Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Christopher]

Jac Shaeffer has been on record that her initial pitch for Wandavision didn't include Monica. It was something that was added as the show was developed.

That's not "shoehorning," it's the natural way creativity works. Nobody expects the original pitch to be perfect; it's just an embryo. The development process is how it gestates.

YMMV, but I don't consider roles in What If...? to count. Good on the actors if they get to reprise these roles, but we're not seeing the same characters, but alternate versions of the same characters (sometimes starkly different, like the 1872 episode, where they've nothing in common but the names and actors playing the role).

That's taking things too literally. Every variation of a fictional character is that character in essence; different continuities are opportunities to tell different kinds of stories about that character in different contexts. The variants in What If...? are still basically the same people in personality and substance, just placed into different contexts. That's what makes it interesting.

After all, the MCU versions of these characters are in a different reality from the original comics, so if that made them fundamentally different characters as you claim, then there'd be no reason for fans of Spider-Man comics to be invested in Spider-Man movies, or for fans of Captain America comics to be invested in Captain America movies. The reason these movies matter to fans of the comics is that a character is still essentially the same character regardless of the in-story reality they inhabit, because they're fictional and the "reality" is nothing but a storytelling device, a context in which to place the character.

Besides, if we can identify with both the movies' Loki and the TV series's Loki variant, or with the three different Peters Parker in No Way Home, then there's no reason we can't identify with the variant characters in What If...?

True. There's the potential as of yet that Loki may step off his throne in a future Avengers movie. I do think it would be poignant if Thor were killed in the next Avengers movie, and Loki just misses being able to reunite with him.

I think you missed my point. I was saying we can't assume they'll just abandon their Kang setup rather than resolve the Kang story arc in a way that makes sense given what's been established. I was saying nothing about Loki.

Again, I'm not arguing animation doesn't count, but that show is not within continuity with the MCU, hence it's basically a fun thought experiment, not a continuation of either the greater plot arc or the individual characters stories. Though I suppose it's possible we'll meet The Watcher and his new crew in a live-action cameo down the line, which would bring What If...? into the story.

Arrgghh... Continuity is not, not, NOT the exclusive purpose of fiction. You're not studying for a history test, you're watching entertainment. It doesn't matter whether things fit together or pay off somewhere else, it only matters if the stories are satisfying in and of themselves. Continuity is a bonus, not a requirement.

Characters are ideas, fundamentally. Continuity is just an idea about an idea. My point is that What If...? has been the only place that many of the ideas from recent MCU movies have gotten used again, regardless of continuity.

I think it's a dumb practice to decide on doing a spinoff of a "charismatic" character before viewers get to see a single frame.

I wasn't talking about the character, I was talking about the actress. The producers were very impressed by her talent and wanted to give her more work. They felt she deserved that opportunity, whether the audience responded or not. Audience acceptance is never, ever guaranteed in this business. Lots of things fail to find an audience through no fault of their creators. But if someone demonstrates that they're gifted at what they do, it's worth gambling on them.

I found Echo to be fine, but kind of boring, BTW. More similar tonally to the Netflix shows than the other Disney+ stuff.

Odd that you'd see that as a negative. Given that they included Kingpin, that was obviously exactly what they were going for. Anyway, I thought it was rather good.

The character didn't originate in Multiverse of Madness. Billy was in Wandavision before that.

Oh, that's right. Sorry, I conflated the two. Still, Wanda's death does loom over Agatha All Along.

It was way better than I expected it to be, though it's still a middle-of-the-pack movie which was clearly heavily altered in post-production.

I do think it's arguable the degree to which The Marvels seemed like it needed "homework" to watch may have hurt it. It was the first MCU film which really directly followed up on events/characters from multiple Disney+ shows. I don't think you needed them to understand Monica and Kamala as characters, but it probably did reduce the broader appeal a bit.

Every story depends on prior events the audience didn't see. Casablanca depends on Rick & Ilsa's romantic history. Star Wars (1977) pretends to be Chapter 4 of a serial in progress and starts in the middle. The Incredibles catches us up on decades of superhero backstory in its first few minutes. Any competently told story can bring its audience up to speed with no prior need for "homework." It's called exposition and it's a basic part of the craft. If people assume they can't understand a movie without seeing previous stories about the characters, that's an erroneous assumption, as long as the movie is told competently.

Still kind of miffed about Cassie being recast, TBH, though Emma Fuhrmann seems to have stopped acting as of 2020, so maybe there were some deeper BTS reasons for it. Still, I thought her portrayal in Eldgame was better than anything Kathryn Newton has put in (who is also a little bit older, cutting against the whole Young Avengers thing).

I quite liked Newton. I've enjoyed most of the new characters being set up for Young Avengers, certainly all the female ones (Kamala, Kate, America, Cassie).

It closed the door on Gunn's story while leaving the door open for a Rocket-led team and for Star-Lord to do something if he wanted.

Obviously, but leaving the door open is not the same thing as having a definite plan to do a sequel. And any sequel would probably be someone else's story, since Gunn completed his.

 

[theenglish]

What I wish they would do is a Wakanda series that explores the daily lives of the people. In fact I have more desire for that than another movies, unless Denzel is going to be the lead in the movie. I think their is something fascinating about the idea of exploring how their is dark under belly forming underneath what is mostly presented as a paradise. Between led by a royal family instead of a democracy and the isolation where I guess most of the people have been kept ignorant about the outside world I could see a real class issue happening in that society. Something that can't be papered over with all the high level of tech.

I was hoping that the first movie was going to do this--it would have been much more interesting if Killmonger had had an actual political agenda of reform instead of the ending showing him as just another villain.

 

[Jayson1]

To me that is the most interesting angle to go with the setting. Also maybe a deeper exploration of the Dora Milaje. A tv show starring Okoye would be pretty cool.

 

[eschaton]

We saw in trailers, and it was then confirmed in interviews with the director and or writer, that the partially exposed Tiamut and the adamantium that people are getting from it are a big plot point in Brave New World.

I noticed the hand in the trailer, but I hadn't realized it rose to the level of plot point.

This is pretty much standard practice for this kind of spin-off, plenty of them have started pre-production before the parent show came out. The problem with waiting to start production on a show like this is that you want to get the show out close to the original show, so that it comes out when people still care about the character and haven't moved on the something like this.

Can you give me an example of this? Maybe I just don't watch much TV, but I can't think of many examples where they begin production of a spinoff without a second season even in sight.

And yes, I know that there was never a plan for a second season of Hawkeye. But outside of the MCU, there aren't these sort of great sprawling franchises. Spin-off shows tend to only be announced one the core show is winding down.

That's not "shoehorning," it's the natural way creativity works. Nobody expects the original pitch to be perfect; it's just an embryo. The development process is how it gestates.

From what I can tell, Jac had the original pitch, then someone at Marvel told them that Monica was available due to the setup from Captain Marvel, so they found some way to work her in. Elizabeth Olsen herself has said that the character was rewritten during production as Marvel Studios got a better idea of what they wanted to do with her in the future. So yeah, it does seem like her inclusion/arc was to a significant extent, even if not entirely, to set her up to be in future projects like The Marvels.

To be clear, I don't think that any of the setup was bad. I do think it seems quite random from the present to realize that they did the setup in Wandavision however. Yeah, they did their best to connect Monica's grief at the loss of her own mother to Wanda, but ultimately it felt like their stories were running in parallel - in part because Monica's attempts to reach out to Wanda were largely fruitless. Wanda doesn't change as a result of Monica's actions. Monica does, but only because she gained magic powers in a semi-random manner.

That's taking things too literally. Every variation of a fictional character is that character in essence; different continuities are opportunities to tell different kinds of stories about that character in different contexts. The variants in What If...? are still basically the same people in personality and substance, just placed into different contexts. That's what makes it interesting.

After all, the MCU versions of these characters are in a different reality from the original comics, so if that made them fundamentally different characters as you claim, then there'd be no reason for fans of Spider-Man comics to be invested in Spider-Man movies, or for fans of Captain America comics to be invested in Captain America movies. The reason these movies matter to fans of the comics is that a character is still essentially the same character regardless of the in-story reality they inhabit, because they're fictional and the "reality" is nothing but a storytelling device, a context in which to place the character.

Good storytelling is about setup and payoff. I suppose when considering alternate timelines you can use the setup of the original characters for multiple payoffs, but I'd argue that as long as it's only done in What if...? then there's been no payoff within the primary narrative structure.

The stories can, of course, be completely self-contained. But save for a few projects (Moon Knight, Werewolf By Night) Marvel Studios isn't content to have self-contained narratives. Even in the case of Moon Knight they obviously put in a teaser for a Season 2 with no promise at that time for further episodes.

Besides, if we can identify with both the movies' Loki and the TV series's Loki variant, or with the three different Peters Parker in No Way Home, then there's no reason we can't identify with the variant characters in What If...?

I think the Loki variant is a bit different, because the POD was within the timeline of the MCU proper. He had the same story as Loki up through Avengers. We know he has complicated feelings regarding his relationship with Thor, for example.

That said, probably the worst part of the show Loki is he makes a speedrun to being a "good guy" because he's the show's protagonist. The Loki in Season 2 in particular is pretty unrecognizable - mostly just a random guy played by Tom Hiddleston who in most cases doesn't even have access to god powers.

I think you missed my point. I was saying we can't assume they'll just abandon their Kang setup rather than resolve the Kang story arc in a way that makes sense given what's been established. I was saying nothing about Loki.

I dunno. I feel like the stuff that Moebius said at the end of the last episode pretty conclusively stated there was nothing to worry about regarding Kang variants. I do think having a throwaway where all the Kang variants were killed by Dr. Doom at the opening of the next Avengers movie would be a nice touch, though.

Arrgghh... Continuity is not, not, NOT the exclusive purpose of fiction. You're not studying for a history test, you're watching entertainment. It doesn't matter whether things fit together or pay off somewhere else, it only matters if the stories are satisfying in and of themselves. Continuity is a bonus, not a requirement.

The fact remains that most MCU projects - by design - do not stand on their own. They introduce new characters whose later development is just hinted at. They have open-ended conclusions where the main crisis is resolved, but threads are left unresolved. They add post-credits scenes which are explicitly made to raise questions.

If you have setup which doesn't lead to payoff, it will make the project less enjoyable in the longer run. Witness how TV shows which started brilliantly but ended poorly (Lost, nuBSG, Game of Thrones) are retrospectively downgraded by fans. The good portions of the narrative are still there, but the foreknowledge that the payoff isn't worth it makes the setup way less interesting. Obviously the MCU is less serialized than this, but many do treat the entirety of it not too differently from a prestige TV show with a lot of semi-episodic outings.

I wasn't talking about the character, I was talking about the actress. The producers were very impressed by her talent and wanted to give her more work. They felt she deserved that opportunity, whether the audience responded or not. Audience acceptance is never, ever guaranteed in this business. Lots of things fail to find an audience through no fault of their creators. But if someone demonstrates that they're gifted at what they do, it's worth gambling on them.

I just think it's symptomatic of how Marvel Studios was taking on too many projects at the time, particularly since we know now the production process pretty much required Kevin Feige to oversee everything.

I was hoping that the first movie was going to do this--it would have been much more interesting if Killmonger had had an actual political agenda of reform instead of the ending showing him as just another villain.

They did much the same thing with Karli Morgenthau in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. I don't think Marvel Studios really knows how to deal with politics - particularly radical politics - because they're too afraid of taking something which could be seen as a political stance. So the few times they've set up antagonists who might actually have a point, they go out of their way to make them irredeemable by just killing a bunch of random people, to allow the enlightened centrism of our heroes to save the day.

X-Men 97 is an exception here. Though, it will be interesting with the original showrunner shitcanned to see how much of the political content survives into Seasons 2 and 3.

 

[Christopher]

From what I can tell, Jac had the original pitch, then someone at Marvel told them that Monica was available due to the setup from Captain Marvel, so they found some way to work her in.

Which, as I said, is developing a pitch, not "shoehorning." A pitch is just the seed of a project, or the skeleton. Adding new stuff to flesh it out is perfectly normal and healthy. One of my favorite parts of the writing process is when I realize I can put two separate ideas together in a way I hadn't thought of before and discover that it opens whole new doors.

Elizabeth Olsen herself has said that the character was rewritten during production as Marvel Studios got a better idea of what they wanted to do with her in the future. So yeah, it does seem like her inclusion/arc was to a significant extent, even if not entirely, to set her up to be in future projects like The Marvels.

Which is a trivial thing to say when talking about an ongoing series or shared universe, since it's only natural that the writers of such a series would consider both the individual work and how its characters and ideas can be carried forward. T'Challa and Spider-Man were introduced in Civil War for the exact same reason, to set up their future appearances, but T'Challa's role, at least, was still essential to the story.

To be clear, I don't think that any of the setup was bad. I do think it seems quite random from the present to realize that they did the setup in Wandavision however.

It's the sort of thing that happens all the time in comics. Characters are introduced or showcased in whatever books are convenient at the time to feature them in. Jack Kirby's New Gods debuted in Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen of all things. And team-ups between mismatched characters sometimes happen just because those characters don't currently have solo books and are available for a team book.

Good storytelling is about setup and payoff. I suppose when considering alternate timelines you can use the setup of the original characters for multiple payoffs, but I'd argue that as long as it's only done in What if...? then there's been no payoff within the primary narrative structure.

No. The payoff for any story has to be in the story itself. Any setup for future stories is secondary and optional. How can you enjoy a story if the only thing you're thinking about is what comes after it? Every story needs to work on its own as a complete entity, or the connections between them don't matter.

This is what the MCU got right and so many other studios got wrong. The MCU concentrated on making each individual movie work on its own, and the links between them were just a bonus. So the individual movies succeeded (mostly), and that made audiences want to follow the connections to what came next. But other studios tried to copy the connections without realizing that the connections are worthless if the things they're connecting aren't good on their own. So they made movies like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and the Tom Cruise The Mummy that were so busy trying to preview future stories that they forgot to tell good stories in themselves, and so people didn't want to come back for those future stories.

I think the Loki variant is a bit different, because the POD was within the timeline of the MCU proper. He had the same story as Loki up through Avengers. We know he has complicated feelings regarding his relationship with Thor, for example.

Ahh, I knew you were going to split that hair. Again, it's being too literal. Exploring variations on a theme is a fundamental part of art and creativity. The exact in-story nature of those variations is incidental. They're just different excuses to explore a character or idea in different ways.

I dunno. I feel like the stuff that Moebius said at the end of the last episode pretty conclusively stated there was nothing to worry about regarding Kang variants.

I think that's reading too much into it. As I recall, he said the TVA was tackling the issue, but that in itself does not guarantee that the issue is solved.

I do think having a throwaway where all the Kang variants were killed by Dr. Doom at the opening of the next Avengers movie would be a nice touch, though.

I think that would be stupid, terrible, lazy writing. What's been established in-universe is that the Kangs are such a gigantic, overwhelming problem that He Who Remains, one of the most powerful beings in creation, had to exterminate whole universes to try to keep it contained. It would be a massive contradiction and a gigantic cheat to rewrite reality to say it's suddenly such a minor problem that some guy from Earth can fix it so casually.

The fact remains that most MCU projects - by design - do not stand on their own.

That's oversimplifying. Again, the continuity is a secondary layer, a bonus on top of our enjoyment of the individual stories. What is the point of having connections if the things being connected are not valuable in themselves?

I just think it's symptomatic of how Marvel Studios was taking on too many projects at the time, particularly since we know now the production process pretty much required Kevin Feige to oversee everything.

I don't see how that has anything to do with whether Echo is worthwhile as a TV series in its own right, or whether it makes sense in general for TV producers to want to give more work to a talented actress.

 

[JD]

I noticed the hand in the trailer, but I hadn't realized it rose to the level of plot point.

I'm pretty sure that people being after the adamantium from Tiamut will be one of the central conflicts of the movie.

Can you give me an example of this? Maybe I just don't watch much TV, but I can't think of many examples where they begin production of a spinoff without a second season even in sight.

And yes, I know that there was never a plan for a second season of Hawkeye. But outside of the MCU, there aren't these sort of great sprawling franchises. Spin-off shows tend to only be announced one the core show is winding down.

I wasn't thinking so much of a spinoff being set up before the first season of a series, I was thinking more of a character getting a spin-off before their first appearance on the parent show. And while I'm drawing a blank on specific example.
The only example that's coming to mind for me right now is The War Between the Land and the Sea which I believe was already being worked on before Disney's first season of Doctor Who aired, and before the majority of the cast had been introduced on DW.
But I was thinking more of a actor and character impressing the producers of a show that they gave them a spin-off before their first episode aired, and I'm almost positive that is not an unusual occurrence.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm pretty sure that people being after the adamantium from Tiamut will be one of the central conflicts of the movie.

Wolverine mid-credits sequence.

 

[Xerxes82]

That said, probably the worst part of the show Loki is he makes a speedrun to being a "good guy" because he's the show's protagonist. The Loki in Season 2 in particular is pretty unrecognizable - mostly just a random guy played by Tom Hiddleston who in most cases doesn't even have access to god powers.

I get this feeling. Not sure I agree, though. If you really look at Loki, particularly in the first Thor, his whole thing is that he WANTS to be the good guy. Desperately. He wants to do what is right and noble and correct for Asgard. It's only once he learns his true heritage that he becomes so insecure in himself that he feels like he needs to do better than that. That just being the good guy isn't enough, that he needs to be seen as a truly epic hero in order to overcome, first, what he perceives as the shadow of this father and then, second, his overwhelming fear that he will be seen as illegitimate and replaced by his unworthy brother.

And make no mistake, Thor was unworthy until his time on Earth.

So really, Loki's turn to villlainy is born almost entirely out of his insecurity. He plots against Odin not to destroy his father, but so that he can be seen to save him and thus appear like the hero he believes he needs to be. He turns to violence against Thor once Thor becomes worthy and becomes a threat to his rule. And then again under the influence of Thanos because he feels abandoned and cast off.

But at the TVA he is removed from the shadow of his family. It's just Loki, finally free to be himself without fear or judgement. And that he would then find himself drawn to doing the right thing, even if he doesn't always know exactly what that it is or how he should do such, isn't that surprising. It's all very meta, as on this stage he's not the supporting player but is instead the hero of the piece as he's always wanted to be.

 

[JD]

I think that would be stupid, terrible, lazy writing. What's been established in-universe is that the Kangs are such a gigantic, overwhelming problem that He Who Remains, one of the most powerful beings in creation, had to exterminate whole universes to try to keep it contained. It would be a massive contradiction and a gigantic cheat to rewrite reality to say it's suddenly such a minor problem that some guy from Earth can fix it so casually.

However they decide to deal with the Kang issue, I can't see them devoting to much time to it since they're going to want to focus on developing and building up Doom.

 

[eschaton]

No. The payoff for any story has to be in the story itself. Any setup for future stories is secondary and optional. How can you enjoy a story if the only thing you're thinking about is what comes after it? Every story needs to work on its own as a complete entity, or the connections between them don't matter.

Ultimately, whether the promise and payoff work is up to the viewers, and doesn't operate on any objective rule. Some viewers may look at each story in isolation - particularly people who just bop into the MCU for a particular series (like GOTG) and are uninterested in the wider mythos. But for those who were interested in the promise of the multiverse saga as a whole, there clearly hasn't been payoff, at least yet.

The attempts at cloning the MCU's success have - admittedly - all done far, far worse jobs. However, the MCU also set a high bar for itself with the Infinity Saga. Every single movie tied into Infinity War/Endgame to at least a small extent, either with direct plot points or indirectly through the character development of the primary protagonists of each of the movies.

There is absolutely no way that the Multiverse Saga will be able to do the same with Doomsday and Secret Wars at this point. I'm still mystified that they just arbitrarily ended Phase 4 at the end of 2022 with no interim Avengers movie. I'm still mystified we don't know who is in the Avengers any longer. I'm not saying that a messier, looser story is inherently worse, but that was not the expectation folks had for this era of the MCU.

I don't see how that has anything to do with whether Echo is worthwhile as a TV series in its own right, or whether it makes sense in general for TV producers to want to give more work to a talented actress.

As I see it, Marvel Studios has finite resources, and had a goal to move towards (the next Avengers movie). Everything should have been building towards this in Phases 4-6, even if only in small parts. This means any project should do one of the following:

• Act as origin stories for heroes intended for the new lineup of the Avengers (or, potentially, secondary teams like Young Avengers or Midnight Suns).
• Be retirements/swan songs for the remaining Infinity Saga characters.
• Work as formal "passing of the batons" to the new characters.
• Maybe work towards sequel stories for new characters/smaller teamups on the way to the next Avengers.

I think Phases 4-5 had some decent introductions. I'd say that Shang-Chi, John Walker, Monica Rambeau, Kamala Khan, Kate Bishop, She-Hulk, Moon Knight, Echo, Wiccan, and all the friggin Eternals got good setup. Other characters, like Yelena, Red Guardian, Agatha, America Chavez, Werewolf by Night, Namor, etc. didn't get formal origin stories, but we got enough (similar to what we got for Hawkeye and Black Widow in the past). We got Daredevil in the MCU proper as well. We got at least hints, if not formal introductions, to a bunch of other characters too: Hercules, Black Knight, Eros, Blade, Taskmaster, Xu Xialing, Clea, etc.

There have been some real passings of the baton as well. Black Widow, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Hawkeye, and Wakanda Forever are all pretty clearly about setting up Yelena, Sam, Kate, and Shuri as the replacements for Natasha, Steve, Clint, and T'Challa respectively.

What we haven't seen, though, is much in the way of narrative closure. Hawkeye might get to finally retire with his family (particularly given Jeremy Renner's injuries), and at least some of the Guardians are probably gone for good. But Love and Thunder squandered a chance to be the swan song of Thor. More irritatingly, Quantumania missed the obvious choice of having Ant-Man killed by the Kang variant. Given that was meant as an introduction of a "lesser Kang" to the audience, having Scott Lang only defeat him via noble sacrifice would make the stakes of the Multiverse Saga clear, in just the same way that Thanos choking out Loki did. Given RDJ's return to the MCU, and rumors that both Chris Evans and ScarJo will return as well in some manner, this is all looking depressing - as if they've decided none of the new characters were really "worth it" and they have to go back to the well to try and get the fans back. Similarly, I think they're too scared to commit to any of the old characters really leaving the MCU because they don't have a solid plan of what they plan for the future.

Regardless, using Echo as an example here - how does her story help build towards the Multiverse Saga's conclusion? The answer is almost certainly that it doesn't. She's not going to be an Avenger, or a Young Avenger (Alaqua Cox is 27, so she'd probably qualify for the latter). She would have been a decent fit for Thunderbolts*, but she has a baby and a second on the way, so I can understand why she couldn't be involved in that project. The further development of Kingpin across the show will help of course with the new Daredevil show, if nothing else. All of which is fine in isolation, but it cuts against the expectation that the Infinity Saga trained in Marvel fans. Though by now they've learned another lesson - that lots of the MCU content is skippable, if it doesn't seem your jam.

But really, we understand the reasoning here. We know Feige was under pressure by Disney to pump out a ridiculous number of Disney+ shows for several years. Whatever plan they had for the Multiverse Saga (I know some of it was absolutely destroyed by their initial plans that the "big 3" would be T'Challa, Captain Marvel, and Spider-Man) there was no way they could have developed so many miniseries so quickly and had the same tight narrative focus. I just wish that Feige had found a few trusted lieutenants and said "you do the stuff setting up the Young Avengers, you do Midnight Suns, and I'll keep on with the core Avengers." Because I think fans would be a lot more forgiving if there were three sub-arcs that just wove together at the end, rather than trying to collect all the scattered threads now and make some sense of it.

 

[eschaton]

I get this feeling. Not sure I agree, though. If you really look at Loki, particularly in the first Thor, his whole thing is that he WANTS to be the good guy. Desperately. He wants to do what is right and noble and correct for Asgard. It's only once he learns his true heritage that he becomes so insecure in himself that he feels like he needs to do better than that. That just being the good guy isn't enough, that he needs to be seen as a truly epic hero in order to overcome, first, what he perceives as the shadow of this father and then, second, his overwhelming fear that he will be seen as illegitimate and replaced by his unworthy brother.

And make no mistake, Thor was unworthy until his time on Earth.

So really, Loki's turn to villlainy is born almost entirely out of his insecurity. He plots against Odin not to destroy his father, but so that he can be seen to save him and thus appear like the hero he believes he needs to be. He turns to violence against Thor once Thor becomes worthy and becomes a threat to his rule. And then again under the influence of Thanos because he feels abandoned and cast off.

But at the TVA he is removed from the shadow of his family. It's just Loki, finally free to be himself without fear or judgement. And that he would then find himself drawn to doing the right thing, even if he doesn't always know exactly what that it is or how he should do such, isn't that surprising. It's all very meta, as on this stage he's not the supporting player but is instead the hero of the piece as he's always wanted to be.

Sorry, but your comment just reminded me that when shorn of illusion magic, Loki is literally a frost giant, which the series forgot about entirely.

I'm not actually upset by this, but it is pretty funny, TBH. Almost early-installment weirdness at this point.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sorry, but your comment just reminded me that when shorn of illusion magic, Loki is literally a frost giant, which the series forgot about entirely.

I'm not actually upset by this, but it is pretty funny, TBH. Almost early-installment weirdness at this point.

You can see Frost Giant Loki in "What If...?"

 

[Christopher]

I get this feeling. Not sure I agree, though. If you really look at Loki, particularly in the first Thor, his whole thing is that he WANTS to be the good guy. Desperately. He wants to do what is right and noble and correct for Asgard. It's only once he learns his true heritage that he becomes so insecure in himself that he feels like he needs to do better than that. That just being the good guy isn't enough, that he needs to be seen as a truly epic hero in order to overcome, first, what he perceives as the shadow of this father and then, second, his overwhelming fear that he will be seen as illegitimate and replaced by his unworthy brother.

And make no mistake, Thor was unworthy until his time on Earth.

So really, Loki's turn to villlainy is born almost entirely out of his insecurity. He plots against Odin not to destroy his father, but so that he can be seen to save him and thus appear like the hero he believes he needs to be. He turns to violence against Thor once Thor becomes worthy and becomes a threat to his rule. And then again under the influence of Thanos because he feels abandoned and cast off.

But at the TVA he is removed from the shadow of his family. It's just Loki, finally free to be himself without fear or judgement. And that he would then find himself drawn to doing the right thing, even if he doesn't always know exactly what that it is or how he should do such, isn't that surprising. It's all very meta, as on this stage he's not the supporting player but is instead the hero of the piece as he's always wanted to be.

Wow, fascinating analysis.

Ultimately, whether the promise and payoff work is up to the viewers, and doesn't operate on any objective rule. Some viewers may look at each story in isolation - particularly people who just bop into the MCU for a particular series (like GOTG) and are uninterested in the wider mythos. But for those who were interested in the promise of the multiverse saga as a whole, there clearly hasn't been payoff, at least yet.

I consider that a false binary. Stories generally work on more than one level at a time. In particular, stories that are part of an ongoing series should ideally work both as individual installments and parts of a larger whole.

But it's a question of priorities. Again: What made the MCU successful in the first place was that initially the standalone movies were the primary interest and the connections were just tiny peripheral winks to the audience. What made so many MCU imitators flop was that the filmmakers only cared about the connections and thus failed to make the movies worthwhile in themselves. The connections have no value unless the things they connect have value. The reason we care about the links between MCU productions is because the individual productions themselves are enjoyable.

The attempts at cloning the MCU's success have - admittedly - all done far, far worse jobs.

I'd say the most successful non-MCU shared universe to date has been the Legendary MonsterVerse, and that's because it did things the same way Marvel did -- by making each individual installment serve its own story first and foremost and keeping the interconnections and foreshadowings secondary.

There is absolutely no way that the Multiverse Saga will be able to do the same with Doomsday and Secret Wars at this point.

Does it have to? Where's the value in just repeating something they've already done? And I still reject the assumption that continuity is the overriding determinant of quality, rather than merely an optional stylistic choice. If the individual movies and shows are satisfying, they'll be satisfying whether they connect or not. And if they aren't satisfying, what's the point of making them connect?

I'm still mystified that they just arbitrarily ended Phase 4 at the end of 2022 with no interim Avengers movie.

I don't see why that's necessary. After a huge climax like the Infinity Saga, it was a wise choice to dial it back and refocus on the basics instead of trying to copy the huge event so soon. In comics, the need to keep doing huge event after huge event has long had a detrimental effect on the storytelling, forcing ongoing storylines to change arbitrarily in response to the huge worldshaking changes. And the more big events you have, the cheaper they get, especially when they're forced by the desire to copy past successes rather than arising organically from the needs of the story. So I think the MCU made absolutely the right decision by not trying to artificially rush into another big crossover event. Such events should be the exception, not the rule.

More: Crossovers should be earned because we care about the individual characters and storylines they bring together, not just forced by expectations of scheduling. The Avengers came four years into the MCU. They took the time to let us get to know the world and the characters first. Now, they have a whole new generation of characters to establish. They more or less started over from square one after the Infinity Saga, so they had to build slowly, taking two "Phases" to get to the next crossover instead of one.

I'm still mystified we don't know who is in the Avengers any longer. I'm not saying that a messier, looser story is inherently worse, but that was not the expectation folks had for this era of the MCU.

There's the problem right there. Expectations just get in the way of understanding what actually happens. And fiction should defy expectations, not just pander to them. What's the value of fiction that never surprises or challenges you but only reaffirms your preconceptions?

More irritatingly, Quantumania missed the obvious choice of having Ant-Man killed by the Kang variant.

The Ant-Man movies are comedies. Of course they weren't going to kill their hero.

Regardless, using Echo as an example here - how does her story help build towards the Multiverse Saga's conclusion? The answer is almost certainly that it doesn't.

And there is nothing wrong with that, because the parts have value whether they advance the whole or not. Continuity is a bonus.

Though by now they've learned another lesson - that lots of the MCU content is skippable, if it doesn't seem your jam.

That is the way a shared-universe franchise is supposed to work! It's a feature, not a bug! Nobody expects the readers of Marvel or DC Comics to collect every single issue of every single series. You follow the series that interest you, and the crossovers and shared continuity among them are just a bonus for those readers that want to explore the links. It's fine if you skip the big crossovers and team-ups and only follow one individual book if that's what interests you. And it's fine if you skip a given individual series while following the larger saga.

I mean, there's no point in having multiple series in the first place if everyone is required to follow every part of it. Then it's not multiple series at all, just one series. The goal is to let each series stand on its own for the people who are only interested in certain individual series, while also having larger connections for the people who are interested in the larger whole. The audience is not supposed to be monolithic. The goal is to offer a range of different series with different styles and focuses, to appeal to a range of different audience tastes. The reader or viewer is free to follow as few or as many series as they're personally interested in. That's the whole point of having multiple series.

 

[Jayson1]

For me their these are the Phase 4 and beyond characters I want more of

1 Yelena
2 Red Guardian
3 Shang-Chi
4 Hercules
5 Namor
6 Adam Warlock
7Cassandra Nova
8 Agatha
9 Wanda's kids
10 Jennifer Kale
11 John Walker
12 Joaquin Torres
13 Valentina Allegra
14 Isiah Bradley
15 Kate Bishop
16 Jack Duquesne
17 Moon Knight
18 Ms Marvel
19 Ms Marvel's family.
20 She-Hulk
21 Ouroboros


Not counting Deadpool,X-23, Wolverine, OG Blade, and Gambit though maybe I should count Gambit since he was in essence a new character as well like Cassandra Nova.

 

[Anwar]

Really, the bigger problem with Echo was that she was introduced years too late. She should have been there in S1 of Daredevil as one of Kingpin's troopers and one capable of fighting Daredevil all along. The likely reason she wasn't was because of Jeph Loeb's racism.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I think the X-Men and Fantastic Four, while not new maybe on some level would be new in that we would be seeing the MCU versions of these characters.

It will not be new if the central character (and that's not Cyclops) is portrayed by the same, aging actor from the previous X-Men movie series.

Overall, it seems like there was still a plan up until 2021 or so, and since then, they've just been throwing random shit, then backtracking if fans have bad reactions.

True, and Marvel continues to be in this now long-term backtracking mode, and honestly, I do not sense the studio has much faith in Cap4 to be the launch pad of a new wave of popular Marvel movies. That said, they appear to be banking everything on the F.F. movie (and the expected Easter Eggs / set-up to another "event" that are sure to be in the film), however, if the F.F. fails like other recent MCU productions, or is just a mid-level earner, the studio will need to hit the brakes for some time before attempting another "event" / mass arc.

Brave New World seems like it's going to be a mashup of dangling plot threads from The Falcon and the Winter Soldier and the Norton Hulk movie, of all things.

The Norton Hulk film was the character's best MCU outing so far, with an intense air about the Banner character and his situation that's been lost ever since. Norton being a far more compelling Banner in that single performance than Ruffalo's stammering routine for the character.

 

[JD]

I disagree that Incredible Hulk was the MCU Hulk's best outing so far, for me that's a toss up between Ragnarök and Endgame, but I do feel that it's one of the MCU's most underrated movies.

 

[Jayson1]

To me the best MCU movie comes down to a 4 movie tie just about

Captain America 1
Captain America 2
Guardians of the Galaxy 2
The first Avengers movie.

 

[eschaton]

I consider that a false binary. Stories generally work on more than one level at a time. In particular, stories that are part of an ongoing series should ideally work both as individual installments and parts of a larger whole.

But it's a question of priorities. Again: What made the MCU successful in the first place was that initially the standalone movies were the primary interest and the connections were just tiny peripheral winks to the audience. What made so many MCU imitators flop was that the filmmakers only cared about the connections and thus failed to make the movies worthwhile in themselves. The connections have no value unless the things they connect have value. The reason we care about the links between MCU productions is because the individual productions themselves are enjoyable.

I want to make it clear that when I'm talking about the payoff of the Infinity Saga, I'm not talking about the little asides related to the MacGuffins which all turned out to be infinity stones. I'm talking about paying off character arcs set up in the individual movies in Infinity War/Endgame. I mean:

• Tony got to finally grow up, care about something beyond himself, and address some of his complicated feelings with his father by going back in time, and ends with a heroic sacrifice.
• Steve got to finally return to his one true love, with whom a relationship was established in his very first MCU outing.
• Thor had a huge negative arc involving depression over the loss of his brother and shame at how he completely screwed things up with Jane.
• The complicated familial relationship between Thanos, Gamora, and Nebula established in the GOTG movies was explored.
• We get to see what happens to Clint - a family man - is shorn entirely from what centered him.
• The tight friendship between Clint and Natasha was stretched to its limit.

Not everything was done well of course. The Captain Marvel insert was pretty pointless in Endgame, and Bruce's "smart Hulk" development is a bit out of nowhere. But otherwise, everything from Phases 1-3 is woven in pretty well when it comes to the "main characters" of the narrative.

Does it have to? Where's the value in just repeating something they've already done? And I still reject the assumption that continuity is the overriding determinant of quality, rather than merely an optional stylistic choice. If the individual movies and shows are satisfying, they'll be satisfying whether they connect or not. And if they aren't satisfying, what's the point of making them connect?

What's the point of making them all in the same shared universe if it doesn't impact the overall narrative? Why not just say "Here's a bunch of Marvel shows, enjoy?" Or why not treat the TV shows like Agents of Shield or Netflix Marvel, where it's just off doing its own thing, and not necessarily connected to the proper narrative.

By stating that everything was now part of the same tight continuity, there was an expectation that something like Echo wouldn't be as optional as say Iron Fist or Inhumans. The studio was explicitly saying "Pay attention to these, they are important!"

I don't see why that's necessary. After a huge climax like the Infinity Saga, it was a wise choice to dial it back and refocus on the basics instead of trying to copy the huge event so soon. In comics, the need to keep doing huge event after huge event has long had a detrimental effect on the storytelling, forcing ongoing storylines to change arbitrarily in response to the huge worldshaking changes. And the more big events you have, the cheaper they get, especially when they're forced by the desire to copy past successes rather than arising organically from the needs of the story. So I think the MCU made absolutely the right decision by not trying to artificially rush into another big crossover event. Such events should be the exception, not the rule.

I actually agree. Phase 4 in particular should have been the origin stories for the new teams, with lower-stakes first outings, similar to say Spider-Man: Homecoming. I think Marvel actually made big errors adding these world-ending stakes in the solo outings. This was most notable in Eternals, where the world was almost destroyed, and we didn't even get a hint where the remaining Avengers were. No Way Home endangered the entire multiverse, and the Spider-Men dealt with it alone. In Wakanda Forever, Talokan almost took over the whole world, and the Wakandans dealt with it. If the world/multiverse can be saved routinely in solo films, why even have Avengers movies any longer?

I think in post-Endgame Marvel GOTG3 was the best movie, and it's notable the stakes of the story were really just personal - the life of Rocket. Yeah, we saw a planet destroyed onscreen, and a big spaceship gets blown up/people need to be rescued, but if the heroes fail in the quest at the start, what's lost is really just Rocket.

More: Crossovers should be earned because we care about the individual characters and storylines they bring together, not just forced by expectations of scheduling. The Avengers came four years into the MCU. They took the time to let us get to know the world and the characters first. Now, they have a whole new generation of characters to establish. They more or less started over from square one after the Infinity Saga, so they had to build slowly, taking two "Phases" to get to the next crossover instead of one.

I think they should have just had one phase running from 2021 until 2025. My issue with calling 4-6 separate phases is Marvel Studios took what was formerly a signifier of a new plot arc largely concluded by an Avengers movie and made it an arbitrary cutoff. Phases are now just marketing, trying to signify "we're doing something new now, we promise!

There's the problem right there. Expectations just get in the way of understanding what actually happens. And fiction should defy expectations, not just pander to them. What's the value of fiction that never surprises or challenges you but only reaffirms your preconceptions?

If you write a romance with an unhappy ending, or write a thriller that turns into horror midway through, you will alienate most of your readers. People go into the experience with expectations. That isn't to say that you can't ever surprise people, but there has to be enough setup that it's obvious in retrospect.

The Ant-Man movies are comedies. Of course they weren't going to kill their hero.

Quantumania was not a comedy. If they wanted Ant-Man 3 to be a comedy, Luis should have joined Scott in the quantum realm, for one thing. Indeed, it was so different in tone/scope from the two previous movies that it seems clear it largely happened due to the needs of the arc, rather than anything which has to do with Scott as a character.

I mean, what is Scott's arc across the movie? What changes in him? What does he learn? I guess his relationship with Cassie improves, but there's no real indication it's bad to start with due to anything that Scott is doing wrong. Cassie is just a typical rebellious teenager, and Scott's a bit overprotective - pretty normal stuff. When he returns from his adventure, he's back to being a boring, middle-aged dad.

Why (other than happenstance) are we following Scott on this quest to save the quantum realm/take down Kang? Why couldn't it have been Thor? Or Dr. Strange? Or anyone, really?

 

[Christopher]

I want to make it clear that when I'm talking about the payoff of the Infinity Saga, I'm not talking about the little asides related to the MacGuffins which all turned out to be infinity stones. I'm talking about paying off character arcs set up in the individual movies in Infinity War/Endgame. I mean:

• Tony got to finally grow up, care about something beyond himself, and address some of his complicated feelings with his father by going back in time, and ends with a heroic sacrifice.
• Steve got to finally return to his one true love, with whom a relationship was established in his very first MCU outing.
• Thor had a huge negative arc involving depression over the loss of his brother and shame at how he completely screwed things up with Jane.
• The complicated familial relationship between Thanos, Gamora, and Nebula established in the GOTG movies was explored.
• We get to see what happens to Clint - a family man - is shorn entirely from what centered him.
• The tight friendship between Clint and Natasha was stretched to its limit.

Not everything was done well of course. The Captain Marvel insert was pretty pointless in Endgame, and Bruce's "smart Hulk" development is a bit out of nowhere. But otherwise, everything from Phases 1-3 is woven in pretty well when it comes to the "main characters" of the narrative.

All that is true, but it absolutely does not mean that everything in the MCU has to advance some larger saga, or that a standalone story has no value. Just because one thing is good, that does not mean alternative approaches are bad or lacking something.

What's the point of making them all in the same shared universe if it doesn't impact the overall narrative?

The point of a shared universe is to create options. Some members of the audience would prefer to focus only on gritty street-level heroes; others prefer the big cosmic heroes; other prefer the epic fantasy; others like comedy; etc. And there are others who are curious about the big picture and the way the different series connect. The point is to satisfy all those different tastes at once and thereby build a larger audience than you'd have if you only catered to one taste.

Many fans today have a bizarrely authoritarian view of fiction, this very strange belief that the creators should dictate a single permissible view of canon or genre or whatever and every last member of the audience must be required to march in lockstep to it. That is completely backward and sad. The goal of the creators of fiction is to appeal to the audience, not to dominate or control them. You want to appeal to as wide a range of readers or viewers as you can, and the value of a shared universe is that it can appeal to many different tastes at once, give a different experience to every audience member that they can tailor to their own tastes and interests. So you have a range of different individual series with different styles and genres, and you add an extra layer of connection on top of that for that portion of the audience that's interested in it. Every given part of it is optional. The goal is not to force or require the audience to march according to the creators' instructions; the goal is to offer the audience alternatives that they can pick and choose among as they see fit. It's a menu, not a course syllabus.

Why not just say "Here's a bunch of Marvel shows, enjoy?"

That's exactly what they do. It's just that there's an optional interconnectivity in addition to that. As long as you cling to this false binary thinking, this assumption that a thing can only have one value or meaning at a time, you'll never understand. Creators of fiction generally try to make everything work on more than one level, because there's more than one audience taste they're hoping to appeal to.

By stating that everything was now part of the same tight continuity, there was an expectation that something like Echo wouldn't be as optional as say Iron Fist or Inhumans. The studio was explicitly saying "Pay attention to these, they are important!"

There you go again, mistaking "expectation" for truth. The more you expect things, the more often you'll be wrong.

I actually agree. Phase 4 in particular should have been the origin stories for the new teams, with lower-stakes first outings, similar to say Spider-Man: Homecoming. I think Marvel actually made big errors adding these world-ending stakes in the solo outings. This was most notable in Eternals, where the world was almost destroyed, and we didn't even get a hint where the remaining Avengers were. No Way Home endangered the entire multiverse, and the Spider-Men dealt with it alone. In Wakanda Forever, Talokan almost took over the whole world, and the Wakandans dealt with it. If the world/multiverse can be saved routinely in solo films, why even have Avengers movies any longer?

Eh, that's a perennial problem with shared universes. Why is Gotham City such a cesspool when Superman could drop in and clean it up on his lunch hour? Why didn't Captain Picard ever show up to help the Deep Space 9 crew deal with Chancellor Gowron? How come older, still-active Power Ranger teams hardly ever come to the aid of the current one, except in crossover episodes?

But it just underlines the fact that the individual stories themselves are the priority, and the connections are secondary. If the logic of the shared universe gets in the way of what the individual story needs to work, then you just gloss over the shared universe. Because the story you're telling in the here and now is the priority. The connections only matter insofar as they benefit the individual stories, not the other way around.

If you write a romance with an unhappy ending, or write a thriller that turns into horror midway through, you will alienate most of your readers. People go into the experience with expectations. That isn't to say that you can't ever surprise people, but there has to be enough setup that it's obvious in retrospect.

Ever seen Psycho? Sometimes audiences need their expectations shattered. People who get upset when the universe doesn't conform to their preconceptions are just being egotistical. Or as the Buddha said, the cause of suffering is desire. If you just accept what comes without preconceived expectations or prejudices, you'll have less cause to feel upset or offended.

Quantumania was not a comedy.

Of course it was. Its plot was serious, but there were tons of character humor. Bill Murray was in it. They turned Darren Cross into MODOK and made fun of him the whole time. Again, your problem is that you assume something can only be one thing at a time. Many comedies have a dramatic side, many dramas have a comedic side.

If they wanted Ant-Man 3 to be a comedy, Luis should have joined Scott in the quantum realm, for one thing. Indeed, it was so different in tone/scope from the two previous movies that it seems clear it largely happened due to the needs of the arc, rather than anything which has to do with Scott as a character.

Scott already had two movies centered on him. This was Hank and Janet's movie, and Cassie's movie. It's called Ant-Man and the Wasp, after all, and those championyms apply to Hank and Janet just as much as to Scott and Hope. It's an ensemble series, and it makes sense to focus different installments in the series on different members of the ensemble.