@therealsilvermane

22 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Wondering now if the future of the MCU is a deemphasis on the Avengers (maybe after Endgame, there's nothing left to "avenge"), and more a focus on smaller pocket teams like Alpha Flight with Captain Marvel or Defenders with Doctor Strange etc., the Fantastic Four(?) and then later later down the road a big cosmic event like the Builders or Celestials leading to the next Avengers movie, those heroes coming together because they have to, rather than being a formal organization. Maybe Endgame is the final tale of the Avengers? 

2 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

I forget how Marvel categorizes powers--they give them Greek letter designations, don't they, like Alpha and Omega?--but the way Binary originally was in the comic and the way Brie was against Ronan's fleet in her movie, she seems about as powerful as Dark Phoenix to me, and that makes her more powerful than all of the MCU character to date aside from Thanos with the Gauntlet.  I'd love to see a comparison as to how she even differs from Phoenix.  Both Phoenix and Binary were created by Chris Claremont in the early 80s, so I'm not sure it's a coincidence they're so similar.

Yes, that's a good point. Phoenix and Binary were also co-created by Dave Cockrum, so I don't think their similarity is a coincidence at all. Ever notice how Phoenix and the 'new" Ms Marvel outfit from 1978 both sport a waist scarf? Both outfits designed by Dave Cockrum. And in the MCU, it seems like Captain Marvel's Binary powers are  Phoenix-level without Jean Grey's telepathy or telekinesis.

2 hours ago, Callaway29 said:

Brie ain’t no Gal unfortunately 

Well they're two different characters and not really similar at all. Diana is a goddess/princess, and Gal Gadot's approach was kind of noble, elegant, a softer approach, a warrior-princess, really. And romance is a big part of her character with Steve Trevor. Carol Danvers, on the other had, is a tomboy, military, not caught up in romance, a little more hard edged and confrontational as played by Brie Larson. I think men would find Gal Gadot's approach more attractive, and women would find Brie Larson's approach more attractive. Both equally effective, imo.

17 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Counterpoint: Comic book popularity =/= movie popularity.

Judging by the domestic response to the last three Spider-Man movies, he's not as popular with today's movie-going public as either Black Panther or Captain Marvel. Make sense - they both bring in expanded audience demographics. Also:

1) In six attempts so far, no Spider-Man film's yet broken $1 billion worldwide. Captain America, Iron Man, Black Panther and Captain Marvel all have. Sure, much of that is due to recency and inflation, but The Amazing Spider-Man and Homecoming both had the easy opportunity to break that barrier and didn't come close.

2) Both Black Panther and Captain Marvel made more money domestically than any Spider-Man film of the last decade, even after adjusting for inflation

3) It's increasingly looking like Captain Marvel will gross more domestically by the end of its run than _any_ of the Spider-Man films.

Disney will put their resources where the money -- and audience demand -- is.

Right now, it's not on Spider-Man -- and arguably *hasn't* been since Raimi's trilogy.

Yes, I feel that the world in general is maybe a little burned out on Spider-Man...

1 hour ago, TwoPiece said:

Disney isn't in charge here. Marvel Studios is. It's going to be a few years before the next face of the franchise is appointed. You obviously have no idea how this has worked in the past. As a character who spent 25 years away from Earth, it doesn't make logical sense for her to be front-and-center in the next Avengers appearance.

Spider-Man begins Phase 4. Iron Man began Phase 1. Coincidence? I think not. And I don't think it'll be a coincidence when he's the fan-appointed face of the MCU in a couple years. Marvel Studios usually knows how to please its fans. An unpopular comic property, mediocre origin film, and divisive actress isn't going to be the choice.

 

Fans aren't in charge here. Marvel Studios is, and Disney is in charge of Marvel. I also seem to remember Kevin Feige himself saying Carol Danvers will the face of the MCU going forward. Hmm...

So Captain America was away for like 60+ years and his first film wasn't great either,  and he was basically appointed team leader in the first Avengers film. On promotional material for the 2012 film, it goes back and forth between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark being front and center in group images. Spider-Man always has been and probably always will be the trademark logo for Marvel Comics, like Mickey Mouse is for Disney, but Queen Brie will be the new face of a Marvel Studios that wants to expand its fan base with younger people and girls.

Lastly, going back to Carol being away for 25 years as reason for her not taking the lead in the Avengers, that's actually probably going to be the reason for her taking the lead. After Endgame, the MCU reportedly will almost be split into two factions, more street level heroes and more powerful heroes who take the battle to the cosmos. The Avengers will become more of a cosmic force probably in anticipation of another intergalactic threat. Carol Danvers will logistically be more readied to take the lead in facing that threat.

Going forward, Captain Marvel will be the Captain of Marvel.

19 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

All that dislike is going to make for fun times with you. 

Especially if DC keeps making these flawed as f**k movies...

Not sure who has the better Audi spot, Carol Danvers or Peter Parker...cause this one was pretty good, too...

45 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Huh. 'brilliant'? I need to drink more Marvel Tang. 

Marvel Tang, what a good analogy! The MCU is like water with Tang...colorful, tasty, packed with Vitamin C, and even better in the summer. The DCEU is like water with...nothing. At least you can stay hydrated? Aquaman?

I posted this over in CM thread, too, cause it's kind of awesome. If you don't see Captain Marvel prior to Endgame, then this is at least required viewing, even though Audis still suck. Not sure what it is with Avengers and Audis...a contract I guess...

But maybe one day, maybe now since we're past the two first women led movies by DC and Marvel, we can stop comparing movies because they're female led and just compare them as super-hero movies in general.

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

I think you are just a DC sexist. It's quite clear.

Guilty as charged

44 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This.

It’s not a DC vs. Marvel thing, it’s a “strong female character” thing.

I was surprised at how good Captain Marvel was, but Wonder Woman was a near-superhero-masterpiece — right up until the deeply flawed last 20 minutes lightning fight.

Between the two, I still prefer Wonder Woman - but it’s close.

And the fact that WW is first-tier, while CM is third-tier makes it all the more impressive — kind of like how Guardians of the Galaxy was better than Thor and Thor 2.

I loved Wonder Woman, but some of the problems I had with it particularly were the useless "team" they got together that seemed to do nothing in the movie, Steve Trevor's constant "mansplaining" to Diana throughout the movie, got a little slow at times for no reason (such as Diana's talk with the Indian guide, why was that important again?), and yes, the paint by numbers climactic battle. I obviously preferred Captain Marvel. 

1 hour ago, Chaos_in_Canada said:

ALL my CGC comics are not pressed.

So...there is untapped potential! 

I'm waiting on opportunities for signatures before CGC slabbing some of my raw books. Sometimes I wish I lived in San Diego...

16 minutes ago, Chaos_in_Canada said:

More CGC Goodness.

Them's a nice retirement plan you got there, Chaos. Easily like $20,000 worth of stuff you got there.

18 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

Hard to compare the two films straight up.  Wonder Woman had far more name recognition coming in, but the film overall wasn't as good as Captain Marvel.  Yet there's nothing in Captain Marvel as good as that battlefield scene in Wonder Woman.

Certainly the more surprising film is Captain Marvel.  If we were taking bets as to which film would outperform the other five years ago the vast majority of us would have picked Wonder Woman.

I'd say Wonder Woman is the more "cinematic" of the two films, with its slow motion action scenes, dramatic lighting, classic period setting, and being a more stand-alone movie. Captain Marvel, on the other hand, certainly looks like a trademark MCU movie, with the flatter lighting, connection to other movies, and most importantly, humor. But Captain Marvel, like most MCU movies, is also more of a character movie, which is really the strength of the MCU, imo. Carol Danvers has a stronger personality than Diana ( I feel some may argue about that). In general, If you compare the personalities of all the Marvel characters to DC, Marvel has stronger personalities overall. I think this is so because for Marvel/Disney, the character is more important than the movie itself, as it's the characters we follow around from movie to movie. It's also in Marvel's DNA. Stan Lee revolutionized comics by making the ordinary person behind the mask or the shield the most important element of the story i.e. Peter Parker.

7 hours ago, TwoPiece said:

"Face of the franchise" ≠ "commands the Avengers". Even Tony Stark said, "actually - he's the boss". 1 character can lead a franchise while the other leads the Avengers.

It's not a difficult concept to understand.

And in this case, after Endgame, Carol Danvers will be both. You may not think it's a good idea, but that's the direction Disney is going with. On Avengers backpacks and lunch boxes and birthday plates, Captain Marvel will be front and center on all group photos.

Kingo Sunen, the Eternal turned samurai actor, maybe?

5 hours ago, paperheart said:

given the holiday week holds so far (no change Mon to Mon, down 6% Tues to Tues), even a down 30% weekend gets this to $396MM+.  Unless Endgame sucks up all the oxygen in the room, this could be headed to $415MM US (Marvel probably has their sights on $412.6MM)

I'm sure Marvel wouldn't mind topping Wonder Woman's domestic box office.

10 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Rhodes was an Avenger until he was crippled in Civil War. If you read the pre-IW comics, or watched IW commentary, Rhodes only joins the fight out of necessity. He's not an Avenger anymore. He also broke the Accords by joining Nomad to his destination Wakanda.

Brie Larson is divisive. Period. Make up all the excuses you'd like. She's divisive. RDJ? Evans? Hemsworth? Ruffalo? Nope. Give me a logical reason why they'd force a divisive person down our throats. I'll wait.

Sony does not own "full movie rights" to Spider-Man. Sony could not put Peter Parker in Venom without an agreement with Marvel Studios. What you have said is not a comprehensive agreement between Marvel Studios and Sony.

I think that, if SHIELD resurfaces, it would kinda undo everything that The Winter Soldier (and onward) has conveyed in-story. Hydra is already back. If SHIELD is back, then what was the point? Why alienate a story you've told?

If you go by that logic that Rhodes quit the Avengers by joining Steve Rogers, then there are no Avengers anymore because they ALL joined Steve Rogers. Maybe they should rename the movie Defectors: Endgame.

Brie Larson was perceived as divisive because ComicsGate people with an agenda took her words and used it as a rallying cry against a character they hated from the outset. Before Brie Larson, Captain Marvel was public enemy #1 for ComicsGate. The Alita Challenge was started by an Alt-Right twitter troll Jack Posobiece who could care less about Captain Marvel or comics, but saw it as a political stance against diversity. Disney has always been about diversity and will continue to do so. Disney and Brie Larson also have a 7 movie contract. After Carol Danvers officially takes the name Captain Marvel, perhaps in Endgame, with the Studio's name in her title, you can bet that Marvel wants her front and center. And why not? You just perceive her as divisive. I've talked with friends and family and associates about Captain Marvel. Most of them knew little about her before, and some of them, being conservative politically, were ready to hate Brie Larson. All came away from CM either loving the character and the movie, or saying, "okay, that was good. She was okay." That could almost be a cross section of how the general public feels about it. The general public doesn't rally care that much about Brie's activism on diversity just like they don't care much about Chris Evans or Mark Ruffalo's activism.

I admit, I don't have the full details of the Spiderman agreement, but I can't believe anybody actually thinks that Disney and Marvel Studios or the characters in the movie will put a 17 year old high school kid with no leadership training in charge of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the planet's defense.

I don't know what's happened in Agents of SHIELD but I also know Kevin Feige doesn't give a mess what happened on those TV shows. He only care about the MCU, and SHIELD will be back. To save it, they had to destroy it in Winter Soldier. That's Feige's MO. The Star Trek model. SHIELD is coming back after Endgame.

3 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

War Machine was an Avenger pre-Civil War. Did you watch that one, either?

Regardless of your inflated opinion of her, why would Disney or Marvel put such a divisive person at the forefront of such a lucrative franchise..?

"Strong rumors" mean nothing. There is no confirmation of SHIELD returning to the MCU. There is the confirmation that Nick Fury is in Far From Home, and that Agents of SHIELD is returning to TV/Disney+. Sony does not single-handed own the right to Spider-Man. Hence why he was absent from Venom. 

James Rhodes is one of the Avengers who didn't break the Sokovia Accords and tried to enforce it during Civil War. He was still an Avenger in Infinity War, too.

Brie Larson is divisive for trolls and dudes who don't like diversity, and maybe Disney is better off. Brie as Carol Danvers will bring in a new fan base of girls to the MCU. As Brie Larson says, representation is important. Brie also gets attention and makes news. It's like free marketing. And oh yeah, Captain Marvel made a billion dollars and is getting ready to cross $400 million domestic. The woman is money. 

Okay, here's my official prediction. After its downfall in Winter Soldier, SHIELD will return as the force for good it was meant to be, with Nick Fury in charge of everything again. If there were Vegas odds, I'd put $1000 on it.

Sony owns full movie rights to everything Spiderman. Sony could have put Peter Parker in Venom if they wanted. The MCU only has an agreement with Sony that Disney makes the Spider-Man movies (but don't get the profits) and can put Avengers in them and make it part of the MCU, and Peter Parker can be put in Avengers movies. That's it.