Doctor Strange and The Multiverse of Madness

Discussion in 'Movies and Television' started by eagc7, Dec 11, 2018.

  1. Ramberk Magnus

    Ramberk Magnus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Posts:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    342
    Likes:
    +5,533
    That’s a huge oversimplification of Civil War. All of the events in CW occurred because of Caps actions and it strictly followed Caps narrative arc of trusting his instincts or falling in line with everyone else (trusting Bucky, not signing the Sokovia Accords).

    Let the movies have guest stars, it’s typical in comics to do this. Pointing this out seems like a cheap criticism (IMO).

    Back on topic: I like Raimi, this would be awesome. If Feige nabs him, I’d love him to get Peter Jackson next.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Incepticon

    Incepticon This place ain't what it used to be...

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Posts:
    16,862
    News Credits:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +11,075
    "Cheap" criticism, eh? Hee, let's not overreact or anything. :rolleyes2 

    Anyway, yeah, thanks, I'm well aware of how Civil War culminated, who did what, why or how various events transpired, etc. I've seen it more times than I can count anymore and can damn near recite the entire thing verbatim, so trust me when I say that I don't need anything pointed out. It doesn't change the fact that despite the banner of it being a third Cap movie, it IS indeed an Avengers movie through & through. Hell, arguably more so than the previous two official Avengers' movies even were.

    And "oversimplified" or not, I never said that it was a bad thing. I don't think it is. What I am saying and have always said is that if it was released as Avengers: Civil War instead, with not one single frame changed and left exactly as-is, no one in the world would look at is as a Cap movie, let alone argue that that's what it was. The Russo's just very cleverly were able to parlay it as being a Cap sequel to in order to make their first Avengers movie ramping up to Infinity War.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Ramberk Magnus

    Ramberk Magnus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Posts:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    342
    Likes:
    +5,533
    Remove Cap and the movie falls apart. Remove anyone else and you can give their lines/role to someone else or simply omit their part completely.

    I mean, with your logic, any film with guest stars will automatically knock out the main character.

    It’s a weird criticism. You’re basically saying that the Russo’s didn’t make a Cap movie. But if you removed all of the Avengers and had Cap fighting with Thunderbolt Ross and random bureaucrats/agents, the plot would have remained the same.

    That tells you this was a Cap movie. But if you include any other super powered characters, suddenly it’s no longer a Cap movie. That’s just strange. That’s such a uselessly snarky critique. You could apply that to 90% of Marvel movies since there is so many crossover characters that guest star.

    There’s no substance saying that because it’s not true and it doesn’t shed any insight. It’s just an odd way to ‘ding’ the Russos for an imaginary fault.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Incepticon

    Incepticon This place ain't what it used to be...

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Posts:
    16,862
    News Credits:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +11,075
    Remove Tony and the movie falls apart. Even remove Nat and the movie falls apart given how pinnacle she is between Steve & Tony.

    But I didn't say that. There are movies with some additional co-stars, but that's obviously not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an entire movie fundamentally built around an expansive ensemble cast - and THAT is exactly what Civil War is... hence the title. Cap is crucial to it, of course, but Tony is every bit as crucial as well. They are literally equal parts to this equation, which is exactly there are just as many tongue-in-cheek assertions that CW is just as much Iron Man 4 as it is Cap 3 or Avengers 2.5.

    I'm not basically saying it - I am outright saying it, and outlined how/why. Again, if you do not change one single thing in that movie and title it Avengers: Civil War, no one would be any the wiser.

    But again, I never said ANY of that, and your odd defensiveness of this whole thing has you putting words in my mouth and reading things that aren't there. You don't agree, and that's fine, but the more you're choosing to double down and argue about it for whatever reason is actually making LESS sense as it goes on.

    Anyway, that's now 2 posts apiece that are totally off topic, so I'll stop here. You don't agree with me - I get it. Let's move on.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. SouthtownKid

    SouthtownKid Headmaster

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Posts:
    24,334
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +8,401
    It wouldn't have been CIVIL WAR. You can't remove Tony from Civil War any more than you can remove Thanos from Infinity War. You are on a roll with terrible, ill-thought out opinions lately. Or maybe you're just completely unfamiliar with the characters and source material.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Ramberk Magnus

    Ramberk Magnus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Posts:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    342
    Likes:
    +5,533
    If you break down the plot of the movie to its most basic elements you get a conflict between Cap and institutionalized authority (the government). The government (the United Nations or whomever) wants to register powered individuals and wants to hang Bucky. Cap is not having any of it because even though he's a nationalistic symbol, he remains an individual with strong convictions-- and that's his common theme in every story.

    So if you take that basic premise of that conflict, you can move the supporting cast around. You can omit the Avengers and replace them with something else or even brand new characters (Thunderbolts?). Iron Man is not even the real antagonist of the movie. Zemo and 'the government' are. Iron Man is just a tool/embodiment of the goals of the real antagonists. You could even replace Iron Man with US Agent or some other brand new hero.

    This is off-topic so I'll just let this be my last comment on this.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. SouthtownKid

    SouthtownKid Headmaster

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Posts:
    24,334
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +8,401
    Nope.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Omegashark18

    Omegashark18 Combaticon turned Autobot

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2014
    Posts:
    13,526
    News Credits:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    272
    Likes:
    +6,530
  9. QLRformer

    QLRformer Seeker

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Posts:
    22,159
    News Credits:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    327
    Likes:
    +9,466
    And the world-building and world-connecting continues.
     
  10. Laser_Optimus

    Laser_Optimus I can do this all day! TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Posts:
    19,927
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    427
    Location:
    Brandon, Florida
    Likes:
    +11,119
    Ebay:
    Facebook:
    Google+:
    It's going to be interesting to see how many of the rumors end up being true with this film. Right now it's seems like it'll be as packed as Civil War was. Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. Obviously it depends on how it's handled.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Ramberk Magnus

    Ramberk Magnus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Posts:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    342
    Likes:
    +5,533
    I love Cumberbatch but maybe Dr. Strange is a character that works best with ensemble casts.
     
  12. Galvatron II

    Galvatron II I can type whatever here?

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Posts:
    4,505
    Trophy Points:
    217
    Likes:
    +1,106
    If Sam Raimi directed this that would be the only situation where I would actually see it considering I didn't like the first one and I don't like how Disney does business. I don't think it'll end up happening though because even though he has a relationship with them I think his Spider-Man 3 experiences would make him wary about taking on another huge, high profile project where he won't have as much creative control as he usually does. If Sony's bad with their treatment of creators (especially considering they really are the house that Raimi built and they still did him that way), Disney is worse. This project is already a prime example of that.
     
  13. Ramberk Magnus

    Ramberk Magnus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Posts:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    342
    Likes:
    +5,533
    I don’t want to defend Disney but I guess I will. I think the big difference between Disney and other studios (especially Sony) are:

    1. Kevin Feige has a good grasp of Marvel characters and an understanding of what makes good films. He steers films into success. This stands in contrast to what the WB has done in the past (rush movies and crush it with grimdark SvB, JL) and what Sony has done (cram too many villains, develop poor plots to emulate the MCU).

    2. If you work well with Disney, they’ll stick with you. Disney had no intention of dumping James Gunn but had to lay low until the Fox merger finalized. Contrast that with Fox and ditching Singer for X3 and Matthew Vaughn later on.

    3. Disney/Marvel Studios is damn patient and will not rush you if it makes sense. There’s a reason why Gotg3 is taking so long. It’s cause instead of ditching Gunn for doing Suicide Squad 2, they’re waiting. Fox or Sony wouldn’t give a damn about kicking directors to the curb.

    lastly

    4. Disney/Marvel Films won’t string you along if they don’t like your ideas. Sony basically kept messing with Raimi on Spidey 3. Why not just let him go after Spidey 2? If a studio wants an errand boy to direct, like what Fox did with X3, then just do that. Marvel is not afraid of cutting you loose and finding a better fit.

    Anyway, Disney is no saint and Feige isn’t perfect but they also deserve a lot of credit. I’m betting if Raimi gets hired, both sides will understand each other’s expectations and make it work.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  14. lars573

    lars573 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Posts:
    8,203
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Likes:
    +575
    No it wouldn't, he was the worst Spider-man.
     
  15. SouthtownKid

    SouthtownKid Headmaster

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Posts:
    24,334
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +8,401
    As someone who has read Spider-Man comics for more than 40 years, allow me to point out that you have misspelled "best."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Pharoid

    Pharoid Time Traveling Robot TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Posts:
    13,406
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    307
    Location:
    New Crobuzon
    Likes:
    +12,564
    I’ve also read Spidey since the 70’s. I am about to watch Civil War for thirst time with my girls this afternoon and I am super psyched to see Holland’s intro again. Maguire’s Spiderverse is more traditional and I still think Spider-Man 2 is the first time I actually felt like I was watching a comic book but Tom is fucking pitch-perfect Spider-Man, perfect. Tobey was always a little to old. And let’s not even talk him in 3. Tom’s banter. Perfect writing perfect delivery.
     
  17. lars573

    lars573 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Posts:
    8,203
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Likes:
    +575
    Nope. Tobey Maguire is the worst Spider-man, just as Andrew Garfield is the best. And Tom Holland is better than both at playing the character. Because he can play both parts of the character well.
     
  18. SouthtownKid

    SouthtownKid Headmaster

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Posts:
    24,334
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +8,401
    Tom is great as Spider-Man -- I agree he should be the best -- but the character as written is a billion miles away from the comic character, in terms of personality, in terms of grappling with guilt and responsibility and everything else. All they really did manage to give him is the Spider-Man banter. And I guess you could say Tom is closest to Ultimate Spidey, for whatever that's worth. But not 616.

    Toby is by far the closest to the character Stan wrote, the character Conway wrote, the character Stern wrote. And I'm not saying that's all due to Toby either, by any means. But that character was written much closer to what Peter Parker used to be.

    And Andrew Garfield being the best Spider-Man is just a hilarious statement. So thank you for that. That was incredibly enjoyable to read. Personally, I rate Garfield lower than Nicholas Hammond.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. QLRformer

    QLRformer Seeker

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Posts:
    22,159
    News Credits:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    327
    Likes:
    +9,466
    Fixed that. Maguire's Parker seemed to be closest to the classical version, the one who was beset with the (infamous?) Parker bad luck and who had to deal the most with family drama (issues with love interests, his enemies being amongst his closest associates).
     
  20. QLRformer

    QLRformer Seeker

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Posts:
    22,159
    News Credits:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    327
    Likes:
    +9,466