Can the MCU survive without the original Avengers?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That being said though, your idea is an admittedly interesting one (and is one of the reasons why I liked Hox/PoX). I think with what the sequel has set up, an idea or plot like that can be explored hopefully. I also agree that T'Challa's message at the end does sound centrist, but I don't think it's all that wise to impose leftist ideology to an African man either (something America has tried with African countries to great failure). Besides, there's a reason why the film also highlights Nakia's worldview as the right one.

Glad we find some consensus at least.

Most of what I have issues with this critique with are summed up above, but it also sounds to me like Lebron here has an issue with African nobles being uplifted over African Americans. Which is refreshing to me. Do they ever get that kind of treatment in Hollywood or by African Americans themselves?

Lebron's point is that an American film based on American comics about an Afro-Futurist country, still revolves on the demonization and criminalization of an African-American who grew up poor in the Oakland projects, and who dies at the end where his rebellion as framed as "going too far". It's not the same thing as a movie by an African film-maker about relations with the US diaspora where obviously a critical view would not be unwelcome.

[Ascended]

That's overstating things vastly in the movie. In Iron Man 1, Tony suffered in captivity and yeah that's harsh not taking that away, but to say that he suffered a "trial by fire" over his decision to divest his company from defense expenditure is overstating things. Look I know there's a section of Iron Man fans who like the character and as such, understandably, take criticisms of the social implications of his character as an attack on the character. The fact is that if people can attack and question Frank Castle's NRA-propaganda vigilantism then I don't know how you can let Stark off the hook. FWIW, Tony Stark isn't as directly problematic as the Punisher is, as the Punisher has become but that doesn't mean a reckoning is so far away either.

It's not that I let Stark off the hook so much as I don't consider his characterization or real world analogies a deal breaker. Stark is a insufferable son of a bitch and throughout his journey is often a hypocrite (which, admittedly, can be a sign of growth too). He doesn't have all the answers, he's part of a system that needs drastic overhaul, he's his own worst enemy. But for me it ultimately boils down to a simple question; does Stark try to make the world a better place? Does he try to help people, even at his own expense? The unequivocal answer is yes. We can argue the merits of his methodology but at the end of the day, the guy tries to make things better than they are and puts his life on the line to do it. That doesn't render his failings meaningless, but I also don't think you can ask more of someone than to try. Especially make-believe people who aren't real, who's primary reason for existing is entertaining children and children at heart with mythical tales of good fighting evil.

But I think you undervalue the other aspects of his origin that shake his core values; the betrayal by Stane, the near-collapse of his company, these are things that I'm not sure you're giving proper weight to. That company and Stark's role in the military industrial complex are almost literally the only things he has; he loses everything that defined him and has to rebuild his self-image almost from scratch. If that's not a "trial by fire" then nothing is.

The fact is only a very few inventors become entrepreneurs. Most of the rich types that RDJ's Stark is modeled on are either frauds or glorified showmen and salesmen in the real world.

Then Stark is one of the exceptions to the rule. Why is that a problem? He's what lesser industrialists pretend to be (and that's discounting the fact that yes, most businessmen are not inventors and vice versa, just like nobody actually has PhD's in eighteen different fields while also being an Olympic champion). Is the concern that people will look at Tony Stark and decide that real industrialists are trustworthy? Because if that's the worry, then it's misplaced; anyone who looks to a fictional character as a judge of real people has far bigger problems to contend with.

And again, trying to make this genre play by the rules of reality is a mistake. Comics don't function like the real world does; the genre is modern day mythology, with it's own internal logic. Comics should be aware of the real world and consider/reflect on the issues of the day, but they can't play by the same rules. Even a surface level analysis unravels the entire thing if you don't play by the same internal logic. Why doesn't Batman use his resources and money to change Gotham on a political level, with more socially conscious policy? Why doesn't Superman use his intellect and technology to solve world hunger and cure disease? Because it's more fun to watch them fight monsters and villains intent on killing people, that's why.

No. What you see at the end of the movie is far less radical than what Erik Killmonger was talking about.

And thank the gods for that, considering Killmonger's plan was to enslave most of the world and set himself up as earth's emperor. I get that you wanted him to do something different and effect positive (if perhaps uncomfortable) change around the globe, but that's not the character. That isn't who Killmonger is. What you seem to want is a T'Challa who doesn't respect national borders or authority in the name of progressive change, but he's not that guy either, he doesn't have the ego for it.

In comics, you know, Doctor Doom is allowed dignity to prove that he is, or can be, a great scientist and ruler and that his tyranny and authoritarianism is overreach and unnecessary because he has enough qualities to make himself leader of Latveria in any fair democratic election. Killmonger in the MCU isn't allowed that.

Because Killmonger isn't Doom. I don't expect or want Batman to act like Spider-Man either.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That company and Stark's role in the military industrial complex are almost literally the only things he has; he loses everything that defined him and has to rebuild his self-image almost from scratch.

Except he doesn't. By the end of IM-1 he still has his wealth and status in tact.

Is the concern that people will look at Tony Stark and decide that real industrialists are trustworthy?

It's the reverse actually. People are entirely too trusting of real industrialists and the con that is corporate philanthropy. The modern take on Iron Man, especially the MCU version, reinforces that uncritically many times over.

And again, trying to make this genre play by the rules of reality is a mistake.

Ultimately superhero movies are meant for an audience that lives in the real world and not an audience comprised of fellow fictional characters.

Comics don't function like the real world does; the genre is modern day mythology, with it's own internal logic.

Fact is actual myths from ancient cultures are subject to criticism, analysis and re-evaluation, even in the Ancient Times. So being a "modern day mythology" does not in any way invalidate or free these characters from criticism.

[Gripstir]

My concern is that so much of what is propping up these new properties are references and cameos by more famous characters. Falcon and the winter solider is allegedly getting wolverine captain marvel 2 getting rogue and every single property is not standing on its own merits, they are standing on the merits of the characters people are actually excited for

Also the thing I think will really hurt it is a lot of their decisions seem to be on hatred and alienating fans. For example Taika Waititi said he wants to make Thor love and thunder because he finds it empowering to take Thor's hammer who white men gravitate to and give it to a Jewish woman. He said how empowering that sounds. So I do think the movie itself will do well but there's going to be a lot of angry fans after

You have the Eternals who seem to be based on using Game of Thrones actors. Something that really has not worked out at all ever. And seems to be banking on the first gay kiss as their selling point. I haven't heard anything else about the crew or the story. The only thing I ever heard was they were looking to cast an openly gay man for the lead role. They cast the guy from Game of Thrones, idk if that means he is an out gay actor or going to come out during press or something. Or maybe they just changed their minds.

Shang chi sounds cool but idk if it will be. I do hope it's an all Asian cast.


I think I heard they might be rebooting iron fist but idk.

Gambit and she hulk might have shows on Disney+

Idk I think ultimately what will destroy or help it is if Twitter becomes the guidemap for shows and movies people are going to lose interest fast, if they actually try it can be good


Also a big problem is comics are no longer written for comic fans. Comic books are literally written so they can make movies later and people will defend bad movie writing with "it was in the comics so it's good". I hope I'm wrong and the MCU isn't going to be Twitter written from now on but we will see

[Revolutionary_Jack]

My concern is that so much of what is propping up these new properties are references and cameos by more famous characters. Falcon and the winter solider is allegedly getting wolverine

It's not. No way will Marvel recast and debut Wolverine in a Disney Plus show. He's too big. From what I hear, Falcon+WS features Madripoor. That doesn't mean Wolverine will be there.

captain marvel 2 getting rogue

At this point, Carol is a bigger character than Rogue (which yeah is a real reversal of fortune from the 90s and 2000s where Rogue was definitely way more famous). So I don't think that's the only interest.

For example Taika Waititi said he wants to make Thor love and thunder because he finds it empowering to take Thor's hammer who white men gravitate to and give it to a Jewish woman.

An entire run on The Mighty Thor completed by Jason Aaron ran with that same idea to critical acclaim and sales. And why is it a problem to give it to a Jewish woman as opposed to a horsefaced Korbinite (in the comics), and Vision and Captain America (the movies).

You have the Eternals who seem to be based on using Game of Thrones actors.

They case two and neither Game of Thrones actor is even a tenth as big as Angelina freakin' Jolie.

They cast the guy from Game of Thrones, idk if that means he is an out gay actor or going to come out during press or something. Or maybe they just changed their minds.

This might surprise you but the MCU has already cast and featured GOT actors in its cast before Eternals...lol.

[Agent Z]

There was no deep conflict between the two characters. A deep conflict should have taken up 80% of the movie with various scenes of them together talking about their experience of blackness. Nothing is fully explored in the film. Its was the same thing as Civil War.

This is an arbitrary rule. A conflict between a hero and a villain does not require them to spend every second of screen time together. The core of T'Challa and Killmonger's enmity was summed up perfectly in one or two scenes.

We can trust it is 50 Cents vision and true point of his view. Hate or love it, it will be his own art that he is showing.

Yeah and it would fail.

[Gripstir]

It's not. No way will Marvel recast and debut Wolverine in a Disney Plus show. He's too big. From what I hear, Falcon+WS features Madripoor. That doesn't mean Wolverine will be there.



At this point, Carol is a bigger character than Rogue (which yeah is a real reversal of fortune from the 90s and 2000s where Rogue was definitely way more famous). So I don't think that's the only interest.



An entire run on The Mighty Thor completed by Jason Aaron ran with that same idea to critical acclaim and sales. And why is it a problem to give it to a Jewish woman as opposed to a horsefaced Korbinite (in the comics), and Vision and Captain America (the movies).



They case two and neither Game of Thrones actor is even a tenth as big as Angelina freakin' Jolie.



This might surprise you but the MCU has already cast and featured GOT actors in its cast before Eternals...lol.

We will see about Wolverine, Captain Marvel came off movies that were panned or based on an ensemble. I mean her name recognition is higher atm but Rogue is one of the staples of the entire Fox movies and the comics.

I mentioned before how comics are being written for movies in the future not really for the comics themselves. But I will say the issue I had with Tiaka is his own words. His mentality and motivation was one built on hate. He specifically talks about giving it to a Jewish woman because he wants to piss off white guys who might get triggered by it. I'm saying as a whole If the MCU is one that will be built on hatred of a race there's going to be a lot of people who leave.


As for Angelina Jolie I kinda gotta throw your argument at ya a bit. There may have been a time in the 90s or 2000s when Angelina was more popular but there's no way she is more famous than Game of Thrones atm. And again this isn't me saying the Game of thrones actors themselves are popular. In fact track records show its the characters who are popular not the actors. Both Emelia Clarke and Kit Harrington have been unable to find success outside of GoT. Maisie Williams and Sophie Turner have both been in stuff and have flopped as well. heck even Ramsey Bolton was in Inhumans and we saw how that turned out. The only real success story I think was Pedro Pascal in Mandalorian and that's because he had a mask on the whole time.

[Agent Z]

@Revolutionary Jack

Comparing painting Stark and every industrialist with the same brush devalues the very real and valid criticisms made against such people. Condemning Tony based on any superficial similarities he might have to people like Musk and Gates reads less like an actual criticism of supposed problematic writing and more just having a bone to pick with a certain character.

Likewise, throwing the word "centrist" at Black Panther in such a disparaging way is incredibly narrow-minded and ignorant of context where being centrist actually would be a problem.

[Holt]

If someone believes Falcon and the Winter Soldier has Wolverine in it and that the show is "relying" on that as a selling point, I have some magic beans to sell them.

[your_name_here]

The MCU will survive just fine. I am curious as to whether it will dominate the cinema like it has for the past 10 or so years, or whether they’ll try to take more of a back seat while they build from the ground up again.

The only question mark I have is will this new wave be half as iconic as Captain America/Iron-Man/Thor? The answer is probably no.
But then the MCU just throw in the FF or X-Men and they’re back on track.

[Username taken]

I knew this would turn into yet another MCU bashing, X-Men film praising thread.

It was only a matter of time.

And its a tiring, annoying, cyclical and played out discussion that leads nowhere.

[Castle]

This is an arbitrary rule. A conflict between a hero and a villain does not require them to spend every second of screen time together. The core of T'Challa and Killmonger's enmity was summed up perfectly in one or two scenes.

A conflict between a hero and a villain that have more scenes together gives the movie more back bone and betters the overall story. shifts it from generic comic book stories.

Yeah and it would fail.

There is no proof it would fail, a success would be far more good for marvel's brand. It could be a risk that could pay off. It feels as if Endgame is now a class of high school graduates and its time for marvel to go to college.

[Castle]

And its a tiring, annoying, cyclical and played out discussion that leads nowhere.

Throwing in X-Men, F4 or Spiderman is less than tiring, annoying or cyclical from most passionate comic book fans. It does not take a genius to see the limitation of MCU Spiderman to the original films, Spiderman is pretty much a bystander in the MCU. If you remove him, it will make no difference. MCU may need Spiderman to survive but he doesn't need them. Spiderman could be erased out as long as Sony keeps putting out Spiderverse films. What's the gain of throwing in X-Men when we have already seen less less coperate monopoly version of those films? What can we looked forward too from the comic book perspective.

Due to monopoly, MCU lost artistic interest a long time ago, the question now is can their box office survive with the constant monopoly approach.

[Ascended]

Except he doesn't. By the end of IM-1 he still has his wealth and status in tact.

His company survives after several weeks of getting thrashed on the stock market yes, but that's not the point; Stark Industries and Tony's entire self-image are ripped apart; the company no longer functions the way it did and Tony can no longer ignore the less savory elements they were a part of or his role in the military industrial complex. The company survives but virtually every belief Tony has about himself, his company, and his place in the world is changed. Come on man, you've seen the film, there's a number of scenes where this is commented on directly and the affect it has on Tony is obvious.

It's the reverse actually. People are entirely too trusting of real industrialists and the con that is corporate philanthropy. The modern take on Iron Man, especially the MCU version, reinforces that uncritically many times over.

Nobody is looking at Iron Man and using that to reinforce opinions about real people. If Tony's narrative was changed to reflect your view on real businessmen, it wouldn't affect how people view actual industrialists. Tony is a reflection, changing him won't change anything else.

Okay, let's use a different example, since you seem to have a serious mad on for industrialists. People don't trust the news media anymore, right? We complain about the painful and obvious bias shown by Fox and CNN and all the rest. Now consider Superman; this distrust has been reflected in the comics and Clark Kent and the Daily Planet have commented on the situation. But Clark Kent is still a intrepid reporter who's journalistic integrity is as intact as it ever was. Has that changed or influenced anyone's views on real media? Has anyone said "Well, Fox News is just the GOP cheerleading squad and they lie all the time, but Clark Kent is still a good reporter so I'll trust Fox anyway!" And if you changed Clark Kent to reflect the modern day news media and had him make obviously false accusations against Lex Luthor, what would that accomplish other than making Clark into a *******?

Ultimately superhero movies are meant for an audience that lives in the real world and not an audience comprised of fellow fictional characters.

Yes, and those people know that superheroes are not real and play by their own rules. Nobody can have an anvil dropped on their head, be flattened out like a pancake, and then stick their thumbs in their mouth and "reinflate" either, but nobody tries that after watching looney tunes. People know that fiction, especially fantastical fiction like this, don't play by our rules.

Fact is actual myths from ancient cultures are subject to criticism, analysis and re-evaluation, even in the Ancient Times. So being a "modern day mythology" does not in any way invalidate or free these characters from criticism.

And I'm not saying it does, am I? What I'm saying is that you can't judge the rules of the internal superhero logic by the rules of real society. We can and should examine, analyze, and change the fiction where appropriate so that it continues to reflect and comment on the real world, but you have to do it while respecting the genre's own internal logic. Comics have always shifted and changed along social lines and changes in culture (just compare comics from 1939 to 1944) but they have never played by the same rules as the real world, and they can't.

[chief12d]

I knew this would turn into yet another MCU bashing, X-Men film praising thread.

It was only a matter of time.

And of course it’s Black Panther’s “shortcomings” that accompany it. Was there really any doubt this thread would devolve into that lol. But you summed up most of my thoughts on the matter so I’ll let the usual suspects cook.