Following Marvel Cinematic Universe Page 3

  • MatMan562 12 Jan 2016 21:25:09 3,466 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    That second link only talks about how some secondary characters will become more prominent in "Phase 4", 2020 and beyond, which was to be expected. The Infinity War movies will likely be the last movies to have the original Avengers main cast. As much as it'll suck to not have Robert Downey Jr in the movies anymore it has to happen if they want to keep the universe going, and given that one of the "new" avengers is going to be Spider-Man I'm ok with it.

    My main hope for Infinity War is that we get some of the Netflix characters interacting with some of the Avengers for just a little bit and at least a shot of some of the characters from Agents of SHIELD fighting or something.
  • ControlledChaos 13 Jan 2016 15:34:10 462 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Guardians Of The Galaxy, Ant-Man yeah... War Machine, Falcon, Vision, Scarlett Witch not so much
  • Deleted user 13 January 2016 15:58:26
    ControlledChaos wrote:
    Guardians Of The Galaxy, Ant-Man yeah... War Machine, Falcon, Vision, Scarlett Witch not so much
    War Machine i agree with. Falcon is actually a pretty good character and scarlett witch had to play second fiddle to quick silver because of the whole him being deaded thing.
    Vision i am unsure about, i feel he is a bit op at the moment but i think he might be pretty good if he gets a bit more sarky
  • drhickman1983 13 Jan 2016 16:04:28 5,722 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I kinda of put War Machine and Falcon on the same level, think they're both all right supporting characters but, at the moment at least, the prospect of seeing them doesn't really excite me.

    Scarlet Witch was just lost in the mix in AOU. I liked Vision, he's no more OP than Thor and his naivety is a nice change from the wisecracking.
  • beastmaster 8 Mar 2016 12:32:17 19,064 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    They've got the film rights back for Blade, Punisher and Ghost Rider

    Would love to see a Marvel version of Ghost Rider.
  • DFawkes Friendliest Forumite, 2016 8 Mar 2016 13:22:14 32,215 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    That link is super duper broken right now.

    I still reckon Idris Elba would've made a great Blade, if he wasn't already Heimdall. As good as I thought Snipes was, he never really felt like the Blade I read in the comics (though to be fair I didn't read that many). He was a bit lighter in tone so would fit better with the other Marvel films.

    Punisher might be interesting with him already cast in the TV show, so I wonder if that now means he might get a proper movie?
  • drhickman1983 8 Mar 2016 13:35:24 5,722 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I wouldn't rule it out but Marvel could just be acquiring the rights to prevent other studios from making their own versions. Especially with The Punisher, it's easy to imagine a studio pushing out a film to capitalise on the Daredevil appearance.

    Edited by drhickman1983 at 13:35:37 08-03-2016
  • FauxyLea 8 Mar 2016 13:56:39 259 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Derblington wrote:
    Marvel and Fox have both publicly denied the FF thing.
    I was going to say this sounds like your kind of thread, but then I saw you were already here ruining everyone else's fun...
  • faux-C 17 Mar 2016 17:41:34 11,204 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    So now Psylocke is in XMen Apocalypse, can we expect Captain Britain to appear soon? He's the only Marvel character I'm desperate to see a film of.
  • You-can-call-me-kal 17 Mar 2016 17:51:30 14,189 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Captain Britain clearly won't appear in the Fox films. Marvel wouldn't allow it.

    Although it's a bit odd how Quicksilver is turning up in both.
  • Deleted user 17 March 2016 17:55:14
    He could be played by Chris evens :)
  • Deleted user 17 March 2016 17:57:05
    @You-can-call-me-kal

    Quicksilver and Scarlett witch were a very gray area in terms of ownership. They obv decided that they would get one each. With the caveat of both having access to the other for the intro
  • richarddavies 17 Mar 2016 17:58:34 6,608 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    You-can-call-me-kal wrote:

    Although it's a bit odd how Quicksilver is turning up in both.
    It get's so complicated in regards to the rights with what Marvel can show and what Fox can. Hulks a good example, Marvel have the rights for him to appear in an assemble movie but Universal (I think they did the films?) have the rights for standalone films. That's why Mark Ruffalo hasn't done his own yet. They can't mention mutants in Marvel films either, only in the Fox ones.

    It's head scratching shit.
  • You-can-call-me-kal 17 Mar 2016 17:59:29 14,189 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Scarlet Witch wasn't in X-men though was she? AndI don't think they ever actually call Quicksilver by name. I kind of figured it was just Fox being cheeky tbh.
  • twelveways 17 Mar 2016 18:04:21 7,131 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Yeah, it's a weird agreement that was obviously drawn up before either party realised how big things would become.
  • Deleted user 17 March 2016 18:20:10
    @You-can-call-me-kal full powered Scarlett wotch no. Wands maximof (or whatever) was seen watching tv with her brother pedro
  • Deleted user 17 March 2016 18:34:34
    As far as I know, the agreement is that in Fox's universe they're mutants who are referred to by their codenames. In Marvel's universe they're not allowed to be called mutants and are referred to by their proper names.
  • beastmaster 17 Mar 2016 18:34:37 19,064 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Can't be referred to as mutants as Fox has the rights to that terminology too.

    Edit: as above. Beaten to it by 3 seconds :-)

    Edited by beastmaster at 18:35:26 17-03-2016
  • drhickman1983 17 Mar 2016 18:47:47 5,722 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I'm actually glad the universes are separate. Some MCU films feel kind of bloated already, if they had the rights to the X-Men you just know Xavier or Wolverine would be popping up with regularity and just adding to the noise.
  • You-can-call-me-kal 17 Mar 2016 19:47:05 14,189 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I actually massively prefer the X-Men films to the MCU ones. Just feel less generic and the acting is generally higher quality. Also they've struck a good balance of a slightly more serious tone whilst still being fun. So yeah, I'm also glad they're separate.
  • Deleted user 17 March 2016 19:54:21
    The biggest issue I have with the MCU films is that they very rarely feel standalone, they're more often than not trying to hype up the next big thing simultaneously (beyond just an end credit stinger). Whereas the X-Men films tend to be fully standalone whilst keeping a consistent(ish) arc.
  • nickthegun 17 Mar 2016 19:56:39 76,737 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    drhickman1983 wrote:
    I'm actually glad the universes are separate. Some MCU films feel kind of bloated already, if they had the rights to the X-Men you just know Xavier or Wolverine would be popping up with regularity and just adding to the noise.
    Its probably been covered, but thats also why they called them miracles and showed they got their powers from mad science
  • drhickman1983 18 Mar 2016 00:28:45 5,722 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Gremmoo wrote:
    The biggest issue I have with the MCU films is that they very rarely feel standalone, they're more often than not trying to hype up the next big thing simultaneously (beyond just an end credit stinger). Whereas the X-Men films tend to be fully standalone whilst keeping a consistent(ish) arc.
    Age of Ultron really suffered for it, and it feels like Civil War might too. But thinking about it, aside from some clunky cameos, a lot of their films are fairly standalone in terms of plot. Which might make the little cameos and references more annoying in a way as they feel shoehorned in.
  • ControlledChaos 22 Mar 2016 14:04:43 462 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I'm not clear on the difference between a Inhuman and a Mutant, they seem the same to me other than the Inhumans need to be activated via a terrigen crystal, Also Vibranium and Adamantium both seem to be Indestructable Marvel Metals other than half of these things live in the MCU and the other in the X universe
  • DFawkes Friendliest Forumite, 2016 22 Mar 2016 14:10:01 32,215 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Inhumans have alien DNA triggered by terrigen, so are partially not human. Mutants are 100% human, but evolved past other fellow humans with abilities like supernatural baldness.

    As for vibranium, it's largely used in places adamantium would've been in the MCU because of rights issues, but generally adamantium is just a very strong metal, where vibranium absorbs the energy from impacts. A bullet would bounce off adamantium because it's hard metal, but it'd bounce off Cap's shield because it absorbs most of the kinetic energy on impact.

    It's all silly comic book science and I'm probably wrong, but at least I tired :p

    Edited by DFawkes at 14:16:02 22-03-2016
  • Derblington 22 Mar 2016 14:30:16 31,332 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Caps shield is actually made of Proto-Adamantium, which contains Vibranium. It's the stongest metal in the MU but cannot be replicated due to the formula being unknown (the scientist fell asleep while it was created).

    In an attempt to replicate it, he removed the Vibranium and created Primary Adamantium, which is what Wolverine's skeleton is coated in. It's the 2nd strongest material in the MU.
    There is Secondary Adamantium and other similar materials also (Adamantine - the Norse God metal that the scientist was trying to recreate when he made Proto-Adamantium, Carbonadium, Uru and others that I don't know).

    In the MCU, the shield is just Vibranium and, in the Fox films, Wolverine is coated with just Adamantium.

    Edited by Derblington at 14:35:34 22-03-2016
  • DFawkes Friendliest Forumite, 2016 22 Mar 2016 14:33:56 32,215 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I thought in the MCU there was no mention of adamantium due to rights issues/generally righting round the issue with Fox?

    Edit: Oh I see how it is. Reply then edit. You'd never see me doing that except every single time I post ;)

    Edited by DFawkes at 14:38:29 22-03-2016
  • CosmicFuzz 22 Mar 2016 14:48:03 32,582 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I am curious as to how the MCU are going to incorporate Inhumans in their eventual film when they'll have been running around the TV world for years before hand. In Agents of SHIELD, the whole world knows about Inhumans - so they'll need to introduce that at some point in the films before their eventual movie.
  • drhickman1983 22 Mar 2016 14:50:03 5,722 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I don't know if they'll have to explain that much away. Kinda like Spiderman wont need an origins story, they'll just stick them in and maybe give a line of dialogue and frankly that'll be enough.
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.