Jump to content
NEurope

chairdriver

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    8,311

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by chairdriver

  1. Posted · Edited by chairdriver
    Automerged Doublepost

    Do you not see the conflict of interest behind the characters you're suggesting appearing in the same film?

     

    You've got Jane as Thor's love interest, You've got Enchantress who wants to suduce Thor away from Jane, and you've got Sif who is going to jealous of Jane!

    It's already gone past a workable love triangle; and that's even before you throw in Valkyrie, who forms another clash.

     

    Yes, that love triangle works. And Valkryie is separate from that. She has no romantic interest in Thor. In the same way that Hogun, Fandrall and Volstagg have no romantic interest in Thor. How does that not work?

     

    [Not gonna happen but] Surely Valkyrie would be better suited to her own film, because what do you envisage happening, Valkyrie fighting Enchantress?... meanwhile what's Thor [the central character] doing, or switch it around, what's Valkyrie doing?... fighting off hords of enemy fodder?... That would be a waste and something The Warriors Three/Sif can do.

     

    Well Valkryie's bag is that she's a Valkryie -- she escorts fallen warriors to the afterlife, and can rescue people from the verge of death. Lots of room to fit that into the story. For instance Thor / Jane / any character dying and she bringing them back to life.

     

    And her winged horse has such room for a stunning CGI sequence.

     

    Hey cunts.

    562536_10151712503445244_690580243_24154528_279159816_n.jpg

     

    Also, that's a problem with female comic book characters in that there's often some romantic involvement, and/or they're all sexy characters.

     

    I feel this is really wtf, you sound like you're from the 80s or something.

     

    There isn't "often" some romantic involvement. Of the biggest female Avengers [spider-Woman, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, She-Hulk, Ms Marvel, Wasp, Monica Rambeau] only Scarlet Witch and Wasp had romantic ties (Black Widow had a romance with Daredevil, but that was in Daredevil's comic). Wasp in particular was domestically abused by Ant-Man, and has since been a figurehead of independent women. Scarlet Witch soon became a central Avengers character and it was more like Vision was defined as the partner of Scarlet Witch rather than the other way round.

     

    And male heroes aren't sexy? With their rippling muscles?

    Striaght men aren't the only people watching these films.

     

    ---

     

    Also, I feel this is so appropriate:

    tumblr_m41g31U8Xt1qfpk12o1_500.png

     

     

    But calm down, it's just Enchantress impersonating her:

    tumblr_m41jh9bG1D1qeznwl.png

     

     

    Also, my favourite thing. Clearly 85 points:

    tumblr_m3w54fokRL1qztaqpo1_500.png

  2. Posted

    Yes, but the point is that the universe was largely conceived in the 60s, it would be nice to acknowledge that it's an influential thing and has a responsibility to reflect changed attitudes.

     

    Which I think Marvel actually does well in the comics, if you look at the new superhero teams created in the last 10 years like Runaways, Young Avengers, New/Young X-Men they all have good female presence. [X-Men in particular has been all about women for the past like 20 years, lol, but then, that's always had such a good track record on being gøod] And Ms Marvel has had her own series, is the leader of the Avengers, is a character you want to read about and feels like she's on level with Iron Man etc nowadays. [Actually the Avengers have often been led by women, off the top of my head both Wasp and Monica Rambeau led them.]

     

    It just feels unrepresentative of the comics the film is drawn from that the Avengers film fails the Bechdel test. Ok, they chose those characters for Avengers specifically because they are the most famous (I contest they're the most popular; I feel like I've never encountered a Thor fan for instance) and they happened to be men. But now the franchise has had success it would be nice if it introduced characters to reflect the fact comics have moved past the "man's world" of the 60s.

     

    I just really reject the idea that you can't have 4 female leads, and that it'd be too much. I don't really understand the reasoning, especially when the two characters I suggested they introduce (Valkyrie and Enchantress) are pretty central to the Thor mythos.

  3. Posted

    But it would've taken away from Thor in the first film. We (cinema goers) needed to be introduced into a character so that they rooted for him and wanted to hear his story. They managed to tell the story about Thor AND Loki effectively in that film, and they both made their way into the Avengers. Add another character into that first film and that's fine, but how much screen time do they get? A little/a few scenes? Half/a third of the film? If its the former, then the character can't justifiably be added to the lineup in the first Avengers film. If it's the latter then we wouldn't have known as much about Thor and Loki - it would've taken away from their stories, which was the main aim of the film in the first place.

     

    I'm talking about Thor 2 / Avengers 2.

  4. Posted

    I don't think they did any market research before choosing Loki, or Maria Hill -- there's no need to do so. People aren't stupid, they have the capacity to take in new characters. What more do you have to know about Valkyrie before going into the cinema apart from she's a Valkyrior from Asgard? Let the film do the talking, when she kicks ass, let that be the introduction to her character. Most people will know what the Valkyries are anyway (most famously the classical music "Flight of the Valkyries"), and if not, it takes 5 minutes to read her wikipedia profile. I really don't see the problem with the introduction of characters which have been well-established in the comics for like 40 years.

  7. Posted

    Think it's fair to say the main four are 100% guaranteed. Black Widow is currently the only female Avenger so you'd think they'd surely keep her (and add a second through Wasp probably), plus Scarlett was so good in the film.

     

    Hawkeye is the only character I can see maybe not returning, but do they need him for Black Widow to play off?... probably. If Black Widow was the only 'normal' Avenger it could seem a bit odd; unless they put her directly alongside Cap.

     

    I have a feeling they'll do a Black Widow movie, just to fully capitalise on Scarlett's fame. If they did, I'd be content if they tied up her story (either by death, retirement, whatever) because I feel she's been great in Avengers, and would be great in her movie, and I'd prefer to see someone new in the Avengers line-up.

     

    Hawkeye feels like he's really easy to write into any plot, because he's not as problematically powerful as Hulk/Thor/Iron Man, so he could either be there, or not be there, and it'd make no difference. I would usually say Hulk would be better as a stand-alone movie, but the 2 fails suggest otherwise.

     

    I feel like the main 4 aren't *certain*, mostly because it'd be easier to write a fresh script with a slightly mixed up cast. Like, Thor could easily go off to Hel and Ant-Man could take his stead and it wouldn't really be that problematic. (Although obviously depends on the success of the Ant-Man movie).

  8. Posted · Edited by chairdriver
    Automerged Doublepost

    And you have to look at Avengers 2, they can't overload it with new Avengers because the film would be far too chaotic.

     

    Cap/Thor/IronMan/Hulk/BlackWidow/Hawkeye/Ant-Man/Wasp(?)/DocStrange(hope not)... they've got to stop somewhere...

     

    I guess I'm kinda tacitly working on the assumption that at least 2 of the 6 Avengers from the first film won't return for the second film (Otherwise why not just film Avengers 2 immediately after Avengers, and ride on the momentum of the success?).

     

    On the subject, I feel like my favourite Avengers 2 line-up would be:

     

    Captain America

    Iron Man

    Ant-Man

    She-Hulk

    Valkyrie

    Vision

     

    Although She-Hulk would be hard to do justice on film, since part of her joke is that she's aware she's in a comic.

  9. Posted · Edited by chairdriver

    There's no point just throwing in new/random characters for the sake of some sort of balance.

     

    No, but the point is that neither of them are random: Enchantress and Valkyrie are the two glaring character omissions from the Thor movie. Enchantress herself makes the most sense as the Villain in Thor 2 (assuming they aren't going to do Loki again), and Valkyrie the most sense as Thor's opponent/ally -- especially because she could be set up to be an Avenger in Avengers 2, and because there was a storyline where Enchantress manipulated her into doing her bidding / attacking Thor on her behalf.

     

    To say it wouldn't happen because there'd never be 4 female leads just seems randomly sexist. [And I probably wouldn't call Sif a lead anyway]

  10. Posted

    Because chair, that's what The Avengers is!

     

    What the Avengers is is a superhero team. There's no reason why they had to choose that line up. In fact, I don't think Hulk has ever been on the same Avengers team as Captain America in the comics. To say that it was necessary to have 6 male leads and 1 female lead is false.

     

    What would be the advantage to having both Sif and Valkyrie when it would make much more sense to develop Sif's character, which is far more important in terms of a set of Thor films.

     

    Valkryie is more central to the Thor mythos than Sif is, I'd say. Sif is essentially just the 4th Warrior Three, with not much consequence to anything, where Valkyrie comes to earth and joins the Avengers/Defenders and is sorta the female counterbalance to Thor.

  14. Posted

    Things The Jesus did talk about: Borrowing or lending money in any way (loan, mortgage, borrowing off a friend) is completely evil - so much so that it was the only time Jesus used violence.

     

    And yet that is now a normal part of life.

     

    Well considering the current financial situation his stance has a certain wisdom.

  20. Posted · Edited by chairdriver

    Also if you were dissapointed in the film the first time round... why go see it again?

     

    I wanted to see it again to decide if I was just being silly. And I'm not disappointed per se, I just think it could have been better. I think it's a fine film.

  21. Posted

    I saw it again. It held up way worse second time round. The most glaring thing is that I don't understand why it was expected of us to feel empathy for the dead. Why did Iron Man even give a shit? Why would it actually move him enough to join the team, when like half an hour ago he'd been largely against it?

  24. Posted

    I'm not sure how the knowledge of any of these facts ruins the film anyway? Knowing who's going to be the villain in the second Avengers film literally has 0 impact on anything, in fact, I'd bet you'd be so engaged with the film you wouldn't actually remember. Similarly, with this Coulson business, I really doubt it's going to affect your enjoyment of the film in any way; are you really going to be sitting in the cinema thinking "Oh shit maybe it's this scene he gets turned into a robot?", no you're going to be watching the film like a normal person.

     

    It's like with Battlestar Galactica. At the start it shows you what's going to happen in the episode, but you always forget within 2 minutes, and then are still surprised when it happens at the end.

  25. Posted

    Yes no reasonable explanation to people who are well read on the franchise. Dude... seriously.

     

    I'm not sure what you're saying?

     

    It's the same thing as people conjecturing that Maria Hill is going to be turned into Jocasta, except the Coulson thing didn't make me burst out laughing.

×