Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 115
  1. #31
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    54,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    That's kind of moot in the context of movies. As a rule, movies were, and movies essentially still are, 1 Villain per Movie.
    -- We forget that Loki was only really Thor's main villain in one movie (Thor 2011). After that it's been Loki + Chitauri (and both are servants of Thanos as outed at the end of Avengers 1), then Malekith with Loki as miscreant who tags along in The Dark World. Then Loki isn't a villain in Thor Ragnarok nor in Avengers IW. He's now a protagonist of a TV Series where he'll probably be reinvented as an anti-hero. In the comics, Loki has become Venom-ized, or even Magneto-ized, utterly defanged of villainy.
    -- And Gorr the God Butcher returned in Aaron's final King Thor story which left a backdoor for his resurrection for later writers to use. So it's too early to say that Gorr can't be used in a regular basis.
    But the Archenemy is almost always the villain in the first movie. That's why it was Loki in the first solo Thor film.

    Gorr is too big conceptually to be used on a regular basis, and I don't see anyone other then Aaron bringing him back.

  2. #32

    Default

    Telos the Tamer, cause he made the mistake of letting Quentin know who Spider-Man is and expose him publicly.

    Or maybe J. Jonah Jameson, this version of the character is cruel enough to make a kid be exposed as a wanted criminal. That's not very Jameson like.
    Last edited by Speed Force League Unlimited; 02-02-2020 at 01:25 AM.
    TRUTH, JUSTICE, HOPE
    That is, the heritage of the Kryptonian Warrior: Kal-El, son of Jor-El
    You like Gameboy and NDS? - My channel
    Looks like I'll have to move past gameplay footage

  3. #33
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Force League Unlimited View Post
    Or maybe J. Jonah Jameson, this version of the character is cruel enough to make a kid be exposed as a wanted criminal.
    Said kid is a superhero with Starktech...i.e. very close to the "should-be-tried-like-an-adult" end of the spectrum. Peter Parker can kill people with his bare hands and with Starktech on him, he can kill a huge chunk of the planet. That doesn't really make him a normal kid.

    Likewise Jameson got convincing evidence that Mysterio the guy who fooled the Skrulls, Peter and a lot of people into a hero and whose tech and equipment is very convincing, that Peter killed Mysterio and Quentin outed Peter.

    So from his perspective, it was a legit call.

  4. #34
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    333

    Default

    Neither. Jameson is probably the best choice. Seems like Spider-Slayers, Scorpion (and/or Kraven) are a no brainier for the next film. It'd be nice to see JK Simmon's' Jameson take center stage for one film anyway.

  5. #35
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    There honestly shouldn’t be one since movies don’t work well that way.

  6. #36
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    In any case for Tom Holland's Spider-Man to have a personal arch-nemesis, he needs to have a personality. For him to have his own corner, he need to first be his own character.

    In the MCU, the issues of why Tom Holland's Peter Parker is who he is hasn't been established clearly. SO far all that's been established is "Tony Stark fanboy and wannabe" and living up to Iron Man's legacy.
    I honestly can't tell you've actually seen these movies or you're intentionally taking the barest minimum of what's presented while ignoring everything else for your own narrative

  7. #37
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skullkid View Post
    I honestly can't tell you've actually seen these movies or you're intentionally taking the barest minimum of what's presented while ignoring everything else for your own narrative
    So is Iron Man not the most important figure in the life of MCU Spider-Man?

  8. #38
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    So is Iron Man not the most important figure in the life of MCU Spider-Man?
    He's a important figure, and the fact he is doesn't mean MCU Spider-Man doesn't have his own character or personality, and it really seems like you're only saying so because you don't like Iron Man and MCU Spider-Man by proxy for being connected to him.

  9. #39
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skullkid View Post
    ...you're only saying so because you don't like Iron Man and MCU Spider-Man by proxy for being connected to him.
    The latter.

  10. #40
    Mighty Member Zeitgeist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Oz
    Posts
    1,354

    Default

    The thing is, we've barely peeked into Spider-Man's past in the MCU, by design. Saying Iron Man is the most important figure in his life isn't really a call you can make in good faith until that background is fleshed out. An absence is not an indictment.
    (Plus what is Aunt May, chopped liver?)

    That said, Starkums has been pretty important of what we have seen, and that's why logistics aside I think Norman Osborn would be a great major arch-nemesis as someone who's in that industrialist mold, charming enough to be reminiscent of Tony, but y'know, just completely sociopsychopathic.
    Last edited by Zeitgeist; 02-06-2020 at 06:25 AM.
    ♪ღ♪*..* *..*♪ღ♪.* *..*♪ღ♪*

    ♪ღ♪░░░░M░J░ ░I░S░ ░A░ ░K░A░R░E░N░░░░♪ღ♪

    *♪ღ♪*..* *..*♪.* *..*♪ღ♪

  11. #41
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeitgeist View Post
    The thing is, we've barely peeked into Spider-Man's past in the MCU, by design.
    MCU Tom Holland Spider-Man has appeared in five movies (Civil War, Homecoming, IW, Endgame, FFH). I think if in five movies you focus on a single soon-to-be-dead horse that is Iron Man as the fulcrum of a character's existence, then you can't fall back on the excuse of "barely peeked into Spider-Man's past in the MCU, be design". Because five movies is...a lot. Especially since the solo movies, ought to be, movies which do a deep dive into those characters.

    Peter Parker Spider-Man likewise isn't supposed to be Logan or Nick Fury whose past is so mysterious and untold and cool, that you can insert any number of blanks in the background to mine new stuff. Logan and Nick Fury are basically colorful archetypes who exist fully formed. They aren't characters who will necessarily undergo further development and change. Whereas Peter Parker is a character who is set up to grow, develop, and change. He's a more dynamic character. So he needs a fairly set history to build from and build to. MCU Spider-Man relies on a certain level of meta-awareness about the fact that Tom Holland is "a" Spider-Man and not "the" Spider-Man, and that kind of knowingness wears out its welcome after one movie (unless you are Deadpool). It was fine after CW, and maybe Homecoming, but after FFH, it becomes ridiculous, and essentially Tom Holland's Spidey is known as that fanboy hankering after "Mr. Stark". Without any attempt to deal with his individuality as a character, you cannot really tell the story of Peter Parker, you cannot set up Tom Holland to one day carry his own movie because so far he hasn't done that.

    Mostly in the five MCU movies, Tom Holland Peter is in a submissive position to established older heroes, and character actors, and is essentially an incarnation of the MCU fan rather than an actual character. That doesn't work in the long term where eventually you are going to have to deal with Peter Parker Spider-Man as his own character in his own setting and status-quo. They will have to virtually soft-reboot the story, a la Taika Waititi and Thor Ragnarok to eventually begin to tell actual Peter Parker stories.

    Saying Iron Man is the most important figure in his life isn't really a call you can make in good faith until that background is fleshed out.
    Five movies, two solo movies, my dude.

    An absence is not an indictment.
    In cinema, it is. What you leave out greatly informs stuff about the character and story that the audiences are able to infer. I mean that whole "Han Shot First" thing is all about that. A lot of people grokked that a single delay or additional vfx changed Han Solo from cocky sure-shot swashbuckler to f--kup who scrapes by on luck against dumber enemies.

    (Plus what is Aunt May, chopped liver?)
    Chopped liver would be an improvement over what Marisa Tomei's Aunt May is in the two movies, which is basically a lengthy self-congratulatory joke about how they cast Aunt May as young and hot...and ultimately make Happy Hogan, a worthless member of Iron Man's worthless supporting cast, a more important figure to Peter over her. Marisa Tomei's an excellent actress but she's just wasted here.

    That said, Starkums has been pretty important of what we have seen, and that's why logistics aside I think Norman Osborn would be a great major arch-nemesis as someone who's in that industrialist mold, charming enough to be reminiscent of Tony, but y'know, just completely sociopsychopathic.
    Tony isn't exactly stable...and after all MCU Iron Man has a bigger body count than Norman in comics and movies has. What with Ultron, those weapons he sold to Klaue and Sokovia, and in Afghanistan, as well as all the collateral damage he does.

  12. #42

    Default

    Neither- the Jackal.

    He could be a recurring character if they do a trilogy based of his college years. Each movie might have a different villain but he could be a secondary antagonist in the background.

    I believe Spectacular Spiderman was doing something like that as Warren replaced Connors as the ESU scientist Peter and Gwen interned under.
    Last edited by the illustrious mr. kenway; 02-06-2020 at 08:41 AM.

  13. #43
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the illustrious mr. kenway View Post
    I believe Spectacular Spiderman was doing something like that as Warren replaced Connors as the ESU scientist Peter and Gwen interned under.
    Not at all. Warren was a minor character who didn't become prominent until late in Season 2. And he wasn't the arch-enemy...Otto and Goblin were bigger than him.

    Warren was seeded in for future storylines, same as Roderick Kingsley.

  14. #44
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    MCU Tom Holland Spider-Man has appeared in five movies (Civil War, Homecoming, IW, Endgame, FFH). I think if in five movies you focus on a single soon-to-be-dead horse that is Iron Man as the fulcrum of a character's existence, then you can't fall back on the excuse of "barely peeked into Spider-Man's past in the MCU, be design". Because five movies is...a lot. Especially since the solo movies, ought to be, movies which do a deep dive into those characters.

    Peter Parker Spider-Man likewise isn't supposed to be Logan or Nick Fury whose past is so mysterious and untold and cool, that you can insert any number of blanks in the background to mine new stuff. Logan and Nick Fury are basically colorful archetypes who exist fully formed. They aren't characters who will necessarily undergo further development and change. Whereas Peter Parker is a character who is set up to grow, develop, and change. He's a more dynamic character. So he needs a fairly set history to build from and build to. MCU Spider-Man relies on a certain level of meta-awareness about the fact that Tom Holland is "a" Spider-Man and not "the" Spider-Man, and that kind of knowingness wears out its welcome after one movie (unless you are Deadpool). It was fine after CW, and maybe Homecoming, but after FFH, it becomes ridiculous, and essentially Tom Holland's Spidey is known as that fanboy hankering after "Mr. Stark". Without any attempt to deal with his individuality as a character, you cannot really tell the story of Peter Parker, you cannot set up Tom Holland to one day carry his own movie because so far he hasn't done that.

    Mostly in the five MCU movies, Tom Holland Peter is in a submissive position to established older heroes, and character actors, and is essentially an incarnation of the MCU fan rather than an actual character. That doesn't work in the long term where eventually you are going to have to deal with Peter Parker Spider-Man as his own character in his own setting and status-quo. They will have to virtually soft-reboot the story, a la Taika Waititi and Thor Ragnarok to eventually begin to tell actual Peter Parker stories.



    Five movies, two solo movies, my dude.



    In cinema, it is. What you leave out greatly informs stuff about the character and story that the audiences are able to infer. I mean that whole "Han Shot First" thing is all about that. A lot of people grokked that a single delay or additional vfx changed Han Solo from cocky sure-shot swashbuckler to f--kup who scrapes by on luck against dumber enemies.



    Chopped liver would be an improvement over what Marisa Tomei's Aunt May is in the two movies, which is basically a lengthy self-congratulatory joke about how they cast Aunt May as young and hot...and ultimately make Happy Hogan, a worthless member of Iron Man's worthless supporting cast, a more important figure to Peter over her. Marisa Tomei's an excellent actress but she's just wasted here.



    Tony isn't exactly stable...and after all MCU Iron Man has a bigger body count than Norman in comics and movies has. What with Ultron, those weapons he sold to Klaue and Sokovia, and in Afghanistan, as well as all the collateral damage he does.
    So far all you're doing is making it clear the only "problem" is that you hate Iron Man and can't stand the fact a version of Spider-Man looks up to and respects a character you don't like.
    That's the only point you're making here, you hate Iron Man and therefore Spider-Man should too.

  15. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Not at all. Warren was a minor character who didn't become prominent until late in Season 2. And he wasn't the arch-enemy...Otto and Goblin were bigger than him.

    Warren was seeded in for future storylines, same as Roderick Kingsley.
    Oh ok.

    I just meant it as an example of how to build Warren up in a potential movie.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •