Marvel Cinematic Universe

For those who have seen it.. Venom: Thumbs up or Thumbs Down

  • Thumbs Up

    Votes: 86 62.3%
  • Thumbs Down

    Votes: 52 37.7%

  • Total voters
    138

Triggermv

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
7,814
4,276
113
39
Marion, IA
https://screenrant.com/abc-marvel-tv-show-new-female-superhero/

ABC is apparently in talks with Marvel to develop a new female superhero led TV show. Who that would be, nobody knows at this point, but based on track records, its hard to put too much stock in anything ABC and Marvel want to do together. Over the past 10 years, ABC and Marvel have tried to get countless shows off the ground, only to see nothing new actually released outside of Agents of Shield, Agent Carter, and the disaster that was The Inhumans. Some of them even shot pilots. A few that come to mind were a Damage Control show, a Mockingbird spinoff titled "Marvel's Most Wanted" (pilot made), a New Warriors show featuring Squirrel Girl (they even cast Squirrel Girl), and probably another 3-4 other nameless ones that never came to fruition. So, its hard to get too gung-ho about anything, especially combined with how poorly the network TV model fits anymore with these types of shows. However, I'd say the one saving grace adding hope to those wanting to see this show is the fact that with AOS ending after next season, ABC will officially have zero Marvel TV shows left, which will likely add some further urgency to actually getting something off the ground.
 

Triggermv

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
7,814
4,276
113
39
Marion, IA
Ditto on physical.

I think it's not even truthful to tell people they're "buying" a copy unless they get an option to sell it somehow.

I've sold thousands of dollars of games and movies. It's a massive hidden cost to consumers that this has disappeared.

Then to add to this, Apple has already proven that your digital movies may not be as purchased and not at risk as people think. Remember this? This is why I've hitched my digital cart to Vudu and Movies Anywhere. For all I know, there may be loopholes with those as well where I could lose my movies, but those two at least seem the most trustworthy at this point.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...ng-itunes-movie-purchases-issue/#38beab4372b6
 

Triggermv

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
7,814
4,276
113
39
Marion, IA
In other MCU news, apparently Gemma Chan is in talks for a SECOND and completely different MCU role in The Eternals. While I'm not crazy about the general premise of using actors/actresses a second time in the MCU for different roles, I am 100% behind this one for the a few different reasons.

From the get-go, I thought her getting cast as Minn Erva in Captain Marvel was such a total waste. Not only did they cast someone of her stature for such a small role with limited screen time, but they also cast her in a role where she was covered with blue makeup. This leads me to my other biggest gripe, which is why would you cover one of the most attractive non-white females on the planet in blue makeup, especially during a time period where we are wanting to add diversity into the MCU??? However, the blue makeup seems at this point to be both a curse and a blessing. While they wasted Chan on such a limited role in blue makeup, that same blue makeup make her pretty much unrecognizable, which means she could likely be thrown in a completely different role and 99% of the audience wouldn't even notice. Its this reason why I'm okay making an exception to my rule with this particular actress. Also helping her cause is the fact that she would totally be top 3 on my Hollywood crush list. She is absolutely stunning.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/gemma-chan-eternals-marvel-1203290315/
latest


I'm also on-board with purely voice actors jumping into different live roles, which is where most of the other two-role examples of actors/actresses in the MCU have shown up. For example, I'd love to see Vin Diesel get a different main role at some point even though he is the voice of Groot.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: cyhiphopp

cyhiphopp

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 9, 2009
33,267
14,536
113
Ankeny
In other MCU news, apparently Gemma Chan is in talks for a SECOND and completely different MCU role in The Eternals. While I'm not crazy about the general premise of using actors/actresses a second time in the MCU for different roles, I am 100% behind this one for the a few different reasons.

From the get-go, I thought her getting cast as Minn Erva in Captain Marvel was such a total waste. Not only did they cast someone of her stature for such a small role with limited screen time, but they also cast her in a role where she was covered with blue makeup. This leads me to my other biggest gripe, which is why would you cover one of the most attractive females on the planet in blue makeup??? However, the blue makeup seems at this point to be both a curse and a blessing. While they wasted Chan on such a limited role in blue makeup, that same blue make-up make her pretty much unrecognizable, which means she could likely be thrown in a completely different role and 99% of the audience wouldn't even notice. Its this reason why I'm okay making an exception to my rule with this particular actress. Also helping her cause is the fact that she would totally be top 3 on my Hollywood crush list. She is absolutely stunning.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/gemma-chan-eternals-marvel-1203290315/
latest

I really liked her in Captain Marvel for the short time she was on screen. She was really menacing and maximized her time. She's also gorgeous, even in blue paint.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 3GenClone

Triggermv

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
7,814
4,276
113
39
Marion, IA
I finished the series, they phoned in the end a bit but pretty decent. First season was the best imo.

I just finished watching Season 1 quickly a second time as a primer for starting into Season 2, and I even forgot how much I loved episodes 1-8 of Cloak and Dagger S1. They really were pretty great. The problem was that episode 8 was followed by only a so-so episode 9, and then a really disappointing episode 10.
 

Triggermv

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
7,814
4,276
113
39
Marion, IA
A LOT fewer physical discs are sold now than in the past. That said, I don't buy movies at all anymore and haven't for a very long time. It sound ridiculous but I seriously hate the time it takes just to get to the point of playing a movie on physical. Streaming you pop it open and turn it on in literal seconds.

I fired up Monsters Inc. for the kids this weekend and it was like a 5 minute ordeal to get through the previews just to the splash screen where I could pick to play the movie.

Yeah, I get where you are coming from for sure. Don't get me wrong, I'm not all physical. I'm very much both a physical and digital copy guy, which is why I typically go for the combo pack. Truth be told, I mostly use the digital copy to watch movies on a regular basis due to ease and for mobility, but I still like having the physical as a back-up and as a shelf collector item. There is some movies I've bought only as digital too. Those are all non-superhero movies I don't care about having a physical copy for collecting purposes. I usually buy them on the cheap through the following second-party selling site for digital codes:

https://www.uvspider.com/#!/

For finding cheap digital copies, this is hands down the way to go, but sometimes directly through Vudu you can find some good deals. Its a search engine that searches all the different websites that sell codes. Take my word for it that buying it this way gets you legit copies that work. I've bought lots of them through here.
 
Last edited:

State43

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2010
17,195
3,513
113
Omaha, NE
I just finished watching Season 1 quickly a second time as a primer for starting into Season 2, and I even forgot how much I loved episodes 1-8 of Cloak and Dagger S1. They really were pretty great. The problem was that episode 8 was followed by only a so-so episode 9, and then a really disappointing episode 10.
Every season finale they have has the same feeling unfortunately
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Triggermv

cyrevkah

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2008
9,926
1,651
113
Ames, IA
A LOT fewer physical discs are sold now than in the past. That said, I don't buy movies at all anymore and haven't for a very long time. It sound ridiculous but I seriously hate the time it takes just to get to the point of playing a movie on physical. Streaming you pop it open and turn it on in literal seconds.

I fired up Monsters Inc. for the kids this weekend and it was like a 5 minute ordeal to get through the previews just to the splash screen where I could pick to play the movie.

You don't hit the Disc menu option? The only time I don't use that button is when I'm still getting stuff ready.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
67,664
54,852
113
LA LA Land
A LOT fewer physical discs are sold now than in the past. That said, I don't buy movies at all anymore and haven't for a very long time. It sound ridiculous but I seriously hate the time it takes just to get to the point of playing a movie on physical. Streaming you pop it open and turn it on in literal seconds.

I fired up Monsters Inc. for the kids this weekend and it was like a 5 minute ordeal to get through the previews just to the splash screen where I could pick to play the movie.

Nerd alert: I have a laserdisc collection.

The beauty about that was you put in a laserdisc and you get the movie immediately after the FBI piracy warning. 3 seconds. Faster than most streaming buffers.

Somehow when DVD took hold it became this epic chore to just play the movie. Kids DVDs and even vhs have always been horrible for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Die4Cy and bos

cyhiphopp

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 9, 2009
33,267
14,536
113
Ankeny
Nerd alert: I have a laserdisc collection.

The beauty about that was you put in a laserdisc and you get the movie immediately after the FBI piracy warning. 3 seconds. Faster than most streaming buffers.

Somehow when DVD took hold it became this epic chore to just play the movie. Kids DVDs and even vhs have always been horrible for that.
giphy.gif
 
  • Winner
Reactions: HFCS

CycloneErik

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2008
105,845
49,733
113
Jamerica
rememberingdoria.wordpress.com
https://screenrant.com/abc-marvel-tv-show-new-female-superhero/

ABC is apparently in talks with Marvel to develop a new female superhero led TV show. Who that would be, nobody knows at this point, but based on track records, its hard to put too much stock in anything ABC and Marvel want to do together. Over the past 10 years, ABC and Marvel have tried to get countless shows off the ground, only to see nothing new actually released outside of Agents of Shield, Agent Carter, and the disaster that was The Inhumans. Some of them even shot pilots. A few that come to mind were a Damage Control show, a Mockingbird spinoff titled "Marvel's Most Wanted" (pilot made), a New Warriors show featuring Squirrel Girl (they even cast Squirrel Girl), and probably another 3-4 other nameless ones that never came to fruition. So, its hard to get too gung-ho about anything, especially combined with how poorly the network TV model fits anymore with these types of shows. However, I'd say the one saving grace adding hope to those wanting to see this show is the fact that with AOS ending after next season, ABC will officially have zero Marvel TV shows left, which will likely add some further urgency to actually getting something off the ground.

Never mention the Inhumans.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Triggermv

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
67,664
54,852
113
LA LA Land
https://variety.com/2019/film/news/disney-fox-xmen-marvel-studio-losses-1203294296/

Disney had a rough 3rd quarter due to the poor performance of Fox. Through that earnings call, there was lots of other new details about Fox, Disney +, Marvel..... etc.

Disney is pretty lucky they aren't getting more anti-trust buzz with the Fox acquisition. Frankly I think they might deserve it.

When I was working with Dreamworks and Uni people during that merger everyone was acting as if their life depending on cranking out as much Dreamworks content as possible or they would all die horrible deaths. Fox/Disney...let's just say very different.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
67,664
54,852
113
LA LA Land
Honestly I think anti-trust stuff may make some sense, but really we're just kind of back to where things were generations ago. There were 3 big TV networks and 5 major film studios. It's basically the same now, the issue is just that we are so reliant on valuable IP to turn people out to the theater and Disney now basically owns all the important IP.

Yeah the disruptors like HBO and Netflix served a purpose for innovation and artistic breakthroughs but it's pretty clear we're heading toward 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' stuff.

The unique and maybe scariest thing now is content companies all fusing themselves to cable/internet companies. It's weird going to work with people on universal movies and entering "The Comcast Building"...the cable company is something people traditionally hate, the movie creators are something people traditionally love. They've started taking "A Comcast Company" off of their branding.
 

Triggermv

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
7,814
4,276
113
39
Marion, IA
Yeah the disruptors like HBO and Netflix served a purpose for innovation and artistic breakthroughs but it's pretty clear we're heading toward 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' stuff.

The unique and maybe scariest thing now is content companies all fusing themselves to cable/internet companies. It's weird going to work with people on universal movies and entering "The Comcast Building"...the cable company is something people traditionally hate, the movie creators are something people traditionally love. They've started taking "A Comcast Company" off of their branding.

Give us another 10 years, and you won't be even referring to these companies as "cable companies" as the cable portion of it will likely be borderline dead. The latest figures that just came out showed cord-cutting ramping up MAJORLY.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
67,664
54,852
113
LA LA Land
Give us another 10 years, and you won't be even referring to these companies as "cable companies" as the cable portion of it will likely be borderline dead. The latest figures that just came out showed cord-cutting ramping up MAJORLY.

I remember in '99 at ISU when I got a cell phone people would say "Oh you think you're sooooo important you need a cell phone". In reality I shared a landline with 7 college kids and was embarrassed by the sound of that when freelance clients I was working with would call me.

Then around '02 when I only had a cell phone and no land line listened to people try to convince me why I needed a landline.

Let's just hope that competition remains strong in the cord cutting future or it will be the same ripoff cabletv was. Disney's initial launch seems like an incredible value, there's no way they're giving that to people without a VERY strong Netflix. This is the same company that charges about 30% more for their bluray releases than anybody else does.
 

Triggermv

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
7,814
4,276
113
39
Marion, IA
I remember in '99 at ISU when I got a cell phone people would say "Oh you think you're sooooo important you need a cell phone". In reality I shared a landline with 7 college kids and was embarrassed by the sound of that when freelance clients I was working with would call me.

Then around '02 when I only had a cell phone and no land line listened to people try to convince me why I needed a landline.

Let's just hope that competition remains strong in the cord cutting future or it will be the same ripoff cabletv was. Disney's initial launch seems like an incredible value, there's no way they're giving that to people without a VERY strong Netflix. This is the same company that charges about 30% more for their bluray releases than anybody else does.

For the typical hands-off manager of the subscriptions, yeah, it will be interesting where their total bill lands when all the dust settles. However, I've still got confidence that regardless of where everything falls, I'll still fall well below the mark because what likely won't go with the advent of streaming is the ability to jump in and jump out MUCH easier than cable or satellite TV. So, as a VERY active manager of my subscriptions currently, I just let all my shows build up for pretty much a year, sign up for a month or two of whatever service, watch all my shows, then unsubscribe. The only subscription I haven't jump in and out of yet is my Netflix subscription, but with them losing lots of IP lately and jacking up their price, I'm likely to start very soon doing it there as well. Most people just aren't willing to do that and I'm okay with them footing the majority of the bills to fund all these services.