[QUOTE=useridgoeshere;4474851]I can't believe that they're going to try another FF or X-Men movie without first introducing them within a more established MCU property to remove some of the stank then spinning them off.[/QUOTE]
They don't necessarily need to if they introduce them in their own films while incorporating other familiar aspects of the MCU - similar to how some people wanted to watch "Captain Marvel" partly to see where it fit into the larger "Infinity Saga."
[QUOTE=j9ac9k;4472541]Sam has a Cap shield somehow .... makes me wonder what Cap really did bouncing around the timeline. [/QUOTE]
Somehow? Cap gives it to him in the end of Endgame.
Honestly, nothing announced really excited me. Thor maybe, only because I thought Ragnarok was hilarious. My interest in a post-death Black Widow prequel story hinges entirely on how comics accurate Taskmaster looks and behaves. (If it's just another MCU baddie in an armored suit, meh.) No offense to Scarlett Johansson, who I do really like as an actress.
I can't [I]afford[/I] a [B]5th[/B] streaming service, so I didn't even bother watching the clips from the upcoming Disney+ shows. some of the titles sound cool, but I feel like they will be as relevant to the MCU as "Agents of SHIELD" or the Netflix stuff.
My concern would be that they’ll end up ultra relevant in an effort to get more subscribers.
Which really shouldn’t be a problem given the MCU/SW success rates. Still...
They’ll be important to the overall narrative but the basics of it will be explained for the people who didn’t watch. Same as it’s done in the comics.
One more thing on the positive - this slate shows just how far ahead Marvel is compared to many other production companies. The range in this films and shows, while still interconnected, is one helluva feat to pull off. They are talking about using multiverses, horror, comedy, very diverse casts and directors, gender bending roles to fit their films, and on and on down the line.
There is simply no other franchise attempting something even remotely this audacious.
[QUOTE=Vegeta;4476758]Honestly, nothing announced really excited me. Thor maybe, only because I thought Ragnarok was hilarious. My interest in a post-death Black Widow prequel story hinges entirely on how comics accurate Taskmaster looks and behaves. (If it's just another MCU baddie in an armored suit, meh.) No offense to Scarlett Johansson, who I do really like as an actress.
I can't [I]afford[/I] a [B]5th[/B] streaming service, so I didn't even bother watching the clips from the upcoming Disney+ shows. some of the titles sound cool, but I feel like they will be as relevant to the MCU as "Agents of SHIELD" or the Netflix stuff.[/QUOTE]
The reason that the Marvel TV shows and Netflix are not relevant to the MCU is that they are produced by Marvel TELEVISION, not Marvel STUDIOS.
Marvel Studios is controlled by Kevin Feige and is fully integrated within Walt Disney Studios, and Marvel Television is controlled by Ike Perlmutter, which is not part of the movie studio (but still owned by Disney).
Feige has NEVER made any effort to integrate the TV shows into his Feigeverse of MCU films. Sometimes the TV shows have made mention of the movie events, but the movies never refer to the TV events, get it? Feige does not care about what is not his.
The reason it is important to understand this is because the Disney+ shows ARE produced by Feige's Marvel Studios, NOT Perlmutter's Marvel Television. Therefore, there most definitely WILL be integration of these shows with the movies and vice-versa. That's why they often star characters who come from the movies like Scarlet Witch, Vision, Falcon, Winter Soldier, Loki, and Hawkeye.
Seems Agent Coulson is a shared character, but even his appearances in MCU films has been greatly curtailed since SHIELD started, having only appeared in Captain Marvel since 2012's Avengers.
If you can't afford Disney+, then I guess that settles things before the conversation even starts, but as far as being relevant to the MCU, I would disagree with you.
[QUOTE=Comic-Reader Lad;4477836]The reason that the Marvel TV shows and Netflix are not relevant to the MCU is that they are produced by Marvel TELEVISION, not Marvel STUDIOS.
Marvel Studios is controlled by Kevin Feige and is fully integrated within Walt Disney Studios, and Marvel Television is controlled by Ike Perlmutter, which is not part of the movie studio (but still owned by Disney).
Feige has NEVER made any effort to integrate the TV shows into his Feigeverse of MCU films. Sometimes the TV shows have made mention of the movie events, but the movies never refer to the TV events, get it? Feige does not care about what is not his.
The reason it is important to understand this is because the Disney+ shows ARE produced by Feige's Marvel Studios, NOT Perlmutter's Marvel Television. Therefore, there most definitely WILL be integration of these shows with the movies and vice-versa. That's why they often star characters who come from the movies like Scarlet Witch, Vision, Falcon, Winter Soldier, Loki, and Hawkeye.
Seems Agent Coulson is a shared character, but even his appearances in MCU films has been greatly curtailed since SHIELD started, having only appeared in Captain Marvel since 2012's Avengers.
If you can't afford Disney+, then I guess that settles things before the conversation even starts, but as far as being relevant to the MCU, I would disagree with you.[/QUOTE]
I think the lack of integration between Marvel Studios and Television has to do with bad blood between Feige and Perlmutter. Feige getting Marvel Studios to break away from Marvel Entertainment to work directly under Disney is because how difficult Perlmutter is to work with and a lot of problems Marvel had with directors and actors for phase 2 were Perlmutter fault. Integrating TV events into the movies likely means having to deal with his old boss again.
Second unit teams are being led by people like Gunn (Thor 4 & Eternals), Zhao (Widow, Shang, & GotGv3) and Derrickson (Shang & Eternals).
Sounds like crossovers are still gonna be a thing.
[QUOTE=Immortal Weapon;4478725]I think the lack of integration between Marvel Studios and Television has to do with bad blood between Feige and Perlmutter. Feige getting Marvel Studios to break away from Marvel Entertainment to work directly under Disney is because how difficult Perlmutter is to work with and a lot of problems Marvel had with directors and actors for phase 2 were Perlmutter fault. Integrating TV events into the movies likely means having to deal with his old boss again.[/QUOTE]
Wasn’t it something to do with Perlmutter vetoing Maya Hanson being the villain in Iron Man 3 because ‘female toys don’t sell’? Never mind his stupid mandate on the X-Men and Fantastic Four we had to put up with for umpteen years until lately...
[QUOTE=Derek Metaltron;4478872]Wasn’t it something to do with Perlmutter vetoing Maya Hanson being the villain in Iron Man 3 because ‘female toys don’t sell’? Never mind his stupid mandate on the X-Men and Fantastic Four we had to put up with for umpteen years until lately...[/QUOTE]
Iron Man not having a female villain is on him. So were the paycuts for the returning cast for Iron Man 2.
Also not getting any female or minority-led movies for so long either. He doesn't think that women or minority heroes sell.
Also supposedly he didn't wanted RDJ in CW because he was "too expensive." The guy sounds like the textbook example of an "old penny-pinching out of touch executive."
We only got Captain Marvel and Black Panther because Feige agreed to put Perlmutter pet project the Inhumans on the movie slate. I like how quickly it got dropped once the studio got integrated into Disney.
I was thinking maybe we dont need avengers movies yet. Maybe every phase do a big crossover event but it doesnt have to be the avengers. Like instead of high jacking Cap 3 they could just done Marvels Civil War. Maybe down the line instead of Highjacking Black Panther 3 they can make Marvels World War( dumb name but something like that) for a movie focused around a world war started by conflict between Wakanda, Atlantis and Latveria. Even if they do Annihilation, doesnt need to be Avengers or New Avengers Annihilation. It can just be Marvels "Fill in the blank". Honestly you can reform the Avegers with character who dont have they're own movies and make it it's own franchise and not just become the title they use for huge events. Like a Avengers team of Falcon Cap, Bucky, Antman and the Wasp(If they dont get a 3rd movie),Wanda,Vision, and Rhodey(Or whatever team makes sense of peolple without franchises). Make the threats bigger but not Galactic. They can take on Masters of Evil or whatever threat to big for one character but not a huge event that requires the heavy hitters. Pretty sure Feigie dont give two shits about anything the Marvel TV did. So maybe in a couple years when they are back on the Table Luke and Danny can be members of a newly formed NEW avengers maybe a mutant or two aswell. Make Avengers no different then a F4,Xmen,or Guardians movie. Just a team franchise, and let the big events be they're own thing.
Though branding wise I can see why they would want to attach the Avengers name to the big event movies.
[QUOTE=Immortal Weapon;4478725]I think the lack of integration between Marvel Studios and Television has to do with bad blood between Feige and Perlmutter. Feige getting Marvel Studios to break away from Marvel Entertainment to work directly under Disney is because how difficult Perlmutter is to work with and a lot of problems Marvel had with directors and actors for phase 2 were Perlmutter fault. Integrating TV events into the movies likely means having to deal with his old boss again.[/QUOTE]
There's also the logistical problems too. Different film methods and schedules, different contracts, etc. As hard as it is getting the movie actors together, it must be harder to get through the red tape and schedules to get tv actors involved.
There's also the issue of recognition. You can reasonably assume that if someone went to some MCU movies, they're going to have a passing familiarity with the various film characters. But the shows don't pull the same kind of viewership, and someone who watches the movies might not watch the shows. If audiences don't know who, for example, Quake is because they dont watch SHIELD, where's the payoff for all the effort of getting the actress into a movie? Much more likely that viewer has seen Iron Man or Thor if they're sitting down for a MCU movie. And in Netflix's case, the difference in tone and intended audience plays a role too (I'd assume). You drop Daredevil into Infinity War and you'll end up with little kids googling him, then watching the show, and Disney ends up getting complaints from parents because the Defenders gave their five year old nightmares.
Disney+ isn't going to have those problems. Same studio, same contracts and tone and all the rest of it. Way easier to connect them directly to the films because you're not dealing with two separate companies, both trying to protect their own assets and interests. It seems like Fiege is really trying to make this work the way people *thought* Marvel tv was going to work; we already know that the events of Wandavision leads into Strange 2 and the Witch will have a role in the film.