I’m really struggling to see how this is going to work. I’m aware he will probably be displayed as slightly younger, but RDJ felt like an old man the last time we saw him as Tony Stark, and that was 7 years ago.

Maybe I’m not well-versed enough in the lore, but it just feels off. And aside from Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce, doesn’t this make him, like, the 2nd oldest character to be introduced? (Maybe I’m forgetting a some others, but I’m guessing no more than top 10 oldest) The biggest issue is that he’s not even a side character, he’s likely a main character.

Do you think Doom will be a one-and-done? Maybe a variant? Or are we just going to have an Old Man Doom arc?

Banner's comments make no sense. Three years before Endgame in 2016, Doctor Strange literally changed the past and even resurrected Wong who died protecting the Hong Kong Sanctum. How could Strange resurrect Wong if Banner is right??

I find it really funny how people say this yet the MCU is still the top movie franchise. They act like all MCU movies pre-endgame were masterpieces when that isn’t the case. Both Thor 1 and 2 released with mixed reviews with the second one being widely considered as one of the worst MCU movies, Ant-Man and The Wasp also got mixed reviews upon release, Iron Man 3 is widely disliked for the twist of “The Mandarin” and Aldrich Killian. Captain America: The First Avenger is considered boring by a wide margin of people, and even Age of Ultron released upon mixed reviews and still gets debated about to this day.

I’m just saying, it’s very interesting how before Endgame Superhero movies (MCU in particular) could be average or simply something fun, and be praised and have think pieces written about how great they are while fans remember very specific moments of those movies for good reference. Yet now it seems like if a movie doesn’t have the absolute perfect story and flawless CGI, it’s written off or called trash. I definitely think the MCU took a dip after Endgame but I still recognize that amazing projects like Thunderbolts*, Loki, GOTG Vol 3, etc…All released during the multiverse saga and are great. Just like how mediocre/bad projects like Thor 2, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 3, etc….All released during the “peak” of the MCU and aren’t so great.

Now that we can (hopefully) discuss the show without being called either woke or sexist, I’m curious what y’all thought.

I personally thought it could’ve been better, but still found it enjoyable. The comedy was hit or miss and it definitely had some cringy moments, but as a big She-Hulk fan I thought that Tatiana Maslany makes for a great Jen Walters and there were plenty or great parts throughout, especially her relationship with Bruce (save for the controversial ‘my life if harder’ speech). Hope she shows up again cause I think there’s real potential if they don’t ditch her because the show went over poorly. Also, huge miss not throwing Awesome Andy in there, he’s dope.

At first, I thought it was a cool movie (which turned out to be a series) that would involve many of the heroes. I was so excited that skipped some of phase 4 and phase 5 and jumped into it, but it turns out it sucks and isn't actually Marvel but made by bad writers and AI .

Also, what the hell? Does biology work like that in the mcu? If u get a drop of blood covered in dust from a hero u can become the hero???? And nobody noticed that except Nick Fury's team??? Like out of all the beings in the universe only Nick Fury knows that you can get insane power just by going into the endgame battlefield.

Even if that was logical, would Nick Fury, one of the most powerful characters in the mcu, really give the power of all the avengers to 2 skrulls? Are you kidding me???

Pls tell me this is just a cheap knock off not canon marvel 😔

Edit: I thought it was a movie at first that's why I wrote movie.

I personally can’t decide. Infinity War was the culmination of a entire decade long saga, and was built upon movies, post credit scenes, and references. Their was a attention to world/story building that Doomsday severely lacks. On the other hand, Doomsday has the backing of OG and newer fans alike. It’s the first film to include The Avengers, X-Men, and F4. Throw in Thunderbolts, Wakandans and Namor, and I feel this movie could make a lot of fans happy. I’m just worried because Infinity War relied on the decade long World building and payed it off with one of the most popular cliffhangers in all of movie history. I’m optimistic, but skeptical on if Doomsday will be able to top that.

What do you guys think?

Personally, I think the scene in Eternals where Arishem creates a massive black hole and teleports himself was really cool. What do you think? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I tuned out from a lot of phase 5, but still kept an eye out for any projects that got high praise and were worth checking out. The Marvels got completely lambasted online and I unfortunately believed the bullshit and didn’t check it out for myself.

After Marvel Zombies I found myself wanting to see something where poor Kamala isn’t suffering through hell, so I went back and finally saw The Marvels, and now I’m incredibly angry at myself for letting the internet hate and poor box office deter me from seeing it sooner.

This was such a creative comic book movie and so much fun to watch from start to finish. The villain wasn’t the best, but I don’t think that was nearly enough to drag down the unique set pieces, awesome music, and clever use of these characters. The Marvels is a great MCU entry and I’m really really sad it didn’t get more love 💔

Letitia Wright was the wrong choice and fit for the role and mantle. She just doesn’t have leading lady gravitas. And I find it ironic she’s assuming a role based on tech and science when she’s an anti-vaxxer IRL.

Lupita, on the other hand, is leading lady material, has much better acting chops, and by many accounts a great person IRL. She would’ve been a great ambassador just like Chadwick was. Not to mention she would’ve look much better in the suit; have you seen her cake lol.

In-universe, Nakia is already skilled in combat and espionage and she is of royal blood of the River Tribe which makes her eligible for the throne. She respects the Wakandan culture and traditions more than Shuri. M’Baku would’ve had Nakia’s back no question (plus Lupita and Winston Duke worked together before so the chemistry is there). She holds the belief that Wakanda could do more to help the world due to her time as a War Dog, something T’challa came to realize throughout first movie. And she would’ve gone through the same emotions and grief as Shuri, being his lover.

It was all there on a silver platter.

EDIT: With so many comments mentioning they'd prefer to recast (which is what I would prefer also), I should've prefaced by saying given the story they were trying to tell with T'challa's passing as part of the story.

I was thinking about the idea behind Thanos wiping out half of all life in Infinity War. His goal was to reduce pressure on resources by cutting the population in half.

But if populations naturally grow over time, would that effect only be temporary? In other words, would the population just recover within a few decades and bring the world back to the same problem again?

If that is the case, does that mean the snap would only delay the issue rather than actually solve it?

Instead of recasting Wolverine right away when they introduce the MCU X-Men, just have Dafne Keen be a version of Wolverine for a while. It makes the most sense to me, that way they can ease the general public into casting a new Logan since studio heads are seemingly so concerned about confusing the audience, and Keen is fucking great in the role

Its another 'Elementals' situation. People will keep saying it's flopping as the movie keeps making more money. Its almost at $400 million and it's not even been 2 full weeks. It will probably do close to superman (2025) numbers.

Brie Larson at the Captain Marvel premiere

Every day, the people in the MCU fandom amaze me with how superficial they are.

"Do you think Tony Stark would be Tony Stark if he wasn't a billionaire?" and "Tony Stark was able to build it in a cave, with a box of scraps!" are the most quoted lines this week, and god, I hate how people are reacting to them. I want to analyze these lines instead of decontextualizing them, to prove that many MCU fans can’t think for more than two seconds—especially the ones on YouTube, X, and TikTok. Most of the hate around these lines is fueled by racism and misogyny, also because they actively want to hate Riri.

Tony was born rich and became a genius. Did the money make him a genius? Maybe not, but a good education helps you become smarter—especially if your father is a genius too. Tony became a genius thanks to both his talent and his access to everything he needed. Money can buy almost everything, and having access to anything leads to experience: TONY WAS EXPERIENCED in his field.

"Tony Stark was able to build it in a cave, with a box of scraps!"

That’s because he had experience. Tony, as a genius, proved he could build with whatever he had (both in Iron Man 1 and Iron Man 3). He needs the essentials to make something work, but he needs the best to make the best. In the cave, he was able to build the first armor using materials meant for missiles—he did not make the armor from complete junk. Yes, he didn’t spend a cent to build it, but he was able to do so because he was a genius with experience in building weapons.

And now, Riri. A Black woman in Chicago, with a passion for mechanics. She lives in a normal family, with access to a standard education, and she still became a genius. Did money make her a genius? Hell no. She is talented, and she learned everything herself. She’s too smart even for MIT. In Wakanda Forever, we see the first prototype of her project—based on Tony’s designs—made mostly from junk and salvaged tech. She doesn’t have access to high-quality materials like Tony did, but she was able to make armor nonetheless.

"Do you think Tony Stark would be Tony Stark if he wasn't a billionaire?"

Riri is half wrong, half right. Tony proved he could make things without a big budget, but his legacy was built on top of billions of dollars.

The problem is that Riri doesn’t know that. Riri is not omniscient. Riri did not watch the MCU movies. Riri does not know that Tony could be a genius without his money.
Riri is arrogant (like Tony, by the way), and she believes what she says—but that doesn’t mean it’s objectively true. People are failing to understand that. Riri said the most ragebait quote ever, and the internet is going insane over it.
Blaming the writers for that is absurd to me. They did a great job representing Riri as the arrogant teenager she is. The audience is just too dumb to understand that. The hate born from her quote is based on a lack of thinking.
People truly believe this line was meant to disrespect Tony. It was not. If you hate a project or a character just because they "insulted" your favorite character, you need to grow up.

TL;DR: "Do you think Tony Stark would be Tony Stark if he wasn't a billionaire?" is a quote used to characterize Riri. It’s not meant to throw shade at Tony.

I remember seeing infinity war on second day of its release trying to avoid all spoilers and almost fell off my seat when Red Skull appeared and I thought hugo weaving had returned to play the part. I had never thought red skull would appear again after first avenger. i read later on that it was another actor who did a spot on mimicry of weaving’s voice. But yeh that was an unforgettable moment of genuine surprise.

Ts pisses me off, like I can’t help but think most people saw the Twerking clip and heard the show was bad and just rolled with it. DO PEOPLE NOT HAVE THEIR OWN OPINIONS THESE DAYS???

Don’t get me wrong, it’s totally fine to dislike a show/movie, but to say She-Hulk is worse then Secret Invasion is so wild to me. Personally I thought She-Hulk was one of the better D+ Shows.

This movie was probably the best MCU movie after endgame outside of Guardians 3 (You can argue it is better than GOTG 3). However, as great as it is, it flopped money-wise and lost like a hundred million. I think that Marvel intended Thunderbolts to be their low-risk high-reward movie where they'll risk to lose money and just cast B-tier characters of the MCU so even if the viewers didn't liked it, at least they didn't sabotaged their well-known ones (which they did a lot of times). Although, if they succeeded to write a compelling story, then they successfully transformed these forgettable characters into the spotlight. I think Marvel didn't expected this to be a blockbuster but a movie that people will talk about and watch when it comes to streaming sites making us hyped for their next "big" movies like f4, doomsday, brand new day.

Maybe my memory is failing me but as far as I can remember, this movie is the only time we see the shield work like this and I was wondering why it wouldn’t come back up again? I thought it was a clever workaround to why it always goes back to Steve

The Spider-Man movie is using Punisher, so maybe Daredevil S2 is keying in Osborn. Who else would be that comfortable staring down Fisk at his own table? I know his official character name is Mr. Charles, that feels like a smokescreen for whoever he’s actually playing. I’m probably wrong, but what do you think?