I guess they couldn't really have him going around and slashing all his foes up with his claws like some kind of Freddy Krueger or Wolverine or something.
i have to say i'm not a big fan of most of the MCU movies. Winter Soldier, Black Panther and the two GotG are exceptions to that however.
Because the Iron Man series is just three films with the same plot points. Because the first two Thor films fail to capture the fantasy majesty of the character, the other asgardians and the nine realms over boring romances, corny jokes and the most sterile of locations on Earth. Because the first Avengers was about as exciting as losing your virginity and Age of Ultron as disappointing as routine sex (and Ultron was nerfed badly*). Because none of them try to break ground or stray way from the mold despite coming from such opposing genres.
What makes Winter Soldier, GotG and Black Panther stand out is because they were different. They embraced the genres they came from offering a superhero slant on an old method. The rest of the movies just tried to copy Iron Man 1.
Without spoilers I'd say it's a great culmination of the Marvel movies that have come before. It is kind of important that you are a guardians and avengers fan before who's seen those movies.
Without spoilers I'd say it's a great culmination of the Marvel movies that have come before. It is kind of importantpretty much required that you are a guardians and avengers fan before who's seen those movies.
Fixed it for ya.
And I don't mean that in a snarky way at all; without seeing a least a few of the most recent Marvel movies, you will be extremely confused as to what's going on. The first Guardians movie, Thor: Ragnorak, and Captain America: Civil War cover most of the bases... I think.
I'm confused, I thought the movie was adapting "The Infinity Gauntlet" miniseries. Why is it called "Infinity War"? That was a sequel series to the whole "Thanos has the infinity gems" plotline. They also haven't introduced the main character of that series either. Let alone over half of the major supporting cast.
It is only loosely based on the Infinity Gauntlet miniseries which came out...erm...whenever the heck it got published. Very late 80s? Early 90s? *shrug* I still have them in box somewhere...I think. I also had the two follow-ups to it, which were technically "Infinity War" and "Infinity Crusade", if I recall. The main character *has* been introduced, though, but only if you saw the after-credit scenes of GotG2.
Yes. He is introduced post credits after the end of GOTG2.
I haven't read the comics but this, like Civil War, is only a loose adaptation of the source material. It is altered to fit the characters available (for example lots are currently loaned out to Fox) and other factors. The source material is not gospel, it's inspiration for adaption.
Odd that the main character of the series only gets a post credit intro. I understand adaptations, but its looking like it won't really resemble the original at all.
Odd that the main character of the series only gets a post credit intro. I understand adaptations, but its looking like it won't really resemble the original at all.
It will in that it will involve gems (stones), Thanos, and universe changing events. It's inspired by the comics, not a direct adaptation.
No movie ever follows the source material exactly, especially if it is being adapted from a novel or graphic novel. Can you imagine what LotR: An Unexpected Journey would have been like had it followed the actual novel? 8 hours long and you would have fallen asleep during the boring parts.
IW stays true enough to the source material that you can clearly tell it is based on it even though it doesn't follow exactly.
I'm not saying follow it exactly. But the Hobbit movies are an example of doing it wrong. It could have been compressed into a single movie fairly easily by following the main plot points. Instead, they streatched it out over 3 and for some reason, added a bunch of extra crap to it that has nothing to do with "The Hobbit".
So far, "Infinity War" only superficially resembles the source material. They have a glove, some dude named Thanos, and some of the Avengers.
I'm not saying follow it exactly. But the Hobbit movies are an example of doing it wrong. It could have been compressed into a single movie fairly easily by following the main plot points. Instead, they streatched it out over 3 and for some reason, added a bunch of extra crap to it that has nothing to do with "The Hobbit".
So far, "Infinity War" only superficially resembles the source material. They have a glove, some dude named Thanos, and some of the Avengers.
Have you seen it? Once you do you might find more in common than you are thinking now despite that character who is in the comics but not in the movie.
Someone needs to tell Marvel editorial and Writers that you don't have to nerf heroes, forget their past feats, and turn them into complete pushovers in order to teach them humility. I don't like how Jason Aaron turned Thor into a whiny moron obsessed with the loss of Mjolnir.
This is not the real Thor to me. This is a clone created by Odin in order to test the abilities of possible allies and foes in a future battle against the Death god Walker or Surtur. He's a Thorosi.
He also made him weaker than She-Hulk and afraid of dying frozen when he previously was able to fly through space bare chested. Odin and Thor are incapable to defeat Mangog together but Jane Foster Thor did It. Odin being a abusive jerkass to Thor. Thor being uncomfortable around She-Hulk when he spent all' of his life surrounded by badass action girls like Lady Sif, Valkerye and Brunhilde. Mjolnir being destroyed in the sun despite all' the times it went through the sun with no damage.
I haven't bought a Thor comic since Jason Aaron gave Mjolnir to Jane, so I'm not here to comment on any specific narrative or story, but the last time I did was Aaron's run on Thor, and while it was entertaining in parts I just noticed that he (and Marvel writers in general) wants to tell a human story using mythological/magical/superhuman characters. Whereas previous writers take on Thor (or any other powerful character with a sci-fi or fantasy background) seeking to write a story about Asgardian characters walking among men and dealing with mystical villains. It's one thing to inject human or humanistic elements in a fantasy adventure story, it's another to treat said characters as basically regular modern day people who happen to have powers. It's how I feel about MCU Thor as well. He doesn't seem like a mystical , godly knight with great powers and poetic dialect (Have at thee!), but rather a goofy dudebro who happens to be a powerful alien*. I think Aaron mostly built his run off of Matt Fraction's previous work. Fraction sort of turned Thor and Odin into brutish and thuggish boors with deep issues, whereas JM Straczinsky's (yes, the Babylon 5 guy) Thor was a modernized take on classical Thor. Similar proper speech pattern (not quite Shakespearean though), quite powerful and examining the meaning of Asgardian godhood among humans. Only issue I had was bringing Asgard to Oklahoma at the time, though we'll never know how JMS would have concluded his run and where he would've taken Thor afterward. Everything after 2008 has made me really appreciate Dan Jurgens' quite good run on Thor from 1998-2004 that often gets overlooked. Just, ugh, just skip the part with the clone of Thanos please.
* It's also how i feel about Aaron's Thanos Rising story.
** The Russo Bros. fixed MCU Thor quite a bit though.
Whedon was always so afraid to have a big ''boss fight''. Looking back although both Avengers were both solid films and the first one is still a great film, Whedon handled the battle scenes poorly it could've been so much more action wise. He doesn't seem capable of portraying powerful characters he just wants the team to fight an army of putty patrol and not have a big bad providing a physical threat and impressive feats. In reality the whole team should've had a final battle against vibranium Ultron instead of just random mini-fights with him getting his mechanical butt kicked by street levelers Cap and Black Widow. Whedon can't do big power level action well at all.
The Russo Bros. absolutely schooled him when it comes to that area, they still had the putty patrol and the quirky miniboss squad to fight but we got a big boss battle too, if Whedon was directing Thanos would've had about 30 seconds of fight scenes and be done just letting his minions fight.
Whedon was always so afraid to have a big ''boss fight''. Looking back although both Avengers were both solid films and the first one is still a great film, Whedon handled the battle scenes poorly it could've been so much more action wise. He doesn't seem capable of portraying powerful characters he just wants the team to fight an army of putty patrol and not have a big bad providing a physical threat and impressive feats. In reality the whole team should've had a final battle against vibranium Ultron instead of just random mini-fights with him getting his mechanical butt kicked by street levelers Cap and Black Widow. Whedon can't do big power level action well at all.
The Russo Bros. absolutely schooled him when it comes to that area, they still had the putty patrol and the quirky miniboss squad to fight but we got a big boss battle too, if Whedon was directing Thanos would've had about 30 seconds of fight scenes and be done just letting his minions fight.
Someone needs to tell Marvel editorial and Writers that you don't have to nerf heroes, forget their past feats, and turn them into complete pushovers in order to teach them humility. I don't like how Jason Aaron turned Thor into a whiny moron obsessed with the loss of Mjolnir.
This is not the real Thor to me. This is a clone created by Odin in order to test the abilities of possible allies and foes in a future battle against the Death god Walker or Surtur. He's a Thorosi.
He also made him weaker than She-Hulk and afraid of dying frozen when he previously was able to fly through space bare chested. Odin and Thor are incapable to defeat Mangog together but Jane Foster Thor did It. Odin being a abusive jerkass to Thor. Thor being uncomfortable around She-Hulk when he spent all' of his life surrounded by badass action girls like Lady Sif, Valkerye and Brunhilde. Mjolnir being destroyed in the sun despite all' the times it went through the sun with no damage.
I haven't bought a Thor comic since Jason Aaron gave Mjolnir to Jane, so I'm not here to comment on any specific narrative or story, but the last time I did was Aaron's run on Thor, and while it was entertaining in parts I just noticed that he (and Marvel writers in general) wants to tell a human story using mythological/magical/superhuman characters. Whereas previous writers take on Thor (or any other powerful character with a sci-fi or fantasy background) seeking to write a story about Asgardian characters walking among men and dealing with mystical villains. It's one thing to inject human or humanistic elements in a fantasy adventure story, it's another to treat said characters as basically regular modern day people who happen to have powers. It's how I feel about MCU Thor as well. He doesn't seem like a mystical , godly knight with great powers and poetic dialect (Have at thee!), but rather a goofy dudebro who happens to be a powerful alien*. I think Aaron mostly built his run off of Matt Fraction's previous work. Fraction sort of turned Thor and Odin into brutish and thuggish boors with deep issues, whereas JM Straczinsky's (yes, the Babylon 5 guy) Thor was a modernized take on classical Thor. Similar proper speech pattern (not quite Shakespearean though), quite powerful and examining the meaning of Asgardian godhood among humans. Only issue I had was bringing Asgard to Oklahoma at the time, though we'll never know how JMS would have concluded his run and where he would've taken Thor afterward. Everything after 2008 has made me really appreciate Dan Jurgens' quite good run on Thor from 1998-2004 that often gets overlooked. Just, ugh, just skip the part with the clone of Thanos please.
* It's also how i feel about Aaron's Thanos Rising story.
** The Russo Bros. fixed MCU Thor quite a bit though.
What? Are you saying current marvel are poorly writing their characters and in many cases completely writing their characters out of character and also just ignoring past feats?
Now i wonder how he's gonna mess up the Nova Corps this time.
Any concerns on the Nova front? I’d hate to see Gunn ruin the Novas any further.
I was pumped when Feige mentioned Nova had immediate potential but Gunn’s humor I find rather cheesy and low brow. What concerns me is more marvel movies are injecting some ill-timed and puzzling humour( starlord imitating Thor & dr strange commenting on Starks ice cream flavour in the middle of a serious conversation in Infinity War, Thor spinning in circles threatening Surtur in Ragnarok...). I fear they will begin to dilute the dramatic impact of the movies with comedy bits thrown over relying in the GOTG formula.
IMHO, the slightly off-beat humor can work, but I agree they can easily over do it, and in doing so make an awkward movie in the process.
I'm pretty pumped to hear that Gunn is back for GotG 3, even though I felt 2 was a minor let down compared to the first, I just didn't find the villain as compelling, Ronan was much more interesting. Still loved the movie, I just feel like it's kinda my Thor 2/Iron Man 2, a movie that I just don't like. I loved those two movies though, so I never have understood the sheer hate they get, especially Thor 2, but I will confess to being a bit of a mythology nerd in my youth, so I loved the Dark Elves, and thought the big armoured guy, the cursed or something, was pretty entertaining over all. Meh. I didn't like Age of Ultron especially, though I should probably watch it again, as I've kinda seen it once, and not in a very conducive environs/medium. Overall, I like comedy in my comic book movies, and I usually feel it's appropriate for the medium as comics love to make jokes too, and don't always take themselves too seriously.
How much comedy is too much comes down to it feeling too predictable, because it's not like Deadpool doesn't do comedy most of the time and come out a great comic book movie, though Deadpool is a different kind of character I admit.
For Marvel movies that are comedy heavy, I think Thor Ragnarok and GotG really are hard to beat, and I think they are probably as funny as is practical to be, with much more requiring a significant tone change for the movie, with nothing being taken entirely seriously, like in Deadpool. I did not care for the portrayal of Surtur, who should have been way stronger, and shouldn't have stopped at Asgard. I mean, really, he's supposed to burn ALL the realms in mythology, why not make him more interesting? Still loved the movie, which finally showcases Thor as a real powerhouse, and not 2nd tier Avenger.
I'm just wondering how GotG 3 is happening at all, since
every member but Rocket got disintegrated at the end of Infinity Wars. I guess the next Avengers movie is going to write the MCU out of that destructive corner before any other Marvel movies come out. I mean, come on, Spiderman is gone, Black Panther is gone, Starlord is gone? That whole ending kind of had me raising my eyebrow and putting my tongue in my cheek. You're really killing off most of your entire highly profitable franchise, MCU? Doubtful.
I'm just wondering how GotG 3 is happening at all, since
every member but Rocket got disintegrated at the end of Infinity Wars. I guess the next Avengers movie is going to write the MCU out of that destructive corner before any other Marvel movies come out. I mean, come on, Spiderman is gone, Black Panther is gone, Starlord is gone? That whole ending kind of had me raising my eyebrow and putting my tongue in my cheek. You're really killing off most of your entire highly profitable franchise, MCU? Doubtful.
Disney never expected anyone to believe any of those characters where permanently gone. If they had, they wouldn't have announced an upcoming Spiderman movie.
Someone needs to tell Marvel editorial and Writers that you don't have to nerf heroes, forget their past feats, and turn them into complete pushovers in order to teach them humility. I don't like how Jason Aaron turned Thor into a whiny moron obsessed with the loss of Mjolnir.
This is not the real Thor to me. This is a clone created by Odin in order to test the abilities of possible allies and foes in a future battle against the Death god Walker or Surtur. He's a Thorosi.
He also made him weaker than She-Hulk and afraid of dying frozen when he previously was able to fly through space bare chested. Odin and Thor are incapable to defeat Mangog together but Jane Foster Thor did It. Odin being a abusive jerkass to Thor. Thor being uncomfortable around She-Hulk when he spent all' of his life surrounded by badass action girls like Lady Sif, Valkerye and Brunhilde. Mjolnir being destroyed in the sun despite all' the times it went through the sun with no damage.
I haven't bought a Thor comic since Jason Aaron gave Mjolnir to Jane, so I'm not here to comment on any specific narrative or story, but the last time I did was Aaron's run on Thor, and while it was entertaining in parts I just noticed that he (and Marvel writers in general) wants to tell a human story using mythological/magical/superhuman characters. Whereas previous writers take on Thor (or any other powerful character with a sci-fi or fantasy background) seeking to write a story about Asgardian characters walking among men and dealing with mystical villains. It's one thing to inject human or humanistic elements in a fantasy adventure story, it's another to treat said characters as basically regular modern day people who happen to have powers. It's how I feel about MCU Thor as well. He doesn't seem like a mystical , godly knight with great powers and poetic dialect (Have at thee!), but rather a goofy dudebro who happens to be a powerful alien*. I think Aaron mostly built his run off of Matt Fraction's previous work. Fraction sort of turned Thor and Odin into brutish and thuggish boors with deep issues, whereas JM Straczinsky's (yes, the Babylon 5 guy) Thor was a modernized take on classical Thor. Similar proper speech pattern (not quite Shakespearean though), quite powerful and examining the meaning of Asgardian godhood among humans. Only issue I had was bringing Asgard to Oklahoma at the time, though we'll never know how JMS would have concluded his run and where he would've taken Thor afterward. Everything after 2008 has made me really appreciate Dan Jurgens' quite good run on Thor from 1998-2004 that often gets overlooked. Just, ugh, just skip the part with the clone of Thanos please.
* It's also how i feel about Aaron's Thanos Rising story.
** The Russo Bros. fixed MCU Thor quite a bit though.
What? Are you saying current marvel are poorly writing their characters and in many cases completely writing their characters out of character and also just ignoring past feats?
*coughhawkeyecough*
Been doing that for years. Look at how a writer will come along and have Hank Pym start to grow and move past his psychological problems only for the next one to go back to the mindset of "He never redeemed himself for hitting Janet!" or how Deadpool will progressively evolve into a hero only to start back as a merc when the next writer comes along. Although his fall from grace was well handled most recently.
But yeah, Endgame is about to come out and I'm all *Runs around the house flailing arms wildly.*
Comments
Because the Iron Man series is just three films with the same plot points. Because the first two Thor films fail to capture the fantasy majesty of the character, the other asgardians and the nine realms over boring romances, corny jokes and the most sterile of locations on Earth. Because the first Avengers was about as exciting as losing your virginity and Age of Ultron as disappointing as routine sex (and Ultron was nerfed badly*). Because none of them try to break ground or stray way from the mold despite coming from such opposing genres.
What makes Winter Soldier, GotG and Black Panther stand out is because they were different. They embraced the genres they came from offering a superhero slant on an old method. The rest of the movies just tried to copy Iron Man 1.
*
Without spoilers I'd say it's a great culmination of the Marvel movies that have come before. It is kind of important that you are a guardians and avengers fan before who's seen those movies.
And I don't mean that in a snarky way at all; without seeing a least a few of the most recent Marvel movies, you will be extremely confused as to what's going on. The first Guardians movie, Thor: Ragnorak, and Captain America: Civil War cover most of the bases... I think.
I haven't read the comics but this, like Civil War, is only a loose adaptation of the source material. It is altered to fit the characters available (for example lots are currently loaned out to Fox) and other factors. The source material is not gospel, it's inspiration for adaption.
IW stays true enough to the source material that you can clearly tell it is based on it even though it doesn't follow exactly.
So far, "Infinity War" only superficially resembles the source material. They have a glove, some dude named Thanos, and some of the Avengers.
''Are you Thor god of jobbers?''
Someone needs to tell Marvel editorial and Writers that you don't have to nerf heroes, forget their past feats, and turn them into complete pushovers in order to teach them humility. I don't like how Jason Aaron turned Thor into a whiny moron obsessed with the loss of Mjolnir.
This is not the real Thor to me. This is a clone created by Odin in order to test the abilities of possible allies and foes in a future battle against the Death god Walker or Surtur. He's a Thorosi.
He also made him weaker than She-Hulk and afraid of dying frozen when he previously was able to fly through space bare chested. Odin and Thor are incapable to defeat Mangog together but Jane Foster Thor did It. Odin being a abusive jerkass to Thor. Thor being uncomfortable around She-Hulk when he spent all' of his life surrounded by badass action girls like Lady Sif, Valkerye and Brunhilde. Mjolnir being destroyed in the sun despite all' the times it went through the sun with no damage.
I haven't bought a Thor comic since Jason Aaron gave Mjolnir to Jane, so I'm not here to comment on any specific narrative or story, but the last time I did was Aaron's run on Thor, and while it was entertaining in parts I just noticed that he (and Marvel writers in general) wants to tell a human story using mythological/magical/superhuman characters. Whereas previous writers take on Thor (or any other powerful character with a sci-fi or fantasy background) seeking to write a story about Asgardian characters walking among men and dealing with mystical villains. It's one thing to inject human or humanistic elements in a fantasy adventure story, it's another to treat said characters as basically regular modern day people who happen to have powers. It's how I feel about MCU Thor as well. He doesn't seem like a mystical , godly knight with great powers and poetic dialect (Have at thee!), but rather a goofy dudebro who happens to be a powerful alien*. I think Aaron mostly built his run off of Matt Fraction's previous work. Fraction sort of turned Thor and Odin into brutish and thuggish boors with deep issues, whereas JM Straczinsky's (yes, the Babylon 5 guy) Thor was a modernized take on classical Thor. Similar proper speech pattern (not quite Shakespearean though), quite powerful and examining the meaning of Asgardian godhood among humans. Only issue I had was bringing Asgard to Oklahoma at the time, though we'll never know how JMS would have concluded his run and where he would've taken Thor afterward. Everything after 2008 has made me really appreciate Dan Jurgens' quite good run on Thor from 1998-2004 that often gets overlooked. Just, ugh, just skip the part with the clone of Thanos please.
* It's also how i feel about Aaron's Thanos Rising story.
** The Russo Bros. fixed MCU Thor quite a bit though.
The Russo Bros. absolutely schooled him when it comes to that area, they still had the putty patrol and the quirky miniboss squad to fight but we got a big boss battle too, if Whedon was directing Thanos would've had about 30 seconds of fight scenes and be done just letting his minions fight.
*coughhawkeyecough*
https://deadline.com/2019/03/james-g...b93mlsupE_3a0I
Now i wonder how he's gonna mess up the Nova Corps this time.
Any concerns on the Nova front? I’d hate to see Gunn ruin the Novas any further.
I was pumped when Feige mentioned Nova had immediate potential but Gunn’s humor I find rather cheesy and low brow. What concerns me is more marvel movies are injecting some ill-timed and puzzling humour( starlord imitating Thor & dr strange commenting on Starks ice cream flavour in the middle of a serious conversation in Infinity War, Thor spinning in circles threatening Surtur in Ragnarok...). I fear they will begin to dilute the dramatic impact of the movies with comedy bits thrown over relying in the GOTG formula.
I'm pretty pumped to hear that Gunn is back for GotG 3, even though I felt 2 was a minor let down compared to the first, I just didn't find the villain as compelling, Ronan was much more interesting. Still loved the movie, I just feel like it's kinda my Thor 2/Iron Man 2, a movie that I just don't like. I loved those two movies though, so I never have understood the sheer hate they get, especially Thor 2, but I will confess to being a bit of a mythology nerd in my youth, so I loved the Dark Elves, and thought the big armoured guy, the cursed or something, was pretty entertaining over all. Meh. I didn't like Age of Ultron especially, though I should probably watch it again, as I've kinda seen it once, and not in a very conducive environs/medium. Overall, I like comedy in my comic book movies, and I usually feel it's appropriate for the medium as comics love to make jokes too, and don't always take themselves too seriously.
How much comedy is too much comes down to it feeling too predictable, because it's not like Deadpool doesn't do comedy most of the time and come out a great comic book movie, though Deadpool is a different kind of character I admit.
For Marvel movies that are comedy heavy, I think Thor Ragnarok and GotG really are hard to beat, and I think they are probably as funny as is practical to be, with much more requiring a significant tone change for the movie, with nothing being taken entirely seriously, like in Deadpool. I did not care for the portrayal of Surtur, who should have been way stronger, and shouldn't have stopped at Asgard. I mean, really, he's supposed to burn ALL the realms in mythology, why not make him more interesting? Still loved the movie, which finally showcases Thor as a real powerhouse, and not 2nd tier Avenger.
Disney never expected anyone to believe any of those characters where permanently gone. If they had, they wouldn't have announced an upcoming Spiderman movie.
Been doing that for years. Look at how a writer will come along and have Hank Pym start to grow and move past his psychological problems only for the next one to go back to the mindset of "He never redeemed himself for hitting Janet!" or how Deadpool will progressively evolve into a hero only to start back as a merc when the next writer comes along. Although his fall from grace was well handled most recently.
But yeah, Endgame is about to come out and I'm all *Runs around the house flailing arms wildly.*
New joker
Not sure how I feel about this. could be good and definitly better than Jared Leto's version. But Mark Hamill will always be the Joker to me.