Marvel Watching the Marvel Cinematic Universe from the beginning...

[Crimson]

Like why does the J. Jonah Jameson of the main MCU look exactly like the one in Sam Raimy’s world, when the Peter Parkers look so very different? And if two characters can look identical in different universes, are we certain that this is the same Matt Murdock as the one we met in The Defenders Saga?

I'd like to think someone, even if just the MCU brain trust, has answers to this, but I also suspect no one does. Why do the alternate versions of Dr. Strange and Wanda look the same, but we have such different looking Peter Parkers? Are alternate timelines and parallel universes the same thing, or are there an infinite number of universes each with an infinite number of timelines? The Multiverse is just an inherently messy concept that it would help of the folks creating it had some clarity of vision; they clearly do not. Stuff is just getting thrown on screen, even if that stuff is fun (the return of Tobey and Andrew).

Spider-Men

As names, the plural is probably Spider-Mans

In fact of the three, his is the Peter that has the most solid arc in this film as we see him working out his grief over Gwen’s death and even having a cathartic moment where he is put in a similar situation with a happier outcome.

One of the nice things about NWH is how it redeemed earlier stories. Not only did Andrew's Spider-Man earn some closure, lost by the abandonment of this third film, but NWH also did a good job with proper endings for the villains. One of the less pleasant aspects of earlier generations of super-hero movies is how the villain almost always died a the end, starting with Joker in '89 BATMAN. NWH's point of not letting people die, even if they're villains, is a much more appropriate to super-heroes.

Seeing the return of these two Peters did reaffirm that Tom Holland is my least-favourite Spidey actor. I want to like him, but I find myself torn. He's a good actor. He looks right. I like the tone of the films. But he still mostly irritates me and I still view him as a necessary evil to be tolerated.

Tom remains, by a wide margin, my favorite of the three but with a big caveat. I think Tobey and Andrew performed as well as they could given that they were both badly miscast. At 27 and 29 in their first outings, they were both far too old. I thought Tobey made a good enough Peter Parker, even if he came across a bit like the boy-next-door pushing middle age in both identities. Andrew brought more energy and humor to Spider-Man, but I couldn't get past a nearly 30 year old playing a high schooler. Tom, in contrast, was ideal both physically and in age. His Spider-Man is appropriately lithe and athletic, as well as energetic and humorous. The drawback is that there isn't a big enough difference between his Spider-Man and his Peter Parker. A key component of the character is that Parker's true personality emerges when he puts on the mask; a precursor to internet anonymity. But even with six MCU appearances, we've yet to see a friendly neighborhood Spider-Man adventure. He's always involved in international, inter-dimensional, or inter-universal conflicts which would explain why he's always so hyper and over-awed.

How old is Holland's Peter meant to be, anyway? He’s applying for college which I’d have thought puts him at around 18 or 19. But the official MCU Timeline puts this film exactly eight years after Homecoming in which I’m pretty sure he was said to be 15. That would make him 23, which is just a year or two younger than Holland himself. But he still plays him like a 14 year old.

He was Blipped. While those who remained aged 5 years, everyone who was dusted by Thanos' snap came back the same age. I believe both Ned & MJ were also Blipped, which is why they're the same age as Peter. As someone heading into college, he's likely 17-18 when we last saw him.

it could have, but it did get me thinking: did the MCU’s Peter have an Uncle Ben?

I don't believe Ben has ever been directly mentioned, but in his first appearance Peter said this: “When you can do the things that I can, but you don't and then the bad things happen they happen because of you.” That's usually interpreted as a reference to his failure to save Ben, but there's been nothing on screen to confirm or refute that.

That final scene featured Spider-Man in what seems to be the most comic-accurate costume yet seen felt especially joyous.

The end of the film left me optimistic that we're finally see a "true" Spider-Man movie, stripped of his Stark gadgets, Avengers association and even previously established supporting cast. Of course, the way the MCU has been going ...

I’m not sure when my next MCU film will come along, but since it’s Thor: Love & Thunder, there’s no rush as far as I’m concerned.

My interest in the MCU has almost entirely dried up. Most of the last projects I watched were disappointing to bad, and I've been skipping more than I've watched. I have some optimism for DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE, even if it's just more of the Multiverse stuff that I'm already weary of and I'm skeptical that Deadpool will be a good fit in the MCU.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Multiverse is just an inherently messy concept that it would help of the folks creating it had some clarity of vision; they clearly do not.

I'm not in the least scientific and not particularly geeky when it comes to concepts such as parallel universes, time travel or whatever, but some of the contradictions are glaring even to me. None of it enough to spoil things, but like you I'd like to think they've been considered and might be explained down the line. Not that I'm holding my breath.

As names, the plural is probably Spider-Mans

Oh crikey. I didn't even think of it from the angle of being a name.

I stand corrected and I'm sure you're right (even if Spider-Mans is even more comical and ungainly than Spider-Men).

Not only did Andrew's Spider-Man earn some closure, lost by the abandonment of this third film, but NWH also did a good job with proper endings for the villains.

I really appreciated this aspect of the film and thought it did a nice job of covering the pretty huge villain ensemble (this is as close as we've come to the Sinister Six).

One of the less pleasant aspects of earlier generations of super-hero movies is how the villain almost always died a the end, starting with Joker in '89 BATMAN. NWH's point of not letting people die, even if they're villains, is a much more appropriate to super-heroes.

Yes. Films then were pretty much a one-and-done, with usually three or four films in a franchise (if that), so the landscape was very different. I was OK with the deaths in that context (and even more so the Green Goblin's demise at the end of Spider-Man, as it was so close to his death in the comics) but I also like more serialised narrative and the opportunity to see old favourites again.

I'm not a fan of "back from the dead" storylines in general as they can dilute things, so I wasn't sure how I was going to feel about the return of characters we've seen killed. In context, though, I thought NWH did a nice job with it.

At 27 and 29 in their first outings, they were both far too old.

The character was probably in his twenties when I was a regular reader, so I'd have been fine with an older Spider-Man in general. But not for the eras covered in the films. Tobey in particular always looked far too grown up. I hadn't actually realised Andrew was even older in his first time. He's got a more youthful vibe, so I suppose I just accepted him on face value.

Strange to think that Tom is now entering that same age bracket.

I thought Tobey made a good enough Peter Parker, even if he came across a bit like the boy-next-door pushing middle age in both identities.

While he's the furthest away from how I envisage the character in terms of appearance, when it comes to the reading of the character Tobey is also the one whose Peter's always worked best for me.

Andrew brought more energy and humor to Spider-Man, but I couldn't get past a nearly 30 year old playing a high schooler.

I share your view on his Spider-Man, which was great fun. From memory, the bigger issue for me was that he seemed a little too cocky and confident as Peter Parker, but it wasn't a deal breaker.

I've probably mentioned this before, but I feel I've yet to see the definitive Peter Parker/Spider-Man on screen.

Tom, in contrast, was ideal both physically and in age. His Spider-Man is appropriately lithe and athletic, as well as energetic and humorous.

I'd have to agree with you on all counts. I certainly thought he looked pretty perfect for it when I saw pictures of him. These are the reasons I really should be embracing his performance, but there's just something about him I can't get on board with.

I'm just never able to forget that he's giving a performance or feigning an American accent, and he frequently feels like he's trying too hard to be funny or cute or whatever a particular moment requires, and there were a few moments in NWH where I found myself tutting with irritation (one being when he "did" comedy delivery in a line to Doc Ock on the bridge about his tentacles. Another being him sticking his tongue out when concentrating).

I haven't seen the actor in anything else, so I can only judge him on this performance which just doesn't work for me. I'm sure I'm in a small minority, so I can't say he was miscast. But I just don't enjoy watching him. It hopefully says a lot, though, that I've still thoroughly enjoyed all three solo Spider-Man films in the MCU despite this .

He was Blipped.

Oh Lord. Of course. How could I forget the most significant event (probably) in the entire history of the franchise.

I don't believe Ben has ever been directly mentioned, but in his first appearance Peter said this: “When you can do the things that I can, but you don't and then the bad things happen they happen because of you.” That's usually interpreted as a reference to his failure to save Ben, but there's been nothing on screen to confirm or refute that.

Thanks for the clarification. Having seen most of the films once each, I wasn't sure. Without any kind of indication, it's natural to assume it's happened, in the same way any Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered or any Clark Kent was sent from Krypton.

The end of the film left me optimistic that we're finally see a "true" Spider-Man movie, stripped of his Stark gadgets, Avengers association and even previously established supporting cast.

I couldn't agree more. Seeing him scraping by while renting a small apartment where he has to hand wash his suit (without all the silly Iron Spider tech that makes it appear and disappear at will and animates the eyes) is my kind of Spidey. I'm really hoping for a far more grounded Spider-Man from here on.

I've been skipping more than I've watched.

This is probably the point where I'll start doing the same (whenever I resume).

I have some optimism for DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE, even if it's just more of the Multiverse stuff that I'm already weary of and I'm skeptical that Deadpool will be a good fit in the MCU.

I'd say they're two of the hottest properties a superhero film could feature so I'm sure it will be huge. And based on the last couple I'm sure there will be Easter eggs galore for MCU fans and old-time comic readers alike.

 

[Crimson]

I stand corrected and I'm sure you're right (even if Spider-Mans is even more comical and ungainly than Spider-Men).

The first time I came across a pluralized version of a superhero name was this scene from CRISIS and it rankled my kid brain. But I can't argue with it. If there were a group of people with the surname Feldman, they wouldn't be called Feldmen.

Films then were pretty much a one-and-done, with usually three or four films in a franchise (if that), so the landscape was very different. I was OK with the deaths in that context (and even more so the Green Goblin's demise at the end of Spider-Man, as it was so close to his death in the comics) but I also like more serialised narrative and the opportunity to see old favourites again.

It's true that villains were unlikely to return with only a few films in any given franchise, it often seemed passive-aggressively unheroic that so many hero's foes ended up dead.

Strange to think that Tom is now entering that same age bracket.

I suspect Tom is going to be one of those men who looks like a boy until one day he looks like an old man.

I've probably mentioned this before, but I feel I've yet to see the definitive Peter Parker/Spider-Man on screen.

I agree. One would have to combine elements of Tobey (his Peter), Andrew (his fun but not hyper Spider-Man) and Tom (his youth and athleticism) to come up with the ideal character. Maybe if the next film is more grounded, Tom's performance will follow suit.

I'm just never able to forget that he's giving a performance or feigning an American accent

Funny that the Brit pretending to be American bothers the Brit more than the American.

This is probably the point where I'll start doing the same (whenever I resume).

Except maybe BLACK PANTHER 2 (which I haven't seen), I don't think there's been anything in this phase that you would enjoy. I liked GOTGv3, if less than the first two, but I recall you were not wild about those earlier films.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

it often seemed passive-aggressively unheroic that so many hero's foes ended up dead.

Yes, I know what you mean with that one.

I suspect Tom is going to be one of those men who looks like a boy until one day he looks like an old man.

Unfortunately I know all too well how this works.

Maybe if the next film is more grounded, Tom's performance will follow suit.

That would be great. Especially since I can't see him going anywhere for some time.

Funny that the Brit pretending to be American bothers the Brit more than the American.

On that note, with a number of Brits (and other nationalities) doing American accents in MCU films and series, how do you find them? Are there any that have particularly impressed you or - at the other end of the spectrum - that haven't quite got it right?

 

[Crimson]

with a number of Brits (and other nationalities) doing American accents in MCU films and series, how do you find them? Are there any that have particularly impressed you or - at the other end of the spectrum - that haven't quite got it right?

I'm probably the worst person to ask because I'm not especially aware of or bothered by accents or voices*. Your arch enemy, the vocal fry, doesn't phase me although possibly because I am aware that I have one, at least when I have to speak a lot in the early morning. I don't know if the current Hollywood accent has a name, but it appears to be designed to be as neutral sounding to as many Americans as possible; British actors seem to adopt it quite well.

*Except, apparently, Mrs. Naugatuck on MAUDE. Not to cross pollinate discussions, but I had to stop watching the show; I just couldn't tolerate her voice for even minutes. Funny how British accents are either melodious or ear piercing.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I don't know if the current Hollywood accent has a name, but it appears to be designed to be as neutral sounding to as many Americans as possible; British actors seem to adopt it quite well.

I'm pretty hopeless at accents and languages. I'd never pull it off. Then again, I'm not an actor either.

Most of the television and film consumed here is now American (I'd say around 80% for many, with that figure only rising for younger people), so that "Hollywood accent" is heard daily. That probably helps.

Actually, any Brit who's done karaoke - or even sung along with a song - will almost certainly have attempted an American accent: unconsciously or otherwise. I'd imagine dialect coaches might be able to utilise this when helping someone find that accent.

Also, since the dawn of the internet an awful lot of our resources are American. If we want to find information via a search engine, or on social media or video sharing websites, most results will be American. And that includes online dictionaries and pronunciation sources.

Incidentally, there's a similar thing happening with accents in this country. Of course, numerous regional accents and dialects are still to be abundantly found, but I'd say our equivalent of the neutral accent - Contemporary RP - is on the way to becoming ubiquitous. It makes it increasingly difficult to pinpoint people's place of origin.

Not to cross pollinate discussions, but I had to stop watching the show; I just couldn't tolerate her voice for even minutes.

Oh, that's a shame. I suppose there's always the option of skipping to the final episode of Season Five, which is the beginning of the series as a Naugatuck-free zone. But sometimes enough is enough.

Funny how British accents are either melodious or ear piercing.

Even within the UK, there's much discussion to be found over which accents are nice to hear and which fall into your second category.

 

[Crimson]

Most of the television and film consumed here is now American (I'd say around 80% for many, with that figure only rising for younger people), so that "Hollywood accent" is heard daily. That probably helps.

I'd wonder if Hollywood's fake accents would eventually result in us all talking the same, but if that were the case we'd probably all be talking like Cary Grant and Kate Hepburn already.

 

[Crimson]

[DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE] I'd say they're two of the hottest properties a superhero film could feature so I'm sure it will be huge. And based on the last couple I'm sure there will be Easter eggs galore for MCU fans and old-time comic readers alike.

Spoiler-free

DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE is an enjoyable film that satisfied my basic requirement for a movie: I wasn't bored. But like MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS, I walked out feeling slightly sour. It's increasingly looking like Disney's Marvel has no tricks up its sleeve other than fan-service. The movie is non-stop cameos, cross-overs, in jokes and self-deprecation; a cynical product designed to make MCU fans clap like seals. These tricks were effective in NO WAY HOME but they're getting awfully tired.

As a DEADPOOL film, I'd rank this below the first two. A few big laughs, but most of the gags fell flat. Bonus points for an epic use of a Madonna song.

Caveat: I've always been ambivalent about Wolverine and I have virtually no fondness for the Fox X-MEN films so much of the film's emotional resonance, such as it was, had no impact on me.

 

[DallasFanForever]

DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE is an enjoyable film that satisfied my basic requirement for a movie

I’m really having mixed feelings on this one. I want to see it because I know at the very least I will be entertained but from all the countless previews/commercials/promos I’ve seen so far I’m just not getting good vibes about it.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

I’m really having mixed feelings on this one. I want to see it because I know at the very least I will be entertained but from all the countless previews/commercials/promos I’ve seen so far I’m just not getting good vibes about it.

I have mixed feelings.
In general, Marvel's quality has dropped significantly. They need to return to good scripts,, good direction
and good acting, and not over-saturate (is that a word?) with mediocre films based on characters who are best utilized as supporting, not leads

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The movie is non-stop cameos, cross-overs, in jokes and self-deprecation; a cynical product designed to make MCU fans clap like seals.

Some of these things are perhaps more inevitable - and even acceptable - in a Deadpool film, but they only really work in balance. I also feel the high profile off-screen bromance between Jackman and Reynolds has potential to undermine the film as the more I've read about them the less attractive a prospect I've found it. It's nice to think of actors enjoying themselves on set, but when it's mainly two friends larking round and roping in their real-life buddies from Wrexham FC for cameos it becomes too shallow, exclusive and incestuous for my taste.

Bonus points for an epic use of a Madonna song.

How intriguing.

I've always been ambivalent about Wolverine

Likewise. I've enjoyed reading and watching the character, but at the same time find him to be hugely overrated.

and I have virtually no fondness for the Fox X-MEN films

I thought the first two did a nice job of creating a specific cinematic world for these characters, but beyond that it's been patchy at best. I'm very interested to see what the MCU does with them (outside of the continuation of the animated series), but they have an unenviable task since some of the biggest and best-known stories have already received underwhelming cinematic entries.

 

[Crimson]

I’m really having mixed feelings on this one. I want to see it because I know at the very least I will be entertained

There are worse fates than being entertained for two hours, even if you find yourself unsatisfied after the fact.

Some of these things are perhaps more inevitable - and even acceptable - in a Deadpool film, but they only really work in balance.

I was very nervous about the inclusion of Deadpool into the MCU. Although the MCU has a good sense of humor, it has, for the most part, avoided self-mockery. I think it's important for the creators to take their universe seriously, even if they're having fun with it. Inserting breaking-the-fourth-wall, nothing-is-sacred Deadpool into the MCU seemed like a surefire way to permanently undermine its credibility. I think the film avoided the pitfalls -- although some of the other Marvel universes fared less well.

I thought the first two did a nice job of creating a specific cinematic world for these characters, but beyond that it's been patchy at best.

I have many problems with the Fox X-MEN films but chief among them is their handling of Wolverine. They took a character who, in the comic books, was short, stocky, rough looking and an ensemble player and turned him into a tall, handsome, buff leading man the entire franchise centered around.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Well... the casting of the MCU's Doctor Doom is all over the news today. I couldn't have avoided that one if I'd wanted.

It's probably too early to judge, but my first reaction is it's pretty messy.

Worse still, it's already spawning multiverse-based fan theories. I'm still somewhere in Phase Four, and already quite weary of the multiverse concept, but it seems that particular turnip is going to be squeezed until it's bone dry.

They took a character who, in the comic books, was short, stocky, rough looking and an ensemble player and turned him into a tall, handsome, buff leading man the entire franchise centered around.

Yes - the characterisation was off in a number of ways.

 

[Crimson]

It's probably too early to judge, but my first reaction is it's pretty messy.

Worse still, it's already spawning multiverse-based fan theories. I'm still somewhere in Phase Four, and already quite weary of the multiverse concept, but it seems that particular turnip is going to be squeezed until it's bone dry.

I'm excited that the next two AVENGERS films will be directed by the Russo Brothers who are responsible for the best MCU films, so I'm willing to give this creative choice the benefit of the doubt ... but it reeks of desperate stunt casting. RDJ is a great actor who found the role of a lifetime in Tony Stark, but he is a perplexingly bad choice for Dr. Doom even if he wasn't already associated with Iron Man. Nothing about RDJ has indicated that 'menacing' is in his repertoire as an actor and he is, quite frankly, rather old to be playing the character. Paying an ungodly millions of dollars to an actor who's the face of the MCU to play a character who should be permanently masked leads me to fear this Doom will be frequently mask-less.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I'm excited that the next two AVENGERS films will be directed by the Russo Brothers who are responsible for the best MCU films

This is good news for me too. As you probably remember, the Avengers films (and a number of solo outings) were a struggle for me until things clicked into place with their arrival.

it reeks of desperate stunt casting.

Yes. I realise it will be a huge payday for him (especially if he's involved as a producer as well as an actor), and that he understandably feels very connected to the franchise. I can also understand why Marvel would want him to return. But I feel for him it's a big risk to come back at this point when he left on a high and is associated with the series at its best.

Nothing about RDJ has indicated that 'menacing' is in his repertoire as an actor and he is, quite frankly, rather old to be playing the character.

I think he has an intensity that could help, but I'd agree. I'm not widely versed with his body of work but most of the roles in which I've seen him have a kind of quirk and kinetic energy that doesn't feel a good fit for Doom.

If they were considering an actor in their late fifties, I wonder if Julian McMahon was considered.

Paying an ungodly millions of dollars to an actor who's the face of the MCU to play a character who should be permanently masked leads me to fear this Doom will be frequently mask-less.

And that risks diluting the whole franchise, because it would also mean addressing the similarity and writing in a canonical (and probably multiversal) explanation.

 

[Crimson]

Appears to be a good return to form of the Netflix-Marvel style.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Appears to be a good return to form of the Netflix-Marvel style.

It does look very promising, and it's great to see so many of the original series' cast back for this.

 

[Crimson]

it's great to see so many of the original series' cast back for this.

I thought for sure Disney would screw it up -- and that's still possible! -- so I hadn't been paying too much attention. I thought I had heard Karen Page wasn't expected to be in the new series, so it was a surprise to see Deborah Ann Woll in the trailer.

While the Netflix shows were hit or miss, I'd prefer to see a return to their style than most of the Disney-era Marvel shows.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

While the Netflix shows were hit or miss, I'd prefer to see a return to their style than most of the Disney-era Marvel shows.

Same here. Most of the recent/current/upcoming Marvel projects* haven't interested me enough to feel I'm missing out on anything. This is the first MCU vehicle in quite a while to grab my attention.

I also wouldn't mind at all if this also meant the return of Jessica Jones, and perhaps Luke Cage as well.




* With the X-Men as an exception. I am very curious to see the MCU's take on the mutant characters.