Marvel Cinematic Universe

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I thought MODOK was supposed to be well retarded? As a side effect of the shrinking process?

Ar least that's what I assumed. Is the only way the whole "Don't be a dick" thing makes sense. If that was meant to be serious then he is an even shittier writer than I thought.

As for Kang, for an Antman villain he was better than the last one I suppose. And for the Loki tv show he is fine.

But as a replacement for Thanos? Not a chance. Serious downgrade.
 
SecretMagicalGirl said:
I thought MODOK was supposed to be well retarded? As a side effect of the shrinking process?

Ar least that's what I assumed. Is the only way the whole "Don't be a dick" thing makes sense. If that was meant to be serious then he is an even shittier writer than I thought.

As for Kang, for an Antman villain he was better than the last one I suppose. And for the Loki tv show he is fine.

But as a replacement for Thanos? Not a chance. Serious downgrade.
Click to expand...
They were smart to go with someone vastly different to Thanos to avoid the comparisons (and to actually bring him in properly before his second to last movie) but there's still a ways to go before Kang really feels like a threat.
 
Sniperwoof said:
Does every villain have to be a massive joke now? Even Thanos in Endgame was extremely toned down from the version we saw in Infinity War. I expect Kang to suck too because what kind of world destroying conqueror gets easily defeated by literal ants?
Click to expand...
He's a multiverse threat whose two known incarnations (He Who Remains and Quantum Kang) both got trashed in their first appearance. Contrast that with Thanos, who was never directly confronted, and proceeded to stomp a mudhole in team good guy's ass once he finally got off his throne and began taking care of business. You need your arc villain to be threatening, and having him job for a teenage girl is not how you do that. If the plot of Quantumania had been "fuck you, Kang wins, Ant family is trapped in the quantum realm forever" that would at least have established some stakes. As it is there's an arbitrarily large number of the same two-bit multiversal loser. Quelle horreur
 
Krokodil Overdose said:
He's a multiverse threat whose two known incarnations (He Who Remains and Quantum Kang) both got trashed in their first appearance. Contrast that with Thanos, who was never directly confronted, and proceeded to stomp a mudhole in team good guy's ass once he finally got off his throne and began taking care of business. You need your arc villain to be threatening, and having him job for a teenage girl is not how you do that. If the plot of Quantumania had been "fuck you, Kang wins, Ant family is trapped in the quantum realm forever" that would at least have established some stakes. As it is there's an arbitrarily large number of the same two-bit multiversal loser. Quelle horreur
Click to expand...
That's the thing though, Kang is one of those annoying guys who always wins even if he loses. He Who Remains didn't give a shit about dying because he was sick of the job, so the sacred timeline branching wasn't his problem. Hell, Kang the Conquer may not even be dead according to this article which I suspected might be the case. He's too big of a name to be a one and done variant.
 
I’m not holding my breathe on Kang - and I’m sorry, I can’t take that name seriously at all thanks to the “We wuz Kangs” crowd - being a good villain, because Marvel has had exactly 2 good Villains in recent years (Loki and Thanos), and even then they fell off in later movies.

I still think they should’ve sunsetted the MCU after Endgame. They’re likely never going to get anything as big as that, especially when the literal D-List characters are what they’re scraping for movies. Just vault it and rerelease “The Infinity Saga” as some overpriced box set every once in a while like they do with the rest of the Disney Classics, and they could print money on nostalgia for decades.
 
Yeah like they should've ended the MCU after Endgame. Like if they do want to like still make movies, they could do that but just focused on the individual characters instead of another overarching setup cause the Kang stuff is more laughable than interesting.
 
I don't think anyone can deny this time that a Marvel movie has outright bombed if the numbers are true. Thor barely scraped by, BP2 maybe made some money (though I'm pretty sure it underperformed), but this one outright lost them a bunch of money, when Disney seemingly can't get anything else to do money aside from their parks and real estate.

With the way it's going, hopefully we get to see Marvel shut down productions before they start fucking up Fantastic 4 and the X-Men.
 
SmugAutist said:
BP2 maybe made some money (though I'm pretty sure it underperformed),
Click to expand...
BP2 definitely performed below expectations, but it makes bank because most of its ticket sales are from American theaters. So where movies like Strange MoM or Infinity War might make more globally, Black Panther makes more domestically and therefore less of the box office gets siphoned off before it goes back to Disney.
 
Sniperwoof said:
Does every villain have to be a massive joke now? Even Thanos in Endgame was extremely toned down from the version we saw in Infinity War. I expect Kang to suck too because what kind of world destroying conqueror gets easily defeated by literal ants?
Click to expand...
Funny you say this - in the comics all but the Avengers' individual archenemies and the various teams' (Avengers as a whole, the FF, the X-Men) arches outside some of Spidey's gallery are largely considered jokes and have been for a while now since 00s. People noted that Bendis in particular was responsible for this, his style of writing more than willing to shit on all but the top-tier threats in terms of visuals or powers or what-have-you. Because of this it's felt even more than usual Marvel villains and rogues' galleries as a whole tend to suffer in comparison to their DC counterparts outside the said archenemies. I mean, look at it this way. How many Cap, Iron Man, Thor villains can even comic geeks name off the bat compared to say Superman, Flash, or Wonder Woman villains much less Batman's? I can even suspect one can name more Justice League or Titans villains when pressed than Avengers or FF baddies.
 
Mayor Cody Travers said:
Funny you say this - in the comics all but the Avengers' individual archenemies and the various teams' (Avengers as a whole, the FF, the X-Men) arches outside some of Spidey's gallery are largely considered jokes and have been for a while now since 00s. People noted that Bendis in particular was responsible for this, his style of writing more than willing to shit on all but the top-tier threats in terms of visuals or powers or what-have-you. Because of this it's felt even more than usual Marvel villains and rogues' galleries as a whole tend to suffer in comparison to their DC counterparts outside the said archenemies. I mean, look at it this way. How many Cap, Iron Man, Thor villains can even comic geeks name off the bat compared to say Superman, Flash, or Wonder Woman villains much less Batman's? I can even suspect one can name more Justice League or Titans villains when pressed than Avengers or FF baddies.
Click to expand...
Fuck it, I'll take the challenge. Without looking anything up I got:
  • Dr. Doom
  • Galactus
  • Shuma-Gorath
  • Fing Fang Foom
  • Loki
  • Red Skull
  • M.O.D.O.K.
  • Abomination
  • Ultron
  • Thanos
  • Kang
  • Killmonger
  • Magneto
  • Juggernaut
  • Ronan
  • The Mandarin
  • Lex Luthor
  • Brainiac
  • Darkseid
  • Granny Goodness
  • Doomsday
  • Bizarro + Bizarro league (Depends on version)
  • Metallo
  • Mr. Mxyzptlk (looked up to spell name)
  • Livewire
  • Toy Man
  • Starro
  • Giganta
  • Cheetah
  • Aries
  • Dr. Poison
  • Reverse Flash (Zoom)
  • Gorilla Grodd
  • Captain Cold
  • Sinestro
  • Star Saphire (depends on version)
  • Atrocitous
  • Dex-Starr
  • Larfleeze (looked up to spell name)
  • Death Stroke or Slade
  • Trigon
  • Terra (depends on version)
  • Game Freak
  • Mumbo
  • Brother Blood
  • Jinx
  • Gizmo
  • The Brain
  • Count Vertigo

Actually looking at the lists, Superman's rogues make up about the same amount as the entirety of Marvel. That is, very sad. I will admit to being more of a DC fan, but I have watched a lot of Marvel material as well, which makes it sad how unmemorable most of the antagonists were.
 
Cue the cope:

variety.com

Jonathan Majors Confronts Those Terrible ‘Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania’ Reviews: ‘It Doesn’t Change How I See Myself’

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” introduced Jonathan Majors into the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Kang the Conquerer, the franchise’s new Thanos-sized villain. While the actor received glo…
variety.com variety.com

"Jonathan Majors Confronts Those Terrible ‘Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania’ Reviews: ‘It Doesn’t Change How I See Myself’

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” introduced Jonathan Majors into the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Kang the Conquerer, the franchise’s new Thanos-sized villain. While the actor received glowing reviews for his quietly menacing Kang, “Quantumania” itself was widely panned. The film is one of the worst-reviewed Marvel films in history with a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes, which nearly matches the record-low “Eternals” score of 47%. The film’s Metacritic score also stands at a paltry 48. Majors joined IndieWire’s “Screen Talk” podcast this week and confronted “Quantumania’s” low critic scores.

“It doesn’t change how I see myself, period. It’s all data,” Majors said about bad reviews. “I’m a performance within a story. One thing I will say to my team as we’re leaving a premiere if they’re reading reviews, I’ll say, ‘How’s the movie doing?’ I try to clean my plate and take care of my part. The response is: ‘You’re straight. You’re good. They like you.’ And they tell me about the movie. Sometimes the movie is also on that level, and sometimes [it’s not].”

“It’s just people,” Majors added about film critics. “They have an opinion. You always have an opinion. I’m no fool. I know these are people writing it. These aren’t my Yale professors or my drama teachers. These are people who have kids and they have a perspective, they have a religious upbringing or a lack thereof. They live in this town, or they want to be seen in this way or don’t want to be seen in this way. I look at the aggregate and, ok, 47. But what does that 47 mean when you also got this amount of box office? What do these things mean? It’s information. I am in the know. I won’t play myself. If you are a critic on a level, I probably know you and understand your politics.”

I don't speak pseudo intellectual nigger so most of this sails over my head.
 
Cpl. Long Dong Silver said:
Cue the cope:

variety.com

Jonathan Majors Confronts Those Terrible ‘Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania’ Reviews: ‘It Doesn’t Change How I See Myself’

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” introduced Jonathan Majors into the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Kang the Conquerer, the franchise’s new Thanos-sized villain. While the actor received glo…
variety.com variety.com

"Jonathan Majors Confronts Those Terrible ‘Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania’ Reviews: ‘It Doesn’t Change How I See Myself’

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” introduced Jonathan Majors into the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Kang the Conquerer, the franchise’s new Thanos-sized villain. While the actor received glowing reviews for his quietly menacing Kang, “Quantumania” itself was widely panned. The film is one of the worst-reviewed Marvel films in history with a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes, which nearly matches the record-low “Eternals” score of 47%. The film’s Metacritic score also stands at a paltry 48. Majors joined IndieWire’s “Screen Talk” podcast this week and confronted “Quantumania’s” low critic scores.

“It doesn’t change how I see myself, period. It’s all data,” Majors said about bad reviews. “I’m a performance within a story. One thing I will say to my team as we’re leaving a premiere if they’re reading reviews, I’ll say, ‘How’s the movie doing?’ I try to clean my plate and take care of my part. The response is: ‘You’re straight. You’re good. They like you.’ And they tell me about the movie. Sometimes the movie is also on that level, and sometimes [it’s not].”

“It’s just people,” Majors added about film critics. “They have an opinion. You always have an opinion. I’m no fool. I know these are people writing it. These aren’t my Yale professors or my drama teachers. These are people who have kids and they have a perspective, they have a religious upbringing or a lack thereof. They live in this town, or they want to be seen in this way or don’t want to be seen in this way. I look at the aggregate and, ok, 47. But what does that 47 mean when you also got this amount of box office? What do these things mean? It’s information. I am in the know. I won’t play myself. If you are a critic on a level, I probably know you and understand your politics.”

I don't speak pseudo intellectual nigger so most of this sails over my head.
Click to expand...
I absolutely loathe the fact that modern media likes to talk about muh mental health as if it's anyone's business, if you can't take the heat then get the rope.
 
Cpl. Long Dong Silver said:
Cue the cope:

variety.com

Jonathan Majors Confronts Those Terrible ‘Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania’ Reviews: ‘It Doesn’t Change How I See Myself’

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” introduced Jonathan Majors into the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Kang the Conquerer, the franchise’s new Thanos-sized villain. While the actor received glo…
variety.com variety.com

"Jonathan Majors Confronts Those Terrible ‘Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania’ Reviews: ‘It Doesn’t Change How I See Myself’

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” introduced Jonathan Majors into the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Kang the Conquerer, the franchise’s new Thanos-sized villain. While the actor received glowing reviews for his quietly menacing Kang, “Quantumania” itself was widely panned. The film is one of the worst-reviewed Marvel films in history with a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes, which nearly matches the record-low “Eternals” score of 47%. The film’s Metacritic score also stands at a paltry 48. Majors joined IndieWire’s “Screen Talk” podcast this week and confronted “Quantumania’s” low critic scores.

“It doesn’t change how I see myself, period. It’s all data,” Majors said about bad reviews. “I’m a performance within a story. One thing I will say to my team as we’re leaving a premiere if they’re reading reviews, I’ll say, ‘How’s the movie doing?’ I try to clean my plate and take care of my part. The response is: ‘You’re straight. You’re good. They like you.’ And they tell me about the movie. Sometimes the movie is also on that level, and sometimes [it’s not].”

“It’s just people,” Majors added about film critics. “They have an opinion. You always have an opinion. I’m no fool. I know these are people writing it. These aren’t my Yale professors or my drama teachers. These are people who have kids and they have a perspective, they have a religious upbringing or a lack thereof. They live in this town, or they want to be seen in this way or don’t want to be seen in this way. I look at the aggregate and, ok, 47. But what does that 47 mean when you also got this amount of box office? What do these things mean? It’s information. I am in the know. I won’t play myself. If you are a critic on a level, I probably know you and understand your politics.”

I don't speak pseudo intellectual nigger so most of this sails over my head.
Click to expand...
He's saying "lol rotten tomatoes" and counting his money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom