Movies AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR Thread v.10

[MayhemMonkey]

There's talk of a prequel in the near future isn't there? that could well cover such details I'd imagine.

As I'v said before I kind of suspect Marvel might well take a "back to basics" kind of approach after phase 3, films like Guardians 2, Ragnarok, Infinity War plus I'd imagine Cap marvel and the Infinity War sequel are al getting bigger and bigger in terms of scale and at some point I think there going to need to back off from that. The Spidey sequel seems likely to plus a Black Widow film and maybe even the third Guardians film? nothing to say that has to stay massive IMHO, the main selling points are the characters and the comedy.

think its just talk at the moment.... but Id be down for a BW movie

 

[Deleted member 110072]

think its just talk at the moment.... but Id be down for a BW movie

Doing a search it actually seems confirmed, someones writing and there interviewing directors...

http://www.nme.com/news/film/65-directors-considered-marvels-black-widow-movie-2308304

I'm guessing probably 2020 release?

 

[minute bull]

That they "drilled down" I think represents part of the difference, they basically looked for the most serious aspect of the source material and then emphasized that very heavly and obviously onscreen in a deliberate attempt to make the work stand out as having weight.

For me, it's more like Singer's X-MEN, Lee's HULK, and Nolan's BATMAN were allowed to put their stylistic hallmarks on both character/story and visual style. Inasmuch, they were allowed wide latitude to create whatever film they find truest to their imprimatur. They were their own Feiges. I'm not sure they worked in a deliberate attempt to elevate comic book material, so much as that's just who they are.

Getting back to your original question, these filmmakers didn't have the technological freedom that the MCU presently has, so in order to create a respectable story that didn't read on screen as implausible -- or "camp" as I believe you're calling it -- they had to make changes to the story and/or the character. Here lies the argument of which Wolverine we'd rather see -- over six foot Hugh Jackman shredded to zero body fat, or a baby bear in a blue and yellow suit with epaulets?

As film methods advanced to the meet the challenges of depicting comic book spectacle, and as the film audience grew to accept them, there became less necessity to make creative changes to story/character. Just like the advent of digital film gave rise to more improvisational filmmaking.

Fidelity is easier to maintain. It's easier to churn out more and more impossible-looking scenarios.

With a wealth of story history the new adaptations need only make the barest updates. Ergo, the MCU is successful in the same way a really good cover song becomes your favorite version of that song. It's familiar, and updated BUT NOT UPDATED TOO MUCH, just in the way you like.

TLDR: the CGI isn't horseshit, so it doesn't look silly when a wizard fights a grape monster.

The Marvel films do include themes of depth but they tend to go out of their way much less to highlight them I'd say and are happier to include comedic and larger than life elements within them. I mean I think theres actually a lot added to them in terms of specifics of characterisation especially but they do I'd say feel like truer recreations of the general tone of the originals for me, not films with something to prove.

I don't know about "something to prove." I think that's a perspective of the outside looking in.

The MCU maintained the goldilocks path of refining a product. They didn't dance too far outside the lines stylistically and rarely extended themselves past present-day techniques. Overtime they gathered tremendous steam to create a great cinematic experience with INFINITY WAR, and more importantly they primed the audience to hit at just the right time to maximize impact (profits + product).

My major strike against the MCU is that their stories aren't about much more than rehashing the storylines. Yes, they've updated them nicely and tied disparate strings together onscreen, but there isn't much more resonance beyond the nostalgia and spectacle. I'm not sure they're adding so much to characterization -- I think that's just a byproduct of casting a living human being. As a result the story looks very pretty and it's very pleasant, but it's just a bit hollow and, to be honest, more akin to television than film.

 

[MMA since 1993]

Not trying to put stunt doubles out of work but I just found out that people like Chris Evans does a ton of his own stunts maybe not as crazy as Tom Cruz but pretty impressively crazy. Apparently much more then other actors by some margin. He loves the physicality of stunts and risk involved and he likes to push himself through them. Kinda like Jackie Chan, Burt Reynolds and Tom Cruz and I am sure a few others. I think it's pretty great when actors do their own stunts something lends some cred to the part.

Tom Cruz

 

[MMA since 1993]

Minus the Infinity Gauntlet, what exactly is Thanos' powerset? Is he just really strong? I'm guessing he's reasonably vulnerable as Gamora believed she killed him in that illusion.

Per Wikipedia:

The character possesses abilities common to the Eternals, but amplified to a higher degree through a combination of his mutant–Eternal heritage, bionic amplification, mysticism, and power bestowed by the abstract entity, Death. Demonstrating enormous superhuman strength, speed, stamina, immortality and invulnerability among other qualities, Thanos can absorb and project vast quantities of cosmic energy, and is capable of telekinesis and telepathy. He can manipulate matter and live indefinitely without food, air or water, cannot die of old age, is immune to all terrestrial diseases, and has an extremely high resistance to psychic assaults. Thanos is also an accomplished hand-to-hand combatant, having been trained in the art of war on Titan.

Thanos is a supergenius in virtually all known fields of advanced science and has created technology far exceeding that which is found on contemporary Earth. He often employs a transportation chair capable of space flight, force field projection, teleportation, time travel, and movement through alternate universes. Thanos is also a master strategist and uses several space vessels, at least three under the name "Sanctuary", as a base of operations.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Have seen it twice, great movie

Thoughts:
Someone who's educated on the comics, how can Thor hit Thanos with stormbreaker when Thanos sees it coming a mile away and has ALL the infinity stones? Stormbreaker> Gauntlet? How do you kill Thor? He survived a huge explosion and was drifting in space..and was hit with the full power of a star..and was fine. Can he even die?

Ebony Maw stole all the scenes he was in. I loved his creepy monologues. He died way too easily and should have been kept around. I HATE when they do some resurrection/magic bullshit but I wouldn't mind seeing that guy back somehow.

Hulk being a pussy was lame. They better be setting him up for an epic scene in AV4 where he turns to hulk again and starts wrecking everybody

Is Dr. Strange that powerful that he was battling Thanos with 4 stones pretty well even without the time stone?

How were those things getting through the Wakanda shield without dying? Some were dying, some weren't.
Also, like a poster above me said, they're trying to make Wakanda a little african looking with the spears and shit. You're so advanced but still using spears as a primary weapon? C'mon, we get it, you're in Africa..but use guns or something.


These are just some minor nitpicking, it's a movie based on fake super heroes after all. But this movie was awesome and lived up to all the expectations. I already can't wait for AV4.

Thor's new hammer axe which is forged by an advanced Dwarven civilization on Nidavellir. It has a lot of power. The Asgardians, and associated races are very advanced.

Thor is a God, and cannot die that easily. Only Thanos can stand against Thor or even Odin is because he needs some Infinity Gems.

Ebony Maw is cool. It looks like he is just frozen in space. I think they can thaw his ass out for the next installment.

Dr Strange is using magic. Magic is probably as strong as Power Cosmic.

Those four legged Chitauri infantry probably weakening the shields energy. But the real kicker is if Wakandans can make a shield powerful enough to destroy Black Dwarf by simply dragging him through it, then surely they can produce some powerful laser beam weapons to arm their infantry with.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Minus the Infinity Gauntlet, what exactly is Thanos' powerset? Is he just really strong? I'm guessing he's reasonably vulnerable as Gamora believed she killed him in that illusion.

He just really strong and durable. He is actually a descendent of Earth, Titan Eternal or Deviant whom originated on Earth.

 

[Strange King]

man to find out what groot said at the end made me kinda choke up. super sad

 

[Deleted member 110072]

For me, it's more like Singer's X-MEN, Lee's HULK, and Nolan's BATMAN were allowed to put their stylistic hallmarks on both character/story and visual style. Inasmuch, they were allowed wide latitude to create whatever film they find truest to their imprimatur. They were their own Feiges. I'm not sure they worked in a deliberate attempt to elevate comic book material, so much as that's just who they are.

Getting back to your original question, these filmmakers didn't have the technological freedom that the MCU presently has, so in order to create a respectable story that didn't read on screen as implausible -- or "camp" as I believe you're calling it -- they had to make changes to the story and/or the character. Here lies the argument of which Wolverine we'd rather see -- over six foot Hugh Jackman shredded to zero body fat, or a baby bear in a blue and yellow suit with epaulets?

As film methods advanced to the meet the challenges of depicting comic book spectacle, and as the film audience grew to accept them, there became less necessity to make creative changes to story/character. Just like the advent of digital film gave rise to more improvisational filmmaking.

Fidelity is easier to maintain. It's easier to churn out more and more impossible-looking scenarios.

With a wealth of story history the new adaptations need only make the barest updates. Ergo, the MCU is successful in the same way a really good cover song becomes your favorite version of that song. It's familiar, and updated BUT NOT UPDATED TOO MUCH, just in the way you like.

TLDR: the CGI isn't horseshit, so it doesn't look silly when a wizard fights a grape monster.

I don't know about "something to prove." I think that's a perspective of the outside looking in.

The MCU maintained the goldilocks path of refining a product. They didn't dance too far outside the lines stylistically and rarely extended themselves past present-day techniques. Overtime they gathered tremendous steam to create a great cinematic experience with INFINITY WAR, and more importantly they primed the audience to hit at just the right time to maximize impact (profits + product).

My major strike against the MCU is that their stories aren't about much more than rehashing the storylines. Yes, they've updated them nicely and tied disparate strings together onscreen, but there isn't much more resonance beyond the nostalgia and spectacle. I'm not sure they're adding so much to characterization -- I think that's just a byproduct of casting a living human being. As a result the story looks very pretty and it's very pleasant, but it's just a bit hollow and, to be honest, more akin to television than film.

To be fair though "the outside looking in" was probably most of public wasn't it? I mean people knew of Batman, Superman, Spiderman and somewhat of the X-men prior to the films but the majority were not experts. Again I do think that around the turn of the millennium there was the feeling that comic adaptations were viewed as naturally camp and the likes of Singer, Ang Lee and then Nolan were very deliberately looking to counter this with films that looked as serious and weighty as possible.

Not to say I didn't like Nolans films or indeed X2 but it does feel like beyond just CGI Marvel are now making films in an environment were your not having to play up the seriousness of the material as much to draw in audiences. There films do still have weight to them but there drama and politics are not so clearly on the surface and the general tone is more larger than life.

 

[Magooglie]

Have seen it twice, great movie

Thoughts:
Someone who's educated on the comics, how can Thor hit Thanos with stormbreaker when Thanos sees it coming a mile away and has ALL the infinity stones? Stormbreaker> Gauntlet? How do you kill Thor? He survived a huge explosion and was drifting in space..and was hit with the full power of a star..and was fine. Can he even die?

Ebony Maw stole all the scenes he was in. I loved his creepy monologues. He died way too easily and should have been kept around. I HATE when they do some resurrection/magic bullshit but I wouldn't mind seeing that guy back somehow.

Hulk being a pussy was lame. They better be setting him up for an epic scene in AV4 where he turns to hulk again and starts wrecking everybody

Is Dr. Strange that powerful that he was battling Thanos with 4 stones pretty well even without the time stone?

How were those things getting through the Wakanda shield without dying? Some were dying, some weren't.
Also, like a poster above me said, they're trying to make Wakanda a little african looking with the spears and shit. You're so advanced but still using spears as a primary weapon? C'mon, we get it, you're in Africa..but use guns or something.


These are just some minor nitpicking, it's a movie based on fake super heroes after all. But this movie was awesome and lived up to all the expectations. I already can't wait for AV4.

Thor's mom dies by being stabbed and she's an asgardian like him. Thor can be killed however he's extra durable by being a god of something specific and then later on having stormbreaker which can rejuvenate him.

It seemed that Thor took Thanos by surprise which grants the attacker a lot of extra power in the MCU. The gauntlet still needs to be activated by Thanos to be used. It's not like he knows everything all the time. Thanos also seems to like to fight and give chances to those opposing him the opportunity to defeat him. It could be a test to himself to judge his worthiness of killing that many people and he may feel he deserves to suffer a little for doing so.

The Wakandan spears shot energy. But Wakanda has never been in a war. They have guards that protect the king and their version of the CIA. They should have a lot of civil advancements and not necessarily a lot of offensive war weapons.

 

[Magooglie]

Though the films haven't hinted at that have they? it seems suggested that if she's abnormal its a product of very intensive training from a young age.

I do wonder whether they might push her as if not a direct replacement then somewhat of a continuation of Rogers should he die/retire. I mean both of the Cap films spent a lot of time basically setting up him converting her from a more ruthless pragmatic view to a more moral one like his own.

I think they'll use the Widow solo movie as a test to gauge her popularity and then proceed from there.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

I think they'll use the Widow solo movie as a test to gauge her popularity and then proceed from there.

My feeling though has actually been that part of the reason we haven't seen solo films for Ironman, the Hulk or perhaps her as well recently is that Marvel want to keep the Avengers characters for the core story. The Cap sequels(especially Civil War) are really not solo films either more continuations of that story and I could see there view being that having solo films would be a distraction, having to invent one off story arcs that could mess with the main arc.

Last I heard the Widow film sounded like it could be a prequel, the obvious plot would seem to be Hawk first converting her to Shield and then some kind of Winter Solider like spy action mission resulting. Maybe Marvel could have a bit of a prequel timeline? showing Fury and shield in the 90's/early 00's in the Cap Marvel film and in this?

 

[Limbo Pete]

man to find out what groot said at the end made me kinda choke up. super sad

That shit was roooooough

 

[minute bull]

I mean people knew of Batman, Superman, Spiderman and somewhat of the X-men prior to the films but the majority were not experts. Again I do think that around the turn of the millennium there was the feeling that comic adaptations were viewed as naturally camp and the likes of Singer, Ang Lee and then Nolan were very deliberately looking to counter this with films that looked as serious and weighty as possible.

It's hard for me to agree with moniker "naturally camp" when we're talking about two different forces at work: filmmaking technique and audience reception. What I'm saying is that you think it's camp because technology wasn't yet available to make it look legit, plus the adaptation may have diverged from the source material might have been too stylistic to be taken as non-camp (I am purposefully not using the word "seriously" here). You wondered why there weren't more MCU caliber films before the MCU, and technology is why.

Not to say I didn't like Nolans films or indeed X2 but it does feel like beyond just CGI Marvel are now making films in an environment were your not having to play up the seriousness of the material as much to draw in audiences. There films do still have weight to them but there drama and politics are not so clearly on the surface and the general tone is more larger than life.

Do you think that might because the MCU comprises now about 85% of the superhero landscape?

 

[Magooglie]

My feeling though has actually been that part of the reason we haven't seen solo films for Ironman, the Hulk or perhaps her as well recently is that Marvel want to keep the Avengers characters for the core story. The Cap sequels(especially Civil War) are really not solo films either more continuations of that story and I could see there view being that having solo films would be a distraction, having to invent one off story arcs that could mess with the main arc.

Last I heard the Widow film sounded like it could be a prequel, the obvious plot would seem to be Hawk first converting her to Shield and then some kind of Winter Solider like spy action mission resulting. Maybe Marvel could have a bit of a prequel timeline? showing Fury and shield in the 90's/early 00's in the Cap Marvel film and in this?

They'd be smart to have the Widow film be a continuation of Fury's adventures before Iron Man 1. It's Marvel's strength making all the connections between their properties. I would imagine a Widow 'solo' film would play out like big screen team Agents of Shield but by naming it Black Widow they test to see how much brand recognition she possesses and/or they hope to positively influence her brand recognition. And they can continue to use that name for post-Thanos adventures with other non-solo Avengers.

 

[Strange King]

Thor's mom dies by being stabbed and she's an asgardian like him. Thor can be killed however he's extra durable by being a god of something specific and then later on having stormbreaker which can rejuvenate him.

It seemed that Thor took Thanos by surprise which grants the attacker a lot of extra power in the MCU. The gauntlet still needs to be activated by Thanos to be used. It's not like he knows everything all the time. Thanos also seems to like to fight and give chances to those opposing him the opportunity to defeat him. It could be a test to himself to judge his worthiness of killing that many people and he may feel he deserves to suffer a little for doing so.

The Wakandan spears shot energy. But Wakanda has never been in a war. They have guards that protect the king and their version of the CIA. They should have a lot of civil advancements and not necessarily a lot of offensive war weapons.

I actually hate that thanos has to activate the glove. It doesnt ruin anything for me but i thought that was very dumb. He doesnt have web shooters. These crystals are in him and he just has to think and it is

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

man to find out what groot said at the end made me kinda choke up. super sad

What?

 

[Mike]

Have seen it twice, great movie

Thoughts:
Someone who's educated on the comics, how can Thor hit Thanos with stormbreaker when Thanos sees it coming a mile away and has ALL the infinity stones? Stormbreaker> Gauntlet? How do you kill Thor? He survived a huge explosion and was drifting in space..and was hit with the full power of a star..and was fine. Can he even die?

Ebony Maw stole all the scenes he was in. I loved his creepy monologues. He died way too easily and should have been kept around. I HATE when they do some resurrection/magic bullshit but I wouldn't mind seeing that guy back somehow.

Hulk being a pussy was lame. They better be setting him up for an epic scene in AV4 where he turns to hulk again and starts wrecking everybody

Is Dr. Strange that powerful that he was battling Thanos with 4 stones pretty well even without the time stone?

How were those things getting through the Wakanda shield without dying? Some were dying, some weren't.
Also, like a poster above me said, they're trying to make Wakanda a little african looking with the spears and shit. You're so advanced but still using spears as a primary weapon? C'mon, we get it, you're in Africa..but use guns or something.


These are just some minor nitpicking, it's a movie based on fake super heroes after all. But this movie was awesome and lived up to all the expectations. I already can't wait for AV4.

1. Thanos was basically letting them fight him for the lolz, because there's no way for them to win. He could have used the reality stone to just erase them or turn them into bubbles, but that is really boring. Thor got an upgrade in this film to be much closer to his level of power in the comics. Comic Thor is so durable that only other heavy hitters like the hulk can do anything to him. Godlike durability.


2. The Ebon Maw was awesome. Was surprised how well they did with Thanos' henchmen. They were legitimately a threat and gave off a real air of menace. I was actually worried for the avengers fighting them. Maw soloed Dr. Strange while Strange had help, and later we see Strange stand toe to toe with Thanos briefly. Pretty impressive.


3. I think Hulk is going to play a pivotal part in the next movie. Would have liked to see more Hulk in this film, but it seems like they're setting something up with him.


4. Strange is a legit badass capable of fighting godlike beings solo in the comics. Was glad to see him given a chance to shine here. He seemed much stronger than in his own movie.


5. I'm not sure, but it seemed like when enough bodies hit a section of the shield it would deactivate that portion of shielding for a brief moment, allowing a few guys in.

 

[Magooglie]

I actually hate that thanos has to activate the glove. It doesnt ruin anything for me but i thought that was very dumb. He doesnt have web shooters. These crystals are in him and he just has to think and it is

I liked it. Thanos isn't a cosmic being. The stones aren't in him, they're on the glove. The stones are powerful but It's like having any other source of power, you have to harness it and access it.

 

[Clippy]

man to find out what groot said at the end made me kinda choke up. super sad

What I don't remember this