather than kill them instantly, I'll even accept that Tony Stark can use a home-made particle accelerator only a fraction the size of the LHC to create a stable element larger than 118 on the periodic table...but including the X-men and their fundamentally unique requirements for reality is just crossing the line into Stupid Land.

Sometimes, it's best to just leave universes divided. You know...separate but equal.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here