fantastic_four

Just read that when Peter was on the plane he was flipping through the in-flight television and there was a documentary in the list of available titles called "The Snap." I didn't see that myself.

Open question about the film:

I don't think they ever explicitly explained it, but my take: I definitely need to watch it again to be sure. I don't think that's it. I'm going to leave most of this out of spoiler quotes because it's just a general discussion about Peter's spider-sense ability. Peter's spider-sense alerts him to danger, but it isn't radar sense like Daredevil's that tells him exactly where objects are at. When his spider-sense goes off, his usual next act is to figure out where the danger is coming from with his sense of sight. If it's not in front of him, it must be behind him so he'll whirl around or jump up, down, or to the side if it's imminent danger. When fighting Mysterio, his sense of sight is useless due to the illusions, so it doesn't immediately occur to him to use his spider-sense in a different way. He's gone through this when fighting Mysterio in the comics, too. This is the part that needs to be in spoiler tags:

That'd be a "tinkle." She called it "Peter's tingle," and he didn't like it because it sounded vaguely like his aunt was referring to his junk.

I'm not sure the Avengers even told the public at large about Thanos and the Infinity Gauntlet. If that's the case, then nobody would know there was a snap to begin with to know to call it that.

Broadened that a bit for accuracy.

I don't know anything about Zendaya; I've only ever seen her in the two MCU films. And I've seen the tabloid stuff about her parents and their recent divorce, but that's not terribly relevant to her, I suppose. I know she's in that new racy "Euphoria" show, and I've seen some clips from that, but nothing with her. I didn't care for her in Homecoming because of her cool, distant persona, and she had that for the first third of this film, too, but wow, when finally she shed that I really liked her.

Yep, those sequences were freaking amazing. Everything I was hoping for with Mysterio and far more. I've never cared for Jake Gyllenhaal in most things I've seen him in, and I've seen most things he's done. But I LOVED him in this.

Saw it today, LOVED it. It's not Spider-Man 2 good, but nothing is, that's still one of the masterpieces of the superhero genre. I had no idea it was possible to do Mysterio this well. It always stretched credulity for him to pull off special effects to the extent he did in the comics and cartoons, but this one actually made it seem semi-credible. LOVED the way they came up with his name. I think I need to stare at that very last shot in the second-post credits scene:

I had the EXACT same thought you did. So I agree, it's entirely unclear what happened with him.

Maybe he thinks Cap and Iron Man are fine to off because as you say others can take up their mantle. But what happens when Anthony Mackie leaves? Or if hypothetically Peter Parker gets replaced by Miles Morales because Tom Holland is leaving, what then, it gets passed to another person? This doesn't sound sustainable, at least without people getting pissed all along the way. I'm not even sure half of comics fans are in on the idea of Miles Morales to begin with. Related but separate question here--I didn't read any of the comics where Falcon became Cap. Does he somehow get Cap's powers? If so, how? Cap is Cap because of the "super soldier serum" from Doctor Erskine, but he's dead now, so I'm wondering how Falcon can duplicate that.

I forgot about Ed Norton and Terrence Howard and noticed but barely remembered the others. I guess Feige is taking it case by case. It was after those two guys that he started making the actors sign the multi-picture deals. The last round of contractual film requirements that most of the bigs from Avengers signed was 6 films, I believe. I wonder if he'll try to push that even higher now. But I'm not sure he's thought this entirely through. Maybe he has. I certainly respect him enough to ASSUME he's thought it through, but as soon as Widow, RDJ, and Cap were eliminated I sat there in the theater being VERY uncertain about it, and even now I can't tell yet since Endgame just happened and we don't know what the future holds. He's pretty much shoehorned now into rebooting at some point. Or maybe he realizes it but is choosing what he sees as the lesser of two evils, i.e. recasting versus rebooting, neither of which is anywhere close to ideal.

My money would be on Galactus as the next big bad.

If this were true, I'd have my answer--Feige has absolutely, positively jumped the shark. Did we learn NOTHING from the death of Superman crapola from the 80s that made it impossible to take superhero deaths seriously? I highly respect virtually everything Feige has done up to this point, so I HIGHLY doubt he'll do what you're describing. If he did do that, deaths would mean as little in the MCU as they did for a while in the 80s and 90s in comics.

Your third sentence quoted above contradicts your first, doesn't it? Seems like you're saying they've got plenty of content and characters to last for 20 years, THEN they reboot. Which I agree is credible, and now that Feige has allowed major characters to be killed off, so likely as to be inevitable. Unless you're suggesting that Disney just says "We've won Hollywood everyone, thanks for watching!" and disbands Marvel Studios at that point. SPOILER: they won't.

WARNING: This thread will be inherently filled with spoilers about Avengers: Endgame, so if you haven't seen it, close the thread out now. Chris Evans and Robert Downey, Jr. had been wanting to stop reprising their roles as Captain America and Iron Man for many years before Endgame, so it's not surprising that it was their last film. What is surprising is that Feige allowed the Russos to kill off Stark and effectively eliminate Cap by having him live out his life with Peggy Carter in the past and be elderly in the present time of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). They were great ways to phase the characters out that I very much enjoyed in the moment. However, I don't know that I understand the approach. Is the plan going forward to eliminate any character when the actor playing that character wants to leave the MCU? I'm guessing that Mark Ruffalo is out as soon as his contract is up. I say that because I saw him on "Real Time With Bill Maher" back in 2012 when the first Avengers movie came out, and when Bill Maher said something like "superhero movies aren't my thing" Ruffalo replied something to the effect of "yeah, they're not mine either." I suppose there are a few ways to take that remark, but I just took it to mean he's not a fan of the genre, but that he took the work because it pays well and might help make him famous enough to widen the number of roles he can get. And who knows, maybe he didn't like it before being the Hulk but he does like it now, so maybe he re-signs. But if Ruffalo leaves, do we get rid of the Hulk, too? If Tom Holland wants to do dramatic roles in a few years, do we whack Spider-Man? Continuity in Marvel comics has always been challenging in that every time a new author comes in he tends to have his own ideas that often contradict or run roughshod over the ideas of previous authors. As a result, we get an idea like Bendis healing Victor Von Doom's facial scars, turning him into a good guy, and donning the Iron Man armor in the "Infamous Iron Man" series, which was almost immediately followed up after Bendis left Marvel by the next writer re-scarring Doom's face and re-installing him as dictator of Latveria. Character continuity can be jagged like that as writers come and go on the character, but at least the writer CAN try to be consistent, and at least the artists CAN try to make Tony Stark or Peter Parker look like the previous artists have tried to draw him. In the case of films, there's no choice--when an actor drops out, you either replace him or get rid of him in some way, most likely by killing them off. So far I don't think any MCU films have replaced anyone, right? If anyone knows of an example where they've replaced an actor please do point it out. I wouldn't be shocked if it has happened, but I don't recall it happening yet. Is tying actors to characters really a sustainable model? If you're going to get rid of a character every time an actor drops out, it's inevitable that a reboot will occur. Yes, you could do something lame like go BACK to 1950 and drag Cap back to 2020 before he's old and come up with some bizarre reason why he no longer looks like Chris Evans, but is it credible to come up with some lame ret-con to explain why a new actor playing a character is now in the MCU? No. You've got to eventually reboot, otherwise it gets REALLY lame like comics did after the death of Superman, where you know that a character death means nothing because they'll find a way to bring them back eventually. So I would argue that Feige's mostly likely plan is an eventual reboot. Is that a great plan? The comics really haven't done this. Marvel has toyed with alternate universes in the comics many times, most famously with the Ultimates line. But accepting that writer rollovers have made the continuity jagged, there's still only one main universe that Marvel characters in the comics have been in that the company calls Earth-616. Why wouldn't Feige follow that same model? Periodic reboots seem VERY lame. But I get the challenge...Robert Downey, Jr. IS Iron Man to a significant portion of the people who were introduced to the characters through the films. Chris Evans IS Captain America. So it does make a certain amount of sense to retire the character when the actors are ready to quit. I think Feige has made a mistake. Don't eliminate characters when actors leave, just cast a new actor. It's the James Bond model, or if you prefer the soap opera model--we all get that this is fiction, so when an actor leaves just re-cast them.

I understood that reference.

We won't know the new cast, so bringing the old one instantly grants legitimacy to the new guys.

I'm sure it's to promote the prequel. Maybe they've done some casting and it'll be a mix of the old and new cast promoting it.

Is there a release date for this yet?

Even my toddlers cut off re-watching "Paw Patrol: Mighty Pups" after about two or three dozen viewings.

Are you referring to the comment where Feige said they already had a 5-year plan worked out prior to them getting the X-Men? All he said was that it would be a long time, not necessarily that they wouldn't get worked in to whatever that 5-year plan is.

Yea I don't entirely like how Apocalypse or Sinister look either, yet I freaking LOVE the story of both characters. I mostly like how they look, but there are elements that bug the sheet out of me because they're so idiotic, like the big "A" on Apocalypse's belt or the prissier elements of Sinister's outfit you referred to.

Why? He's got one of the more interesting back stories of all the X-villains. He's a human contemporary of Charles Darwin born in the 19th century and was obsessed with evolutionary biology who believed that mutants were the next phase of human evolution. His goal was to find a way to artificially evolve humans to improve humanity. Apocalypse gave him his wish by mutating him, so unlike most mutants he wasn't born as one, he was made into one. Fox was planning to use him as a villain had they kept making films, and Bryan Singer teased him in the post-credits scene of the Apocalypse film by showing someone taking a vial of Wolverine's blood and putting it into a briefcase pictured below and labelled "Essex Corp," which is Sinister's company since his real name is Nathaniel Essex.

Hasbro is putting up a new vintage X-Men wave for pre-order around noon today. Loving the Iceman and Silver Samurai. Maybe the Storm too, not sure yet. Cyclops comes with two optic blast accessories--the one in the pic below and a second one that projects outwards a few inches. They're awesome, but I don't care for the X-Factor costume.