Personal computing discussed

Moderators: askfranklin, renee, emkubed, Captain Ned

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
superjawes
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:49 am

Re: MCU

Fri May 03, 2019 1:39 pm

dragontamer5788 wrote:
superjawes wrote:
Who says he came out of the time machine that day? Or out of a time machine at all? If he spent 50-60 years in an alternate dimension/timeline/reality, then it is perfectly possible that he created his own version of the Avengers/S.H.I.E.L.D. there, and he either came back early (when Peggy died), or his new team sent him there using their own machine.
This contradicts with #1 and #2, and the Sorcerer Supreme's explanation of time travel. Remember that time travel in "Endgame" is the alternate-universe mode. Or as Ironman put it, You can't change your past because its YOUR past. You end up changing someone else's past, not you anymore or something along those lines. In either case, Endgame has a huge amount of elaboration and explanation that solidifies the alternate-universe model..

All in all, it means that Capt. America Had to use the time machine to "warp" back to the main timeline.. If he did things the way you say so, then there's the big Thanos contradiction. Did Thanos die in 2014, or die in 2019? Capt. America's timeline is self-contradictory under your supposition.
No. It doesn't contradict anything. We ARE talking about alternate-universe models. Cap spent 50-60 years in an alternate universe. Then he came back to the his own timeline. Later. How did he get back? It doesn't really matter, but he could have come back when no one was looking, or he could have rallied the smart guys (or Sorcerer guys) from his alternate timeline to put him back in his "correct" place without using the machine Hulk/Banner was operating.

This isn't a complicated explanation. You're the only one complicating it.

As for Thanos, he died in Endgame. Twice. The main timeline one in 2019, and the alt-2014 one in 2024. Not complicated. Main TL got 2 versions, they both died, and the timeline where he (and Gamora) left never experiences a Snap. That's all we know about that Alt.
On second thought, let's not go to TechReport. Tis a silly place.
 
dragontamer5788
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:39 am

Re: MCU

Fri May 03, 2019 1:44 pm

superjawes wrote:
dragontamer5788 wrote:
superjawes wrote:
Who says he came out of the time machine that day? Or out of a time machine at all? If he spent 50-60 years in an alternate dimension/timeline/reality, then it is perfectly possible that he created his own version of the Avengers/S.H.I.E.L.D. there, and he either came back early (when Peggy died), or his new team sent him there using their own machine.
This contradicts with #1 and #2, and the Sorcerer Supreme's explanation of time travel. Remember that time travel in "Endgame" is the alternate-universe mode. Or as Ironman put it, You can't change your past because its YOUR past. You end up changing someone else's past, not you anymore or something along those lines. In either case, Endgame has a huge amount of elaboration and explanation that solidifies the alternate-universe model..

All in all, it means that Capt. America Had to use the time machine to "warp" back to the main timeline.. If he did things the way you say so, then there's the big Thanos contradiction. Did Thanos die in 2014, or die in 2019? Capt. America's timeline is self-contradictory under your supposition.
No. It doesn't contradict anything. We ARE talking about alternate-universe models. Cap spent 50-60 years in an alternate universe. Then he came back to the his own timeline. Later. How did he get back? It doesn't really matter, but he could have come back when no one was looking, or he could have rallied the smart guys (or Sorcerer guys) from his alternate timeline to put him back in his "correct" place without using the machine Hulk/Banner was operating.

This isn't a complicated explanation. You're the only one complicating it.

As for Thanos, he died in Endgame. Twice. The main timeline one in 2019, and the alt-2014 one in 2024. Not complicated. Main TL got 2 versions, they both died, and the timeline where he (and Gamora) left never experiences a Snap. That's all we know about that Alt.


I misread your initial explanation.

I think we're on the same page now.
 
superjawes
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:49 am

Re: MCU

Mon May 06, 2019 11:32 am

Yoooooooo. If you've seen Endgame, there's a new Spider-Man: Far From Home trailer out today. It confirms some of the multiverse speculation. Also, we get some more of Samuel L. Jackson having fun with this character.
On second thought, let's not go to TechReport. Tis a silly place.
 
superjawes
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:49 am

Re: MCU

Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:04 am

superjawes wrote:
Yoooooooo. If you've seen Endgame, there's a new Spider-Man: Far From Home trailer out today. It confirms some of the multiverse speculation. Also, we get some more of Samuel L. Jackson having fun with this character.

This aged...interestingly. Good Spider-Man flick. Probably not as good as Into the Spider-Verse, but that was always a tall ask.

But we've got bigger news from the weekend with the announcement of Phase 4 (and beyond?) projects. Looks like things are calm on the movie front until 2020's Black Widow (prequel, I assume) and The Eternals. Then, 2021 kicks out Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, and Thor: Love and Thunder. Thor is an interesting one, as Hemsworth took off with the Guardians in Endgame, Natalie Portman is reprising her role as Jane Foster (and also female Thor), and Taika Waititi is back for more (A++ choice with that).

Additionally, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, and Guardians are in work. We've also got projects in work for Fantastic 4 and "mutants" (which could be X-Men, but I suspect it's going to focus on a smaller cast and not that whole team). Oh, and Mahershala Ali will be Blade in that reboot (sounds good to me).

The last chunk of projects to mention, which we already knew a bit about, are the Disney+ shows. Here, we've got WandaVision, Loki, Hawkeye, What If...?, and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. That last one is a bit odd to me. I assume Anthony Mackie and Sebastian Stan are reprising their roles, and I would expect that to be "worthy" of a film adaptation. On the other hand, maybe it's a ploy to drive Disney+ subscriptions.

All in all, the biggest confirmation is that Marvel/Disney have no plans to end the MCU soon, and their long-term development is integrating across media platforms. Much more than the Netflix shows did (RIP).

PS: I'm fine with bringing back Natalie Portman for Thor, BUT DON'T FORGET KAT DENNINGS! (#BringBackDarcy)
On second thought, let's not go to TechReport. Tis a silly place.
 
NTMBK
Gerbil XP
Posts: 371
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:21 am

Re: MCU

Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:39 am

Good lord, that's a lot of stuff coming over the next two years. Like, way too much stuff.

After Endgame, I'm feeling kind of... done? I don't really feel the need for any more Marvel.
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 23039
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: MCU

Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:48 am

I almost feel like they are shifting to have a more diverse set without actually expecting everyone to watch every movie. That's how the comic books are (not that I'm an expert). They may loosely tie in with each other but you don't need to have read every one cover to cover.
 
superjawes
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:49 am

Re: MCU

Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:22 am

Yeah, Endgame seems like the "peak" of comic book films. I suspect that Marvel will continue to be mega successful (they've kept the MCU in great shape for 11 years), but I don't think a single film/event will ever reach that scope, scale, or success (at least not any time soon).

The next few years will be interesting. It seems like Marvel are expanding what an MCU film can be, expanding the media it covers, and keeping around Fox's not-actually-part-of-the-main-series-but-still-made-by-us tradition (see Deadpool, Logan). I don't know if everything will work out as they plan, but I suspect most of it will.
On second thought, let's not go to TechReport. Tis a silly place.
 
Captain Ned
Gold subscriber
Global Moderator
Posts: 27959
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: MCU

Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:28 am

superjawes wrote:
PS: I'm fine with bringing back Natalie Portman for Thor, BUT DON'T FORGET KAT DENNINGS! (#BringBackDarcy)

I always knew Jane had a little Thor in her. 8)
What we have today is way too much pluribus and not enough unum.
 
tanker27
Gerbil Khan
Topic Author
Posts: 9370
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MCU

Tue Jul 23, 2019 6:44 am

superjawes wrote:
BUT DON'T FORGET KAT DENNINGS! (#BringBackDarcy)


/Homer Voice.......MMMMM Kat Dennings. BWAHAHAHA

Missing from the announced line was Black Panther and GoG. Which is odd to me. And bringing back Taika Waititi for Thor 4 is out-freaking-standing. Ragnarok was such good fun. /Korg The revolution has begun!

Slightly OT:

On the Disney+ side I am much more interested in Favreau's Mandalorian! Which was oddly missing from SDCC since its to be released this fall when Disney+ launches.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(''')(''')
Watch out for evil Terra-Tron; He Does not like you!
 
superjawes
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:49 am

Re: MCU

Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:21 am

tanker27 wrote:
Missing from the announced line was Black Panther and GoG. Which is odd to me.

While there might not have been a hard announcement, these are in the works. I mean one of those broke the $1bn mark as a non-sequel! Guardians got super messed up by that dumb-dumb Disney exec who fired James Gunn. They were in pre-production for that and had to stop. Fortunately, Gunn is back onboard, Vol. 3 is happening, but we won't quite know when.

tanker27 wrote:
On the Disney+ side I am much more interested in Favreau's Mandalorian! Which was oddly missing from SDCC since its to be released this fall when Disney+ launches.

Favreau's doing that? Neato! Star Wars new is probably being held up by The rise of Skywalker, which releases this Christmas. I am sure Disney have plans to hone that franchise like they did the MCU, but it's going to take a bit more time--evidence being their overestimation of Solo's box office potential.
On second thought, let's not go to TechReport. Tis a silly place.
 
tanker27
Gerbil Khan
Topic Author
Posts: 9370
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MCU

Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:29 am

superjawes wrote:
tanker27 wrote:
On the Disney+ side I am much more interested in Favreau's Mandalorian! Which was oddly missing from SDCC since its to be released this fall when Disney+ launches.

Favreau's doing that? Neato! Star Wars new is probably being held up by The rise of Skywalker, which releases this Christmas. I am sure Disney have plans to hone that franchise like they did the MCU, but it's going to take a bit more time--evidence being their overestimation of Solo's box office potential.


Which is why its odd. Disney+ and The Mandalorian are releasing before TRoS (Still a dumb title) its slated for November 12, 2019.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(''')(''')
Watch out for evil Terra-Tron; He Does not like you!
 
superjawes
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:49 am

Re: MCU

Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:58 am

tanker27 wrote:
Which is why its odd. Disney+ and The Mandalorian are releasing before TRoS (Still a dumb title) its slated for November 12, 2019.
Yes, but that film is really a turning point for the greater Star Wars narrative. The MCU was always able to draw on decades of comic books. SW doesn't have that, so we're left to wonder what kinds of stories are coming after. Will there be a set of continuation films with characters from the Abrams/Johnson trilogy? Maybe, but you can't exactly announce something like that without spoiling their Christmas release.

I'm just saying that I expect Star Wars announcements eventually, but I also expect much more "structure" and long-term vision to go along with it, and they (probably) need to release TRoS before they can do that.

EDIT: I had not looked up Disney+ pricing, but it's only $6.99/month or $69.99/year. That's really good value...and probably a big reason why Netflix lost a bunch of subscribers recently.
On second thought, let's not go to TechReport. Tis a silly place.
 
tanker27
Gerbil Khan
Topic Author
Posts: 9370
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MCU

Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:04 am

superjawes wrote:
EDIT: I had not looked up Disney+ pricing, but it's only $6.99/month or $69.99/year. That's really good value...and probably a big reason why Netflix lost a bunch of subscribers recently.


AND there are going to be HULU & ESPN Bundles coming too.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(''')(''')
Watch out for evil Terra-Tron; He Does not like you!
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 23039
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: MCU

Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:04 am

superjawes wrote:
SW doesn't have that, so we're left to wonder what kinds of stories are coming after.

They did, but Disney decided to decanonize everything to make up their own stories.
superjawes wrote:
tanker27 wrote:
On the Disney+ side I am much more interested in Favreau's Mandalorian! Which was oddly missing from SDCC since its to be released this fall when Disney+ launches.

Favreau's doing that? Neato! Star Wars new is probably being held up by The rise of Skywalker, which releases this Christmas. I am sure Disney have plans to hone that franchise like they did the MCU, but it's going to take a bit more time--evidence being their overestimation of Solo's box office potential.

That is 100% to blame for the crap that was ep8. If it had released prior, my guess is the BO would have been 50% higher.
 
superjawes
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:49 am

Re: MCU

Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:40 am

Usacomp2k3 wrote:
They did, but Disney decided to decanonize everything to make up their own stories.

That isn't entirely accurate. Star Wars canon was left really open-ended outside of the stuff Lucas did, which basically gave writers freedom to "canonize" their own fanfic in novels, comics, and games. Disney brought everything under one roof and cleaned the slate, for better or worse...mostly worse if you consider EA's exclusive right to publish underwhelming games.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:
That is 100% to blame for the crap that was ep8. If it had released prior, my guess is the BO would have been 50% higher.

This just isn't true. Star Wars never had the global appeal that comic book films did/do, and Solo was a Memorial Day release competing with Deadpool 2 and Avengers: Infinity War. It also had significant reshoots after firing the original directors. TLJ reception might have affected ticket sales, but Solo had many, many other issues.

PS: here's a link to the Star Wars thread if we want to continue the SW talk.
On second thought, let's not go to TechReport. Tis a silly place.
 
tanker27
Gerbil Khan
Topic Author
Posts: 9370
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MCU

Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:39 am

(\_/)
(O.o)
(''')(''')
Watch out for evil Terra-Tron; He Does not like you!
 
superjawes
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:49 am

Re: MCU

Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:11 am

tanker27 wrote:

On some level, we shouldn't be celebrating Disney's virtual monopoly on cinema, but let's look at Sony's track record...

1. Took over for Spider-Man 3; released a mess of a film.
2. Rebooted with Amazing Spider-Man; crashed it trying to set up a "Spidey Cinematic Universe".
3. Did a no-Spider-Man Venom which was...okay? In it's own messed up way?
4. Did not have any faith in the success of Into the Spider-Verse; were shocked when it was successful.

The best working theory I've seen is that Sony are trying to dump their film (or all non-hardware) assets, and playing hardball with Disney/Marvel might drive up the price for someone like Tim Cook and Apple, since they are trying to get their own streaming services up and running. That would probably result in Holland continuing in the MCU, but it would take a bit of time to get there.

I also really want to see Spider-Man get released from that Sony deal just to end the era of indefinite out-of-studio rights. Not that Disney would allow it, but if they finally own the film rights to all their properties, that could (theoretically) sign shorter, finite deals to outside studios. That would be a soft-break to the monopoly, but it also ends the constant fight over rights, and anyone who gets a shot at making a film with Marvel characters have huge incentive to make it good, as opposed to a "we're about to lose the rights" release (see: Amazing Spider-Man, Fant4stic, and the worst of the X-Men movies).
On second thought, let's not go to TechReport. Tis a silly place.
 
derFunkenstein
Gerbil God
Posts: 25230
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Comin' to you directly from the Mothership

Re: MCU

Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:54 am

Bearing all of Sony's missteps in mind, I don't get why they wouldn't want Marvel's involvement. Surely their cut of a Marvel/Sony Spider-Man is still higher than 100% of what they make solo. Venom did pretty well in the box office, but their flops are far more numerous than Marvel's (1st Hulk and...that's it?)
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
Twittering away the day at @TVsBen
 
superjawes
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:49 am

Re: MCU

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:25 am

derFunkenstein wrote:
Bearing all of Sony's missteps in mind, I don't get why they wouldn't want Marvel's involvement. Surely their cut of a Marvel/Sony Spider-Man is still higher than 100% of what they make solo. Venom did pretty well in the box office, but their flops are far more numerous than Marvel's (1st Hulk and...that's it?)
I'd say The Incredible Hulk is a disputed flop. It did earn $263.4 mil on a budget of $150 mil. However, it was distributed by Universal (not Marvel Studios), and Iron Man turned a budget of $140 mil into a $585.2 mil box office. So Hulk technically made money, but Iron Man rocketed ahead and probably shifted expectations after the fact. Heck, Iron Man 2 gets a lot of critical flak, but it made even more money than the first.

But for Sony, this is why I think the theory about driving up their value prior to a sale is plausible. Tagging onto the MCU should be more profitable in the long run (IMO), but that only makes sense if you want to stay in the business. If you want out, hold one of Marvel's golden geese hostage to inflate the value, then sell the problem off to someone else.
On second thought, let's not go to TechReport. Tis a silly place.
 
derFunkenstein
Gerbil God
Posts: 25230
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Comin' to you directly from the Mothership

Re: MCU

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:46 am

Yeah, I guess that makes sense, assuming the rights are transferable.
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
Twittering away the day at @TVsBen
 
tanker27
Gerbil Khan
Topic Author
Posts: 9370
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MCU

Wed Aug 21, 2019 12:23 pm

Guys, read the article closely! Marvel Studios only took 5% of first day gross as payment! Sure they own merch rights but seriously SONY GOT PAID! Marvel is only asking for 50/50 rights of any future profits. THAT is fair! (OK its all IMHO) And its ludicrous that Sony doesn't accept. So now we have Spidey and very good actor portraying him held in limbo indefinitely.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(''')(''')
Watch out for evil Terra-Tron; He Does not like you!
 
derFunkenstein
Gerbil God
Posts: 25230
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Comin' to you directly from the Mothership

Re: MCU

Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:26 pm

Yes, I know. I read the article. I think a 50/50 when all the monetary investment is on Sony's part is a little extreme. But it's Marvel's property and I see why they want it that way.
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
Twittering away the day at @TVsBen
 
tanker27
Gerbil Khan
Topic Author
Posts: 9370
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MCU

Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:41 pm

derFunkenstein wrote:
I think a 50/50 when all the monetary investment is on Sony's part is a little extreme.


Exactly how so?
(\_/)
(O.o)
(''')(''')
Watch out for evil Terra-Tron; He Does not like you!
 
dragontamer5788
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:39 am

Re: MCU

Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:52 pm

tanker27 wrote:
derFunkenstein wrote:
I think a 50/50 when all the monetary investment is on Sony's part is a little extreme.


Exactly how so?


Does Disney deserve 50% of "Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse" and "Venom" revenue? Of course not, those movies aren't even part of the MCU.

Sony owns the movie rights to Spiderman. NOT Disney. Disney can only make Spiderman MCU movies if Sony agrees to it.
 
superjawes
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 9:49 am

Re: MCU

Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:16 pm

derFunkenstein wrote:
Yes, I know. I read the article. I think a 50/50 when all the monetary investment is on Sony's part is a little extreme. But it's Marvel's property and I see why they want it that way.

It looks like for Homecoming and Far From Home, Marvel essentially produced the films while Sony wrote the checks. Hence the 5% of first day figure. Sony reaped most of the profits because they were financing. What Marvel (Disney) were proposing was a 50/50 split of revenue and production costs...so we're not just talking about one megacorp demanding MOAR. Marvel might have been proposing joint efforts on other Spidey properties like Venom, too (not Spider-Verse).

I also don't know how distribution and marketing costs and home media fit into this, and I don't know how many offers and counteroffers were made prior to yesterday's news. I'm just sharing to get most of the pieces on the board. I doubt we've heard the last of this ordeal.
On second thought, let's not go to TechReport. Tis a silly place.
 
derFunkenstein
Gerbil God
Posts: 25230
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Comin' to you directly from the Mothership

Re: MCU

Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:10 pm

OK that makes much more sense, and I agree, it's not as extreme as I originally thought.
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
Twittering away the day at @TVsBen
 
tanker27
Gerbil Khan
Topic Author
Posts: 9370
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MCU

Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:08 pm

superjawes wrote:
It looks like for Homecoming and Far From Home, Marvel essentially produced the films while Sony wrote the checks. Hence the 5% of first day figure. Sony reaped most of the profits because they were financing. What Marvel (Disney) were proposing was a 50/50 split of revenue and production costs...so we're not just talking about one megacorp demanding MOAR. Marvel might have been proposing joint efforts on other Spidey properties like Venom, too (not Spider-Verse).

I also don't know how distribution and marketing costs and home media fit into this, and I don't know how many offers and counteroffers were made prior to yesterday's news. I'm just sharing to get most of the pieces on the board. I doubt we've heard the last of this ordeal.


That's the way I read it. I doubt there will be much push from Disney, for now, as Feige has said they are tackling looping in X-men and Deadpool currently. In fact, they are auditioning for X-men parts now.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(''')(''')
Watch out for evil Terra-Tron; He Does not like you!
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
GZIP: On