@therealsilvermane

Carol Danvers put Thanos vers. 616 in a killer choke hold and Thor lopped his head off with Stormbreaker. Teamwork makes the dream work.

I just realized that Friday November 10th is Veterans Day Observed. The Marvels’ opening day is a federal and school holiday. Smart.

Echo and Ironheart have been delayed to 2024 at least. That leaves only Secret Invasion and Loki2 as the only Disney+ series locked in for 2023. Im sure they’re a casualty of the new quality over quantity mantra. Quantumania was most likely locked and in the can, post production wise, by the time Bob Iger returned as CEO. Some of the Guardians actors said they cried after reading the GOTG 3 -script. Im sure it will be as good as anything Gunn puts out. The Marvels is probably the first MCU movie affected by the new “quality not quantity” philosophy as we’re told the three months delay is to give more time for the VFX artistes.

First, I’m not really trying to compare RDJ’s Tony Stark to Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers. I only brought him up because you did. I realize RDJ is the Mac daddy George Washington of the MCU and can’t ever really be replaced and that the MCU’s new leaders can only hope to hold their own in the future. From the current storylines of Phase Four, it seems there is no stable leadership in the MCU as the universe recovers in the aftermath of the Snap and that the world of the MCU is in a strange in-between transition period. Sam Wilson is just getting used to wielding the shield and Carol is off world. As the new Avengers level threat makes itself known, the MCU’s leaders will rise because the story demands it. You ask that if Carol is to be at the forefront, then where has she been in Phase Four? I’m saying that as stories and character arcs, like Loki Wanda and Sam Wilson, left over from Phase Three got resolved and a new world order established, the one character whose influence kept popping up in different pockets of the MCU was Carol Danvers: the rise of Carol’s niece Monica Rambeau, Carol’s connection to SWORD, the introduction of Kamala Khan as a Danvers super-fan, Captain Marvel’s multiverse roles in What If? and Doctor Strange 2, the consulting scene from Shang Chi. These subtly point to Carol Danvers having a future as a larger influence on the MCU’s narrative as the MCU moves from the scattered in-between time of Phase Four towards the telling of the the next big super narrative. So far, only Doctor Strange comes close in seeming to have an influence in so many different parts of the MCU in Phase Four.

Captain Marvel has always been important to the company brand because of the “Marvel” name, why publisher Martin Goodman copyrighted the name in 1967 when it became public domain due to DC’s legal shenanigans. As far as being the face of the MCU, what Mr Feige said in 2019 is “she will soon be at the forefront of the MCU.” That’s a little different from “she will be the brand going forward.” “Soon” in feature film time is a relative term, and Marvel Studios is obviously playing the long game with its characters, taking ten years alone to map out the Infinity Stones saga. And even though RDJ’s Iron Man was the face of the MCU, he wasn’t in every MCU movie. And characters like Steve Rogers and Doctor Strange weren’t immediate fan favorites. I argue Mr Rogers didn’t become a true favorite until his elevator scene in Winter Soldier. I argue Doctor Strange didn’t become a true favorite until he took on Thanos mano a mano in Infinity War. I argue that Carol Danvers is still a work in progress as Marvel Studios is slowly building out her world. With “The Marvels”, she will finally get a present-day circle of friends like other major MCU heroes have. I think she’ll also finally get the emotional gut punch story that defines other MCU heroes, because admittedly her first movie lacked that emotional gut punch narrative being a more lighthearted origin story, by design, sandwiched between the movies with the biggest one-two emotional gut punch in MCU history. The Marvels needs to be a good movie, and delaying it a few months will help ensure that. Marvel Studios has also slowly shown Carol’s growing influence in Phase Four, ie her best friend Maria Rambeau is the founder of SWORD, or consulting newbie Shang Chi in his mid credit scene. Carol Danvers will also finally finally be the leader of The Avengers in the comic books this spring. While not necessarily looking to be the ONLY face of the MCU, signs point to Carol Danvers definitely headed towards being at its forefront in the stories and on the lunchbox, just as Kevin Feige foretold.

That’s the spirit!

How the Hades do you review a movie that hasn’t even come out yet? Oh right, hater trolls do it all the time with Captain Marvel while making YouTube views aka money at the same time because Captain Marvel is that much of an attention magnet to the tune of a billion plus dollars and hundreds of YouTube videos fruitlessly trying to bring her down. Higher further faster, babay!

From comics legend Roy Thomas: John Cimino and I joined our friend Jim Clark (a retired USAF officer) at an early showing of "Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania." It wasn't my favorite Marvel movie, but I've got to say that it reinforced my view that "Rotten Tomatoes" and a lot of other Internet sources are just this side of useless when it comes to accessing the quality of a Marvel film... or maybe any other one, as well. Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Michele Feiffer, and the rest--but especially Rudd--made this "Ant-Man Meets Star Wars" episode a fun romp, even if there was necessarily so much CGI that sometimes it became hard to get your bearings. But hey--they're a quintet of Earth humans in a sub-atomic universe--this isn't Mayberry or Fernwood, for Crom's sake! One common complaint seems to be that this "Ant-Man" isn't small-scale and light like the first one. Well, duh (as they say). Why should the third "Ant-Man" movie follow the same pattern as the first one or two? If it had, then these same souls would be complaining that Marvel was just making the same movie over again (remember "Thor: Dark World"?)! Why shouldn't Ant-Man, especially in the wake of his crucial role in "Avengers: Endgame" be involved in something bigger--even if it's actually something smaller? Even Spider-Man started off as just a high school kid bitten by a spider, and a few movies later he's battling Thanos on another world. The film has flaws, sure... and I agree with the complaint that too much cheap humor is made in recent movies of the heroes' names, like MODOK in this one. (The only such joke I ever liked was in the first "Ant-Man," when Pym tells Lang his code title will be "Ant-Man" and he asks, "Is it too late to change the name?"--because that's a quite normal reaction for a person to have. "ANT-man"? By the way, am I right in thinking that that joke was only in the trailer but didn't make it into the finished film, or did I blink and miss it there?). But, flaws and all, it's better than most of the Disney+ shows to date ("WandaVision" definitely excepted)... It was just a good solid visual romp, enlivened by several very good actors playing well-delineated characters. And by the way, for the record, I'll have to disagree with one or two of my fellow comics pros in saying that never, from his first appearance early in THE AVENGERS comicbook till now, have I considered Kang the Conqueror a silly character, or the notion of a villain trying to change history in his/her favor a not-worthwhile approach to a storyline. Au contraire. Too bad the MCU probably won't follow my lead back in the late '60s and pit Kang in battle with the Grandmaster. The comics world got both the Squadron Sinister/Supreme and the Invaders out of that one. Best wishes, Roy

Maybe making Aquaman an Eskimo and giving him an ice cream loving seal buddy would’ve been better.

It seems the point of the Infinity Saga and the Multiverse Saga is, and will be, how do these things, Infinity Stones and the Multiverse, create a headache for our 616 Universe which our heroes must solve? With the Infinity Saga, general audiences didn't really know the true threat the Infinity Stones posed to our universe until Avengers Infinity War. Before that, Infinity Stones were either MacGuffins or a transformational power source. Similarly, with the Multiverse, as far as what we've been told, we don't yet know enough about it. So far, it's either been a source of power (i.e. Chaos energy), a source of monsters, or a way to explore parallel universes, parallel selves, or periods of time. So far the Multiverse isn't so much of a MacGuffin as it is a story setting. However, some comics readers know that the Multiverse in Marvel Comics leads to a multiversal war (like the 2015 Secret Wars event), where some universes threatened the entire existence of other universes, like our 616 universe. This has already been hinted at in Loki and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness where the concept of incursions is introduced. Right now, the Multiverse is more of a concept still being explored or a story setting, with its true threat still to be revealed. This is kind of how it was during the Infinity Saga. I'm thinking the Multiverse Saga is no different.

? IMO, Phase One movies definitely all felt like the same movie in cinematic style, with bright flat comedy style lighting to fit stories that never got too dark thematically. It wasn't until Phase Two that the MCU stretched its style with Captain America Winter Soldier which looked and felt like a political action thriller, and got a little darker thematically. The remaining MCU Russo Bros movies followed this style. Every other movie through Phase Three (with the slight exception of Black Panther) has followed the basic style of Iron Man, that is, brightly-lit comedy-drama adventures. There wasn't a lot of deviation from that in Phases 1-3. Even GOTG was a funnier version of a movie shot in the style of Iron Man. I think Phase Four is where we saw actual experimentation in style and theme, and part of that is due to the Disney+ shows, where Marvel was able to tell smaller stories and better explore the inner world of these characters. Black Widow and Falcon Winter Soldier were political action thrillers in the style of Captain America Winter Soldier. A lot of Shang-Chi was shot and told in the style of a Wuxia movie, like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon meets Pokemon. Each episode of WandaVision experimented with different shooting style that mirrored different generations of TV shows and modern film. Ms. Marvel was the MCU's true stab at a coming of age story, moreso than Spider-Man Homecoming IMO, and also the first American TV show to highlight a Muslim-American family. Eternals was an even bigger stretch for Marvel, experimenting with a brooding dark story that spanned different epochs of history. Multiverse of Madness was a Sam Raimi movie, a genre unto itself. Werewolf By Night was shot like an old school horror movie/show. She-Hulk was a straight up 4th wall breaking half hour legal comedy. The Phase Four MCU films and Disney+ shows probably couldn't have been further apart in theme and style. At the same time, a homogenous style has been the M.O. of Marvel Comics since 1962. They've basically told one story since Fantastic Four #1 and the emphasis has always been on the characters. This means there hasn't been much experimentation with storytelling style or character development in the pages of Marvel Comics. It's DC Comics where we saw more experimentation with character and storytelling style, with DC not afraid to completely reboot major characters in order to stay fresh. In some ways, Marvel Studios is following the M.O. of Marvel Comics for the past 60 years, which is one reason Marvel is so good at the continuous expanded universe thing, its part of its DNA. A slightly homogenous cinematic style is a symptom of that M.O., for better or worse.

I guess it actually made $225 million WW this weekend. My bad for following the one website whose one job is to report box office numbers.

Okay

Quantumania has 360 million WW for the holiday weekend. Word of mouth seems to be in the positive all over social media. It’ll clear 575-600 million easily.

As I see it, if you can get past MODOK, Quantumania is a decent movie. The Quantum peoples revolution is kind of useless other than adding to the Mania, but the hero and villain stories are good. Yes, Scott Lang is out of his league, but that’s been his M.O. since the first movie, a regular guy thrown amongst gods. Hope, Janet, and Hank finally get real hero moments. Hank Pym himself, and this is kind of a SPOILER, finally gets to be an Ant-Man. New-comer Cassie Lang isn’t bad. The tension created by Kang is both compelling and chilling. Even MODOK’s story makes sense. Most importantly, the movie concludes well. I’m seeing it again next week, and maybe MODOK won’t bother me as much a second time around, because he kind of made me a little ill whenever he was onscreen.

Saw it in 3D IMAX last night. Some things I didn’t like, but more that I liked. As I said, MODOK was weird and very very distracting. I could have done with less of the Quantum people and revolutionaries. I’m not sure why Bill Murray’s character was in the movie. However, I liked that Hank and Janet actually did something action hero wise. Hope was also a better hero in this movie. Kang was charismatic and terrifying when it counted. He reminds me a little of Khan from Star Trek. I loved the ants, who hardly had a role in the last movie, I mean the name of the franchise is Ant-Man. I still prefer the first Ant-Man, but the villain and better roles for Janet, Hank, and Hope elevated Quantumania over Ant-Man and the Wasp for me. I still can’t say enough how much MODOK nearly ruined the film for me. I did end up kinda liking him at the end tho’.

MODOK was so freakin’ weird that I can see how that might have actually ruined the movie for a lot of people and critics. For me, the character redeemed his presence in the movie at the end.

Mid credits scene correction spoiler

Well, Shang-Chi got waaay higher scores than F9 with Metacritic, IMDb, and RT critic and audience, so I’m not sure what your better movie metric is other than your personal opinion. Yes, F9 came out in June 2021, months before Shang-Chi. F9 made $179 million domestic, not bad for a pandemic release. But what needs to be considered is that movie theaters still had an awful box office the rest of the summer while streaming got more and more popular over the summer.. It was expected Black Widow might be the end of summer spike the box office needed, but instead made it worse with its rapid diminishing box office compared to its record streaming premiere numbers. Black Widow was almost like a seeming nail in the coffin for movie theaters because of its streaming success. F9 wasn’t up against that doom and gloom sentiment, Shang-Chi was. And after Shang-Chi’s two record box office weekends, all talk of streaming as the new future of big movies was dead. F9 didn’t do that. Shang-Chi did that. Also, what the North American movie theater industry was worried about during the pandemic was North American theater chains: AMC, Cinemark, IMAX etc. F9’s $300 million overseas had no bearing on AMC or Cinemark’s profits.

What Steven Spielberg really meant was “You saved Hollywood’s arse and theatrical distribution from all those awful superhero movies that have taken the box office dollars from the rest of us for a decade!” Because even though he praised Iron Man and GOTG, Spielberg doesn’t really care for superhero movies and hasn’t since 1989 Batman. Where is Spielberg’s public praise for Spider-Man No Way Home which made more domestic and international than Maverick? When I say Shang-Chi saved movie theaters, I’m not only repeating the sentiment of actual movie theater chain owners at the time, I’m saying it in the context of a time when everybody thought the pandemic not only hastened the death of the movie theater, but also hastened the rise of home streaming as the preferred way to watch big movies, and Shang-Chi proving that sentiment wrong with two highly unexpected record box office weekends, and practically creating a domino effect regarding confidence in the power of the box office going forward.

Oh I’d say you definitely need to watch Ant-Man and the Wasp before Ant-Man Quantumania, otherwise you might be wondering how Michele Pfeiffer got here. IMO, it’s not as good as the first movie, but it is more action packed.

Mark Ruffalo also leaked this story three years ago. When we did the first Avengers, Kevin Feige told me, ‘Listen, I might not be here tomorrow.’ And he’s like, ‘Ike does not believe that anyone will go to a female-starring super movie.’ So if I am still here tomorrow you will know that I won that battle.’ https://www.comicsbeat.com/kevin-feige-mcu-diversity-ike-perlmutter/

Because what was amazing about Top Gun Maverick’s cinematography was really that the filmmakers were able to fit so many cameras on one fighter jet. For each of those camera setups, there was no inventive angle setup or lighting setup to create emotional impact. It was just getting as many cameras onto the jet to cover all the visual bases. The real “magic” was done in the editing, compiling all those camera angles into a single action, and Top Gun Maverick deservedly received a nomination for Best Editing. The real art of cinematography comes in the creative angle setups and lighting, not how many cameras you can cram onto a moving vehicle.

Well, the two MCU movies/series where this very thing came into play were Avengers Endgame and Loki, where Thanos, Gamora, and Loki were “replaced” by their multiverse variants. In all three cases, the variants were able to see how their 616 counterparts lived and died. Thanos and Loki literally saw their deaths, resulting in a profound change in their character’s decision making. With the variant Loki, seeing his other life and death on film at the TVA changed his entire life’s view. I didn’t find that boring in the least.