Octopus Overlords

Last Updated 04/20/19

May 2016
Captain America: Civil War (Grifman's thread)

November 2016
Doctor Strange (My thread)

May 5 2017
Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (Daehawk's thread)

July 7 2017 *Sony
Spider-Man: Homecoming (Grifman's thread)

November 3 2017
Thor: Ragnarok (AWS260's thread)

February 16 2018
Black Panther (Grifman's thread)

May 4 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (Daehawk's thread beat out Blackjack's now-out-of-date thread)

July 6 2018
Ant-Man And The Wasp (Grifman's thread)

March 8 2019
Captain Marvel (Hamlet's thread)

April 26 2019
Avengers: Endgame (Dogstar's thread)

July 02, 2019
Spider-Man: Far From Home (my thread)

Giggity!

Dividing Avengers 3 into two movies for the Infinity War is a good call. Two hours just wouldn't cut it for that.

I'm kind of sad there was no Black Widow movie announced.

stessier wrote:I'm kind of sad there was no Black Widow movie announced.

Ditto.

stessier wrote:I'm kind of sad there was no Black Widow movie announced.

Same here. Also, are we only getting ONE movie in 2015? Because that's disappointing.

Odin wrote:

stessier wrote:I'm kind of sad there was no Black Widow movie announced.

Same here. Also, are we only getting ONE movie in 2015? Because that's disappointing.

I think we're getting Ant Man and The Avengers: Age of Ultron in 2015, right?

Yes. Those are classified as Phase 2. Avengers drops in May, Ant-Man in July.

Have you seen anything officially calling Ant-Man phase 2? Because everything I've read indicates it still starts phase 3.

It was announced today, apparently.

Moreover, at the special event hosted by Marvel Studios today (where the full schedule for Phase 3 was unveiled), we received clarification that Ant-Man will conclude Phase 2 of the MCU – rather than begin Phase 3, as was originally the plan.

That makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. Thanks for the info.

Wow, five years ago I never would've believed we'd have 3 Thor movies. I think major credit has to go to Hemsworth and Hiddleston.

RuperT wrote:Wow, five years ago I never would've believed we'd have 3 Thor movies. I think major credit has to go to Hemsworth and Hiddleston.

Absolutely 100% true. Hiddleston especially - he ran away with that role. I'm actually just as surprised there's no Loki stand-alone as that there's no Black Widow. I think both of those movies could have been hugely successful, but probably less-so if Marvel waits until 2019 to make them.

I liked Howard the Duck. Mostly the end when Ed Rooney summoned the Stan Winston Old Ones.

I like a lot of terrible movies.

Odin wrote:

RuperT wrote:Wow, five years ago I never would've believed we'd have 3 Thor movies. I think major credit has to go to Hemsworth and Hiddleston.

Absolutely 100% true. Hiddleston especially - he ran away with that role. I'm actually just as surprised there's no Loki stand-alone as that there's no Black Widow. I think both of those movies could have been hugely successful, but probably less-so if Marvel waits until 2019 to make them.

I don't know - I think both characters (BW and Loki) work better as support / foils for the main show. Loki has to be the antagonist to someone - two hours of him being a conniving, scheming, smartass dick only works if he is doing that *to* someone.

DD* wrote:

Odin wrote:

RuperT wrote:Wow, five years ago I never would've believed we'd have 3 Thor movies. I think major credit has to go to Hemsworth and Hiddleston.

Absolutely 100% true. Hiddleston especially - he ran away with that role. I'm actually just as surprised there's no Loki stand-alone as that there's no Black Widow. I think both of those movies could have been hugely successful, but probably less-so if Marvel waits until 2019 to make them.

I don't know - I think both characters (BW and Loki) work better as support / foils for the main show. Loki has to be the antagonist to someone - two hours of him being a conniving, scheming, smartass dick only works if he is doing that *to* someone.

There's an entire Marvel universe (minus the stuff they've licensed elsewhere) for him to fuck with, assuming they didn't just want to have him on the throne of Asguard messing with Sif and the Warriors Three, Heimdall, etc.

And Black Widow, likewise, has the whole post-SHIELD world to mess around with. She's pretty much Jason Bourne with boobs and a better sense of self-identity. Tons of opportunity there.

I'm not SHOCKED that these movies didn't get made, but I am a bit surprised and disappointed. I think they could easily have been VERY successful, and since they're both so character-driven, neither of them really needs to have the kind of earth-shattering final battle that makes the other films so expensive (though I wouldn't object if they did.)

Ant Man trailer.

Marvel has earned the "I'll go see it no matter what" rating from me. That trailer really didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know - and I basically know nothing about Ant Man.

The funniest part is that I had to watch an ad before I could watch...and ad. The internet is a funny place.

I enjoyed the trailer. Also with stessier in that I'll basically see every Marvel movie (though I haven't seen Iron Man 3 yet) until something goes seriously awry (though I guess things went pretty awry in Iron Man 2).

Anyhow, curious if Ant-Man will have a significant role in any of the Avengers movies going forward. The character was in the Avengers in the comics, right? It would be kind of jarring in that Ant-Man's being positioned as comic relief (hence Paul Rudd, I think), but he's not really more ridiculous as an Avenger than Hawk-Eye. Would be weird to see Paul Rudd in the Avengers though.

Also my daughter recently took out a book from the library that had kid-oriented stories about Marvel superhero origins, and she's taken to Ant-Man from that book. Too bad she's too young for this movie.

The trailer was pretty blah, but I'm also in the see-every-Marvel-movie camp. Fingers crossed.

I'm in for Michael Douglas. Sure he's probably just playing the generic mentor role, but I like me some Michael Douglas.

Henry Pym Ant-Man was a founding member of the Avengers. And, creator of Ultron. I always liked Hank Pym in the comics, and was kind of sad that they decided to make Ant-Man about Scott what's his name rather than Hank. But we're going to get Hank Pam in the form of the mentor...it's almost like they're positioning it (from the trailer) that Pym was operating as Ant-Man in the past.

So, cautiously optimistic, mostly because I like Paul Rudd a lot.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has completely drawn me in. I'll be there to see Ant-Man and any other movie they come out with as soon as it opens. I even signed up for Netflix largely due to the Marvel shows they are going to produce soon.

Anyone catch Agent Carter last night? I recorded it, and will likely watch it tonight.

Scott Lang, who assumed the mantle in 1979.

El Guapo wrote: It would be kind of jarring in that Ant-Man's being positioned as comic relief (hence Paul Rudd, I think), but he's not really more ridiculous as an Avenger than Hawk-Eye. Would be weird to see Paul Rudd in the Avengers though.

No, no stand alone character can be there for comic relief. That just won't work. You can have a guy in an ensemble be mostly comedic (Drax in GOTG) but a main character that carries a movie just can't be there for humor.

From reading the backstory, there's some dramatic motivation. Hopefully, though, they learned from watching DC fall flat on their face with Green Lantern to dial Rudd back when needed.

Grifman wrote:

El Guapo wrote: It would be kind of jarring in that Ant-Man's being positioned as comic relief (hence Paul Rudd, I think), but he's not really more ridiculous as an Avenger than Hawk-Eye. Would be weird to see Paul Rudd in the Avengers though.

No, no stand alone character can be there for comic relief. That just won't work. You can have a guy in an ensemble be mostly comedic (Drax in GOTG) but a main character that carries a movie just can't be there for humor.

I know, I just mean that the tone of the trailer, the casting of Paul Rudd, and it being Ant-Man suggests that this isn't going to be gritty Ant-Man (though that would be interesting and potentially amusing in itself). I don't think that this is going to be like Green Hornet, but it's not going to be Captain America either.

By contrast while Hawk-Eye is arguably a more ridiculous superhero than Ant-Man (except for the name), in the Avengers movie he had a more serious tone than Ant-Man is likely to have.

Oh, and technically, Ant-Man is Phase 2.

El Guapo wrote:

Grifman wrote:

El Guapo wrote: It would be kind of jarring in that Ant-Man's being positioned as comic relief (hence Paul Rudd, I think), but he's not really more ridiculous as an Avenger than Hawk-Eye. Would be weird to see Paul Rudd in the Avengers though.

No, no stand alone character can be there for comic relief. That just won't work. You can have a guy in an ensemble be mostly comedic (Drax in GOTG) but a main character that carries a movie just can't be there for humor.

I know, I just mean that the tone of the trailer, the casting of Paul Rudd, and it being Ant-Man suggests that this isn't going to be gritty Ant-Man (though that would be interesting and potentially amusing in itself). I don't think that this is going to be like Green Hornet, but it's not going to be Captain America either.

By contrast while Hawk-Eye is arguably a more ridiculous superhero than Ant-Man (except for the name), in the Avengers movie he had a more serious tone than Ant-Man is likely to have.

Stop that.

Hawkeye!

coopasonic wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Grifman wrote:

El Guapo wrote: It would be kind of jarring in that Ant-Man's being positioned as comic relief (hence Paul Rudd, I think), but he's not really more ridiculous as an Avenger than Hawk-Eye. Would be weird to see Paul Rudd in the Avengers though.

No, no stand alone character can be there for comic relief. That just won't work. You can have a guy in an ensemble be mostly comedic (Drax in GOTG) but a main character that carries a movie just can't be there for humor.

I know, I just mean that the tone of the trailer, the casting of Paul Rudd, and it being Ant-Man suggests that this isn't going to be gritty Ant-Man (though that would be interesting and potentially amusing in itself). I don't think that this is going to be like Green Hornet, but it's not going to be Captain America either.

By contrast while Hawk-Eye is arguably a more ridiculous superhero than Ant-Man (except for the name), in the Avengers movie he had a more serious tone than Ant-Man is likely to have.

Stop that.

Hawkeye!

I guess it's bleed over from writing Ant-Man more this morning than I have during the rest of my life.

Hawk-eye.

Isgrimnur wrote:Oh, and technically, Ant-Man is Phase 2.

It's strange that they are ending Phase 2 with Ant-Man and not the Avengers movie.

quadruple post

quadruple post

quadruple post

quadruple post

msteelers wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Oh, and technically, Ant-Man is Phase 2.

It's strange that they are ending Phase 2 with Ant-Man and not the Avengers movie.

It's not strange because why does it even matter? It's not like "Phase 2" really means anything. It's nothing more than how Marvel is tracking what they are doing. I know the different "phases" are out there, but it means nothing to me while I'm watching the movies. I don't watch a movie wondering why some story or character is in one phase or another - that's entirely external to the movies themselves.

msteelers wrote:quadruple post

Why not triple deletes?

Grifman wrote:

msteelers wrote:quadruple post

Why not triple deletes?

I tried, but tapatalk wasn't having any of it.