Taika Waititi Says ‘Thor: Ragnarok’ Will Be The Most Different Marvel Movie

Thor Ragnarok banner

Thor: Ragnarok has been filming at the Village Roadshow Studios in Australia for about two weeks now, but we’ve already heard plenty of things about the movie from its director, Taika Waititi. Speaking with Polygon to promote his latest film, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, Waititi discussed working on the project for Marvel Studios:

“I feel like a guest in Marvel’s universe but with the creative freedom to do what I want.”

Mark Ruffalo has previously described the movie as an intergalactic buddy road comedy, but the director says that the plot may change during the production process:

“It’s hard to say what the movie is because it’s changing. The plot has changed and the script has changed. There are buddy elements to it between Thor and the Hulk, but who knows what the final movie will look like.”

The director then went on to talk about how important it is for his actors to have chemistry on set and how Ragnarok will be one of the most unique Marvel projects yet:

“If my actors aren’t having a good time on set, then I’m doing something wrong. There needs to be a chemistry between characters on screen, and that comes from having chemistry on set. We are making movies. We should be having a lot of fun. I think this is the most different Marvel movie to date and one of the biggest.”

Starring Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Tom Hiddleston as Loki, Idris Elba as Heimdall, Sir Anthony Hopkins as Odin, Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/Hulk, Cate Blanchett as Hela, Jeff Goldblum as the Grandmaster, Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie and Karl Urban as Skurge, Thor: Ragnarok opens in theaters on November 3, 2017. Are you excited?

Source: Polygon

Michael Bezanidis

Michael Bezanidis

Michael is the Managing Editor of Heroic Hollywood. When he's not playing video games, he's usually writing about film and television.

  • SAMURAI36

    “It’s hard to say what the movie is because it’s changing.”

    And this is a good thing…. How, exactly?

    If DC had said something like this, the entire internet would have been in a blaze.

    • unpaidpundit

      Probably not a good thing, but not unheard of in Hollywood. The stories of some classic films have changed a lot during production.

      • SAMURAI36

        Be that as it may, Thor isn’t a franchise that they can really afford to walk into blindly. Of all the MCU films, those have really been some of the worst. It’d be different if it weren’t already a hodge-podge of Marvel ideas, with Hulk being thrown in and all.

    • Thanostic

      That’s probably because DC hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt the way Marvel has. Marvel does sometimes throw in a couple jokes too many, but overall their productions have been superior. Hopefully the extended BvS coming out this week will earn back some trust and goodwill among fans – I’ve heard a lot of good things about it – but right now, objectively, DC isn’t exactly hitting home runs.

      • SAMURAI36

        I get that Marvel has earned the good will of the public, but that doesn’t equate to be “superior” in their own right. Many of the Marvel MCU films really aren’t anything to right home about (I’d argue that none of them are, but I’ll pretend to be unbiased, for the sake of this convo). Especially, as I’d stated later on, the Thor films, which are arguably the worst of the entire franchise.

        • Thanostic

          I actually like the second one quite a bit. It got panned for having a one-dimensional villain, but if all the villains were like Loki, that would get old pretty quickly. And I have pretty high hopes for this third one, in no small part because Hulk will be in it.

          • SAMURAI36

            One of (many of) Marvel’s biggest issues, is their villains, or the lack thereof. The fact that Loki is their best villain works both for and against them. True, he’s their most well-fleshed out character, but that just highlights the fact that none of their other villains are compelling, let alone believable.

            DC has stated that a hero is only as great as their villain. If that is indeed true (and I believe it is, because not only comics history proves it true, but dramatic storytelling overall), then this has been a rule that Marvel (as a whole, but certainly with the MCU) has been failing at.

            Aside from Loki (which, let’s be honest; they are actually cheating, by utilizing a character that they snatched from the pages of history. It’s like making Hitler your main villain; it’s lazy storytelling, because you are completely devoid of any actual character development, but I digress…), Virtually every other Marvel villain has been non-descript, uninspired, uncompelling, and overall incompetent.

            Is there anyone looking for when Crossbones is gonna show up again? Or Ronan? Or Zemo? Even with your user namesake, there’s absolutely nothing in all of his handful of appearances, that has established him as any sort of a threat.

            Marvel’s villain dilemma is only worsened by the fact that most of their “heroes” spend most of their time acting un-heroic (fighting each other, directly and indirectly endangering lives, etc). As it stands, Tony Stark is a far more compelling villain, than any of the other characters they’ve added to their movie universe. He’s far better fleshed out as a character (more so than any other character, “hero” or villain), and his failings as a person are laid bare for all to view and identify with.

            And he’s been far more compelling as a villain, than Thanos would likely be, since the latter has had literally ZERO character development from the time of his introduction, to the time he will officially appear on screen (which will be roughly a half a decade).

          • Thanostic

            A couple thoughts on this: first, while I thoroughly enjoy our ongoing debates, I thought it was a little ironic how you note a big flaw of the MCU is heroes acting un-heroic, endangering lives (considering Superman did a TON of that in MOS) and fighting each other (in BvS, which in my opinion is the most absurd idea for a hero vs hero fight in history).

            As far as other MCU villains go, I do think Tony should get credit in this department, as he has played both an anti-hero type (in both Avengers movies) and quasi-villain (Civil War). So I don’t necessarily think that should be held against the MCU.

            Also, while I agree that not all MCU villains have been great – and I confess I had to look up who the villain was in Iron Man 2 because I couldn’t remember – I think you’re overlooking a few. I thought Winter Soldier was/is terrific, to the point that he helped turn Captain America from my least favorite MCU character to someone I’m starting to like quite a bit (and his evolution in the movies is an extreme strong point for MCU, in my opinion). Obadiah Stone and the Mandarin (even though that wasn’t the “real” Mandarin, and even though some who consider themselves “purists” hated what they did with that character) were both pretty solid, and I actually liked Ultron quite a bit as well. He perhaps could have used a little more fleshing out – I liked how he evolved throughout the movie, though some of it felt rushed – but the movie was almost 3 hours long as it was.

            Lastly, while I partially agree with your take that a hero is only as great as their villain, I don’t think that’s true in all cases. For evidence, I present Guardians of the Galaxy – Ronan was entirely forgettable as a bad guy, but this movie is considered by almost everyone (note: I do not include myself in this group) as one of the MCU’s 3 best movies to date. A good portion of people rank it as their favorite, and while it’s somewhere in the middle of the pack for me, I did find it enjoyable (even though, and perhaps because, I went into it with such low expectations). And as far as good villains go, DCU isn’t exactly batting a thousand either. I loved Michael Shannon’s take on Zod, but Lex Luthor didn’t strike me as particularly well done or memorable, and Doomsday was about the most generic CGI character imaginable.

          • SAMURAI36

            A couple thoughts on this: first, while I thoroughly enjoy our ongoing debates, I thought it was a little ironic how you note a big flaw of the MCU is heroes acting un-heroic, endangering lives (considering Superman did a TON of that in MOS) and fighting each other (in BvS, which in my opinion is the most absurd idea for a hero vs hero fight in history).

            There’s a massive difference: 1) Superman in MOS was basically Jos first day(s) on the job, so a learning curve should be expected. And he did surprisingly well, especially against a force with greater numbers, greater training, & greater technology.

            And 2) That typical “superhero fight” is basically a done-in-one, meaning we are likely mot going to he seeing any DC heroes fighting each other again, for true course of the DCEU.

            Meanwhile, Marvel “heroes” have been endangering lives & fighting each other since the MCU’s inception, almost a decade ago. Up to & including the last movie. The latest Thor movie looks to be no different. When does it end?

            As far as other MCU villains go, I do think Tony should get credit in this department, as he has played both an anti-hero type (in both Avengers movies) and quasi-villain (Civil War). So I don’t necessarily think that should be held against the MCU.

            Why shouldn’t it? He’s basically Marvel’s version of Lex Luthor. Tony’s Ultron was basically Lex’s Doomsday. The difference is, Marvel has trained their audience to empathize with Tony, while Lex went to jail for his actions (& rightly so).

            As “Silly War” showed is, “prison” is a weird, conditional concept in the MCU. You only go to jail, if you don’t tow the line of your governmental overlords. Never mind if you actually break any actual laws, endanger lives, etc.

            Also, while I agree that not all MCU villains have been great – and I confess I had to look up who the villain was in Iron Man 2 because I couldn’t remember – I think you’re overlooking a few. I thought Winter Soldier was/is terrific, to the point that he helped turn Captain America from my least favorite MCU character to someone I’m starting to like quite a bit (and his evolution in the movies is an extreme strong point for MCU, in my opinion).

            Except Bucky wasn’t initially a villain, at least not in the source material. Firstly, Bucky was always a Robin analogue. As with much of his pathos, he ended up mimicking the Red Hood story in the comics. Not to mention, Bucky was never older that Cap. But now their ages have been juxtaposed in the movies.

            But notice how you didn’t even mention the Red Skull for Cap? Interesting…

            Obadiah Stone and the Mandarin (even though that wasn’t the “real” Mandarin, and even though some who consider themselves “purists” hated what they did with that character) were both pretty solid, and I actually liked Ultron quite a bit as well. He perhaps could have used a little more fleshing out – I liked how he evolved throughout the movie, though some of it felt rushed – but the movie was almost 3 hours long as it was.

            In true Marvel apologist fashion, all you did was make my point for me. Most Marvel fans hated he fake Mandarin, to the point where Marvel had to come in & try to clean it up later.

            Is anybody clamoring for a return of Obadiah in the MCU? Most people can’t even recall most of these villains’ names. Even you had to look up the names for some of these characters.

            Lastly, while I partially agree with your take that a hero is only as great as their villain, I don’t think that’s true in all cases. For evidence, I present Guardians of the Galaxy – Ronan was entirely forgettable as a bad guy, but this movie is considered by almost everyone (note: I do not include myself in this group) as one of the MCU’s 3 best movies to date. A good portion of people rank it as their favorite, and while it’s somewhere in the middle of the pack for me, I did find it enjoyable (even though, and perhaps because, I went into it with such low expectations).

            I surmise that GoTG went over so well with audiences, for the same reason that Marvel movies as a whole are so favored; because the protagonists basically double as the antagonists, rendering any true antagonist as redundant & irrelevant. This is what happens when “heroes” spend all their time fighting each other, all the time.

            And as far as good villains go, DCU isn’t exactly batting a thousand either. I loved Michael Shannon’s take on Zod, but Lex Luthor didn’t strike me as particularly well done or memorable, and Doomsday was about the most generic CGI character imaginable.

            Honestly, it’s gets kinda difficult to keep up in the discussion, when you vacillate between your personal taste, & the general audience’s reception of these films.
            Your disliking Lex doesn’t change the fact that he’s one of the most memorable villains, despite any difference in rendition.
            Nonetheless, DD is basically a force of nature. He’s basically the Hulk on steroids. He’s not meant to be a proper antagonist per se, more so the dubious challenge for the hero to overcome.
            And you may not have liked DD, but the character as a whole is revered as one of Superman’s greatest foes.
            And, as a demonstration of contrast, people on various sites were saying that DD deserved hos own movie, rather than being “crammed” into BVS s a subplot. Now granted, I don’t agree with that opinion, but the point is, which Marvel villain are people clamoring for along those same lines?

          • Thanostic

            Actually, I only had to look up one villain, and with 12 movies, that’s probably not so bad. If DC makes it to 12 movies, there will no doubt be some more forgettable villains there as well.

            As far as heroes acting “unheroic” – this iteration of Batman defines that notion perfectly. I’m curious how you feel about his portrayal in BvS given that he was basically the Punisher in that movie?

            I think one of our central differences is what you refer to as protagonists doubling as antagonists. Most people would call that having complex characters; flawed people who usually try to do the right thing, but aren’t perfect, and sometimes make mistakes or have their weaknesses exploited. That makes for more compelling characters; if every hero was the paragon of virtue that Superman was, that would be pretty boring. I much prefer my heroes to have imperfections, vulnerabilities, complexities, and depth.

            Lastly, I don’t agree with your Stark = Luthor analogy. Luthor is a maniac bent on world domination and driven by his hatred of Superman; Stark, for all his pride and stubbornness, is essentially a good guy. He was willing to sacrifice himself for NYC by taking that nuke through the wormhole; he (misguidedly) tried to create a program that would safeguard the world and allow the Avengers to end; he even tries to correct past wrongs by wanting the Avengers to have oversight in Civil War. Flawed as he is, he usually tries to do the right thing, and it is precisely his flaws that give him depth and complexity; Luthor, on the other hand, is just a bad guy. Memorably, sure, at least in terms of his frequency of appearance, but hardly compelling, at least not the way Stark is.

          • SAMURAI36

            Actually, I only had to look up one villain, and with 12 movies, that’s probably not so bad.

            Once again, you’re talking about you. We started this convo off, talking about public reception. But you seem to vacillate between public perception, & your personal taste. I hope you realize that you are by no means a gauge for the general audience who watches these Marvel films. In fact, if I had to surmise, I’d say you’re a Marvel diehard, or somewhere thereabouts, based on A) your screenname, & B) your defensive/apologist position that you take for Marvel. I’d even throw in what seems to be your passing distaste, and/or lack of familiarity for/with DC for good measure.

            As such, I’m hoping that you realize that you only account for about 10% of the movie viewing audience. And that’s being generous. Therefore, you only having to look up only 1 villain out of 12 doesn’t mean much, when the villains utilized in Marvel films are mostly Z-listers, especially in the public eye.

            It doesn’t help when most of the villains they are showcasing in these films, have little to no presence in the comics either, & haven’t had for nearly a decade or more. But part of that also lies in the fact that Marvel’s more interesting characters are tied up in other studios. Which accounts for why they’ve been recycling Loki, & only teasing Thanos for the past near decade.

            If DC makes it to 12 movies, there will no doubt be some more forgettable villains there as well.

            This is being disingenuous.

            First, DC has already made 12 movies. Just not in their current cinematic universe. And as such, I’d like for you to point out the “forgettable villain” in those films. The TDK trilogy? Constantine? Green Lantern? The Tim Burton Batman films? MOS? And I’m speaking of main antagonists.

            And second (& this is me giving you the answer, as I’m betting that you probably didn’t know), DC already has used a “forgettable villain” in their films. KGBeast, in BVS.

            But the difference between him in BVS, & all these Marvel villains, is that KGBeast is 1) a bit player, & not the main antagonist for the film, & 2) he wasn’t introduced in his full form, but rather in his origins.

            However, there’s a reason why you don’t see z-list villains like Damian Dark from Arrow in DC films. They are saving the A-listers for the big screen, which is viewed as the main event.

            As far as heroes acting “unheroic” – this iteration of Batman defines that notion perfectly. I’m curious how you feel about his portrayal in BvS given that he was basically the Punisher in that movie?

            In addressing this point, I fully realize that I’m speaking for myself, & not the general audience. That said….

            I personally don’t have an issue with Batman’s actions in BVS, for 2 reasons:

            1) He only killed/maimed villains. And only then, it was those that were trying to kill him. Never once was he seen endangering innocents, be it directly or indirectly.

            2) His killing was an intentional aspect of his character development. We are shown his pathos all thru out the film, & we are especially shown his redemption towards the end of the film. That’s the essence of deconstructionist storytelling.

            Both these points are in stark (pun intended) contrast to these Marvel “heroes” (especially Tony, whom I’ll cover shortly), whom engage in questionable acts from the very beginning of their pathos, to the very end of it (or at least, where the story is with them at this point).

            I think one of our central differences is what you refer to as protagonists doubling as antagonists. Most people would call that having complex characters; flawed people who usually try to do the right thing, but aren’t perfect, and sometimes make mistakes or have their weaknesses exploited. That makes for more compelling characters; if every hero was the paragon of virtue that Superman was, that would be pretty boring. I much prefer my heroes to have imperfections, vulnerabilities, complexities, and depth.

            The problem with your statement is twofold:

            1) As I stated in my earlier response, a hero is only as good as their villain, to which you initially agreed. If that is indeed the case (it sounds as if you are now recanting that sentiment…?), then what is the purpose of having these redundant characters, if the “hero” is going to spend his time competing with the villain, to see whose villainy is worse? It makes the actual villain look redundant, & more importantly, incompetent…. Or in other words, like a typical Marvel villain. To the point that most of those villains could have been thwarted in the beginning of the second act of most of those films, were it not for these “complex characters” (as you try to call them; not the terms I’d use) having caused more problems than they solved, & or that the villains themselves caused in the first place.

            2) Even though I agree that Superman is seen as the “paragon of virtue” when it comes to heroes (I’d assert that Spidey is another example, & perhaps the ONLY example that Marvel has), that statement overlooks 2 key points:

            A) Heroism is a sliding scale, & there is a huge allotment of space on that scale, before it gets to the place of these Marvel anti-heroes. WW is such an example. So is Aquaman. So is Hawkman. So is Hal Jordan. I could name several more examples of top-tier DC heroes that fit this bill, but are still considered the “paragon of heroism” (or extremely close to it), but are by no means Superman. Nor are they the Avengers either, which sit much further down on the scale. But this just further demonstrates your lack of familiarity with DC.

            B) Your implication of true heroism, & thereby Superman is somehow “boring”, also demonstrates your distaste of DC. Which, mind you, there’s nothing wrong with, up to the point where your distaste keeps you unfamiliar (& therein lies the difference between us; I’m more familiar with Marvel, than most Marvel diehards seem to be with DC).

            As such, while it’s true that Superman had his boring points thru the decades, if you thought that Superman in both MOS & BVS were “boring” & not “complex”, then it becomes increasingly clear that you didn’t really watch those films.

            Lastly, I don’t agree with your Stark = Luthor analogy. Luthor is a maniac bent on world domination and driven by his hatred of Superman; Stark, for all his pride and stubbornness, is essentially a good guy.

            You’re demonstrating bias here. You outline Luthor’s flaws, while broadstroking Tony. He’s far from a “good guy”. And that’s the problem; Marvel tried their best to sell him as a “good guy” (what does that even mean?), while making his most deplorable qualities appear appealing.

            Tony gets to be a horrible person while telling jokes, riding fancy cars, dresses in fancy clothes, playing with his $billion toys, hanging out with rappers, & bedding “hot women”, while manipulating the gov’t & fitting off Scott-free, when he should be in jail, or at the very least, a mental institution… Kinda like, you know, Lex is. But that’s clearly not the way Marvel Universe works, though, is it? We’ve yet to see a single villain go to jail, & the “heroes” go to jail, only when they don’t tow the line of whatever backroom gov’t despot that wants them at his whim. So “jail” is essentially a revolving plot device in Marvel. Got it.

            But that’s the whole thing: Tony Stark is essentially the super “hero” version of Kanye West. He’s a horrible person, while looking “cool” in the process. Marvel is essentially selling the public reality TV on Superhero steroids. And the public (especially KIDS, whom Marvel’s product is primarily marketed towards) are lapping it up. They’ve got you fooled into thinking that lack of accountability & moral ambiguity are “compelling & complex” character traits..

            I could go much further about this, but I already feel as though I’m on a soapbox.

            So, being a drunk is a “good guy”? Constantly lying to, & emotionally manipulating your GF & best friends, & even endangering their lives, equates to a “good guy”? Being a womanizer is a “good guy”? Lying to & spying on your teammates, & blatantly telling them “you don’t trust them”, is a “good guy”?

            But I love how Lex is just “a maniac” (whatever that means; BTW, not sure where that cliché of “world domination” came from, as that was hardly Lex’s goal in BVS), meanwhile Tony is a womanizing drunk with daddy issues, & is suffering from a clear case of SEVERE PTSD that never he gets help for (oh wait, that’s right…. He sat on the couch & talked Dr. Banner’s ear off, despite the fact that he KNEW that Banner wasn’t “that kind of Dr”, not only because he’s smart enough to know this, but also because Banner flat-out told him as much… But hey, that just goes to show how serious he–& Marvel–takes mental illness. Cuz with Marvel, apparently laughter is the best medicine)…

            But one man’s “maniac”, is another man’s “complex good guy”, I suppose. ?

            And trust me, I’m not even halfway done outlining Tony’s flaws. Just planning to utilize your following statements to do it.

            He was willing to sacrifice himself for NYC by taking that nuke through the wormhole;

            I saw this as grand standing, more than pure heroism. There’s nothing in Tony’s pathology that indicates inherent altruism. And that is essential for calling someone a “hero”.

            he (misguidedly) tried to create a program that would safeguard the world and allow the Avengers to end;

            You mean, kinda like how Lex wanted the gov’t to fund his Metahuman Thesis project? And by “kinda like”, I actually mean “exactly like”?

            Because creating uncontrollable WMD’s always brings the sunshine, right?

            he even tries to correct past wrongs by wanting the Avengers to have oversight in Civil War.

            Is that the same Silly War, where, in his “guilt” of his past wrongs, he turns around & endangers the life of YET ANOTHER kid, by lying to said kid’s parent, & arming said kid to basically become Tony’s personal child soldier in his personal war, that said kid has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with, & almost gets said kid killed in the process?

            That “corrects past wrongs”…. How, exactly?

            Flawed as he is, he usually tries to do the right thing, and it is precisely his flaws that give him depth and complexity;

            Really? Was he doing the “right thing”, when he invited an international terrorist to his house on national TV, thereby nearly getting his GF & best friend nearly killed?

            Or perhaps he was doing the “right thing”, when he got drunk, threw a party at his house, put on the IM suit, & started shooting watermelons with his REPULSOR CANNONS, thereby endangering civilians in the process?

            Luthor, on the other hand, is just a bad guy.

            I think I’ve done more than enough here to establish that terms like “good & bad guy” are not only completely subjective, but also are totally meaningless.

            Memorably, sure, at least in terms of his frequency of appearance, but hardly compelling, at least not the way Stark is.

            You know, I’m almost willing to concede this point to you. Tony probably is far better at being a villain than Lex is.

            But since we both know that’s not the point you’re trying to make, then I’m going to refute the point.

            Lex’s iconic status has nothing to do with his frequency, but rather to do with how far he’s willing to go in each iteration.

            So let’s see, during his recent outing, Lex has:

            • Blown up a Senate building

            • Manipulated the gov’t into giving him precisely what he wanted

            • Created a public smear campaign against Superman

            • Kidnapped Superman’s mother

            • Manipulated the two heroes into fighting each other

            • Successfully eliminated all whistle blowers

            • Sacrificed his trusted assistant (Tony couldn’t even accomplish that, though not for the lack of trying–TWICE)

            • Created Doomsday

            • Commandeered alien technology

            • Communicated with alien entities.

            And that’s just the first film that he appeared in. And already he’s done more than every single MCU villain in total. And he’s done more in one film, than Loki’s done in several films.

          • Thanostic

            Before I get to my main point, I’d like to point out that I’ve been basically discussing current MCU and DCU movies, not precursors of what’s going on now. And I’m pretty sure that works in your favor, as I don’t think you want to have to put Green Lantern or the pre-TDK Batman movies (except, perhaps, for the first one) on a pedestal for examination.

            Going point-by-point with you is becoming exhausting, due to the length of the conversation, so I’ll basically address your misconception of me here. To quote the late, great Mr Spock, you proceed from a false assumption. I’m on record several times (including previous conversations with you) that I am a fan of both Marvel and DC as a whole. It’s just that I happen to like Marvel MORE. I’ve told you in the past that I enjoyed MOS quite a bit, and have defended it in this space more than once. It’s true that both have their flaws, but I like and appreciate them both. I’ll point out when I see what I think is a flaw in either (equal opportunity examples: “Why did you say that name?!?!?” in BvS; the absurd piety of Captain America in First Avenger and the Avengers; the whole notion of Batman trying to fight Superman; the overabundance of corny jokes in some Marvel movies), but when I do, it’s because I want them to be even better. So I disagree with your notion of me being some kind of Marvel apologist, and especially with your assertion of me having a passing disdain for DC.

            Lastly, I do want to address what you said about Tony Stark. While he is definitely an anti-hero and extremely flawed, I think it’s ridiculous to say taking a nuclear warhead into space, very likely at the cost of his own life, to save a city, is grandstanding. It’s clear you don’t like him, and that’s fine, but no objective observer would say that wasn’t heroic. And I think you’re shorting Spiderman in Civil War; he may be a teenager, but he’s still an enhanced, and he most certainly did not “almost die” – he gave as good as he got, and I don’t have a problem with Stark involving him to the extent that he did.

          • SAMURAI36

            Before I get to my main point, I’d like to point out that I’ve been basically discussing current MCU and DCU movies, not precursors of what’s going on now.

            Actually, that’s been your stance, not mine. I’m not one that reimagines the cinematic landscape, into the narrative that comic book related movies somehow began when Marvel started making them. Regardless of what the Marvel apologists seem to think, there were comic book movies–and good ones, to boot–decades before the year 2000, when Marvel decided to get into the movie business.

            As such, I’m not beholden to the advent of the “Cinematic Universe”, and never have been. Having such a universe doesn’t negate the renditions that came before it, just like having the DCTV universe with Arrow, Flash, etc does not negate Smallville before it, or the WW show before that, or the numerous other DCTV shows thru out the decades.

            Besides, even if we were to stick to that standard of measurement, DC only has 2 movies out under that banner, so it’s really ridiculous to use that as a yardstick of comparison, at least at this point. And moreover, using that measurement with only 2 movies in, only proves my point all the more. Either way, you’re on the losing end of that argument.

            And I’m pretty sure that works in your favor, as I don’t think you want to have to put Green Lantern or the pre-TDK Batman movies (except, perhaps, for the first one) on a pedestal for examination.

            It does no such thing, actually (at least not in the way that you think), and for 2 reasons:

            1) Not all the pre-TDK Batman movies were bad, and I specifically mentioned the Tim Burton films, which were unanimously regarded as GREAT, and which you dodged (again).

            2) You’re moving the goal posts (again), so that you don’t have to acknowledge my initial point. It’s not about how good/bad these films were. It’s about the villains that were utilized therein.

            It’s interesting that you dodged this point. Speaking of which:

            Going point-by-point with you is becoming exhausting, due to the length of the conversation, so I’ll basically address your misconception of me here.

            Interesting that you are “exhausted” from having a conversation. I’m not, in the slightest. In fact, I look forward to having in-depth discussions with whomever will have them with me. The only thing that stops me from having them, is my schedule.

            As such, I’m left with the conclusion that you don’t have rebuttals for the points I’ve made, and will thus view your non-responses as concessions to them.

            To quote the late, great Mr Spock, you proceed from a false assumption. I’m on record several times (including previous conversations with you) that I am a fan of both Marvel and DC as a whole. It’s just that I happen to like Marvel MORE.

            LOL, you accuse me of a false assumption, and then turn around and confirm my assumption in your very last statement.

            It seems to me that you operate from the position of a Marvel apologist, perhaps without even realizing it. Which, I suppose, isn’t a bad thing, even if I don’t agree with it. But it would perhaps behoove you to at least own up to it; I myself am an unapologetic DC enthusiast for life, who absolutely despise 95% of Marvel, and it doesn’t matter to me how anyone feels about it.

            Lastly, I do want to address what you said about Tony Stark. While he is definitely an anti-hero and extremely flawed, I think it’s ridiculous to say taking a nuclear warhead into space, very likely at the cost of his own life, to save a city, is grandstanding. It’s clear you don’t like him, and that’s fine, but no objective observer would say that wasn’t heroic.

            Are you aware that in the recent comics, Lex Luthor strapped an “S” on his chest, and saved a million lives during Darkseid War? (Reference the included pic).

            https://comicnewbies.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/lex-luthors-apokolips-costume-darkseid-war-2.png

            Committing one, or even a few “heroic” acts, does not make one a hero by default. Especially when that’s the ONE “heroic” moment that you can safely name in all these films, especially from a character that has benefited from having the most character development in this entire Cinematic Universe.

            Moreover, being a hero isn’t just about the acts one commits, it’s also about the character of the person committing the acts.

            Webster lists a hero as, among other things, someone with noble qualities. Are you honestly sitting there, trying to convince anyone that Tony Stark is a “noble” person? Because that’s what you were trying to pass him off as being earlier; a “good guy”, is what you originally stated, even though he’s both distrustful and untrustworthy, doesn’t value his friends, negligent, insensitive, chauvinistic, self-centered, egotistical, and a host of other unsavory qualities that I’m sure you yourself are aware of.

            The point being, he’s just as much a “maniac” as you wrote Lex off as being. In fact, all the qualities I listed above, can easily be swapped out for Lex. But the key difference, is that Tony’s qualities are those that Marvel is trying real hard to sell as being “heroic”. And the Marvel fanbase fell for it. Which is why I call you a Marvel apologist.

            And I think you’re shorting Spiderman in Civil War; he may be a teenager, but he’s still an enhanced, and he most certainly did not “almost die” – he gave as good as he got, and I don’t have a problem with Stark involving him to the extent that he did.

            So, you’re saying you’re cool with Tony lying to Peter’s guardian? That was okay to you? Got it. Never mind the fact that during the battle, Tony said “Underoos” (which I get was supposed to be funny, but it was downright corny), which indicated that he KNEW he was dealing with a child.

            Which, incidentally, is the reason I had such an issue with Marvel making Peter a kid again. It’s issues like this, that immediately arise in the ongoing story, where he has to interact with adults, and they involve him in adult scenarios where he has no business being in. It’s irresponsible and negligent, to say the least.

            And the fact that you think him being “enhanced” justifies Tony recruiting him for a personal war, says quite alot (i.e. Marvel apologist). And he “certainly did almost die”. And it’s not about “giving as good as he got”. Spiderman is not invulnerable (although the laws of physics in these Marvel movies are down right silly at times, but that’s a different discussion). Cap landed a trailer on him. No one (including Peter himself) knew if he was going to be able to withstand that. And just like Rhodes got paralyzed and almost killed, the very same thing could’ve quite easily have happened to Peter.

            And it would have been squarely Tony’s fault. What would he have said to Tony’s guardian, to justify the lie he came into their home and told her in the first place?

          • Thanostic

            My schedule also keeps me from more of this, which is at least partly what I meant by exhausting, but I do want to address a few things.

            First, we can certainly go outside the current CUs, though Marvel has less to go on here (as DC has less to go on in the current CUs). But you can’t say all the Tim Burton Batman movies were universally liked. The first one was almost certainly the best of the 3, and it has generally (if not overwhelmingly) positive reviews: Metacritic gives it a 69, IMDB users rate it a 7.6, and Rotten Tomatoes scores it 72. Batman Returns had numbers almost as good (68, 7.0, and 80, respectively), but Batman Forever comes up well short of these reasonably positive numbers, at 51, 5.4, and 40. I personally like the first one best, though I don’t love it, but I thought all the Batman movies pre-TDK were too corny by far (and, again, I love all 3 TDK movies – as well as MOS – so there goes your Marvel apologist angle). But if you’re going to bring up pre-CU movies, you can’t just cherry pick. Batman & Robin was a steaming pile of garbage, and so was Green Lantern (even those involved with the project admit as much).

            As far as Spidey goes in Civil War, I will happily concede that a large part of my lack of issue with his inclusion has to do with the fact that he’s one of my 2 or 3 favorite characters, and I’m just happy he’s playing in the big pool now, instead of being mostly mishandled by Sony. And he may be young, and just starting out, but he is out there fighting villains already, so I don’t have a problem with Tony bringing him in. As far as Tony lying to Aunt Marisa – I mean May – obviously many superheroes conceal their identity (frankly, I think this is overused in comics and is often a crutch, but there are times when it does make sense) to protect those they care about, and therefore I don’t think it was Tony’s place to “out” Spiderman, as it were. I’m curious, though – I legitimately don’t know how old Flash is supposed to be in the new Justice League movie, but he looks pretty young – are you OK with his being recruited to fight Steppenwolf and/or Darkseid?

            Lastly, I’m not dodging your point about villains – it’s just not the only metric I use to evaluate the merits of a hero or movie. And I’d make the point that just because a villain is “iconic” – and that means different things to different people – doesn’t mean the character was done well or properly in a given movie. And some villains can be iconic and still stupid. Both franchises have their share of these – it’s inevitable, given the sheer volume of their bodies of work. Just using a couple of examples, I think Penguin is an incredibly lame villain, and on the Marvel side, I think the same of the “real” Mandarin.

            Olive Branch Alert: I saw the trailers for Wonder Woman and JL, and they both look promising. I’m excited to see how they turn out. You did mention you dislike 95% of Marvel, so that made me curious – what/who is in the other 5%

          • SAMURAI36

            First, we can certainly go outside the current CUs, though Marvel has less to go on here (as DC has less to go on in the current CUs).

            If we go by this logic (& not that I agree–more on that later), then this would never be a valid comparison on any level, nor on either side of the equation.

            However, the reason I don’t agree, is because Marvel didn’t just start making movies in 2008 either. They started in 2000, with Blade, X-Men, & Spidey.

            And before you espouse the typical Marvel apologist rhetoric that I usually hear as a rebuttal, I realize that these franchises were farmed out to the various studios, & this gives Marvel apologists an “out”, in terms of separating those films from Marvel proper. However, the reality is, those films WERE Marvel, at least at that time. That was all they had, & those films were created under the auspices of an entity called “Marvel Entertainment”.

            The same Kevin Feige that people worship now, is the same Feige that worked alongside Ari Avid, & helped create such magnum opuses as Ghost Rider & Daredevil. And to boot, Marvel as a whole got behind the licensing & marketing for ALL those films. The tail started wagging the dog in the 2000’s, when the X-Men in the comics started looking like they did in the movies (black spandex, which I hated), & Spidey in the comics lost his webshooters, & developed natural webbing like he had in the movies (which I personally loved). So they were thoroughly backing these films.

            Further, all those non-Disney films, all the way up to X-Men, have that big red “MARVEL” logo on them. It’s only now, that Disney is trying to distance themselves from those other studios (Fox especially, but Universal as well), since Disney bought Marvel out. They are trying their best to create the difference in the audience’s minds, what with the licensing embargoes & what not. The biggest “Civil War” for Marvel, has been the one that takes place behind the scenes, rather than on the screen/page.

            And most of the audience is none the wiser. Sure, Marvel diehards like yourself, & even Marvel haters like myself are aware, but the casual viewer, who takes his kids to see the latest Marvel movie, doesn’t know, or even care about the different “universes” these films occupy. All they see is that big, red MARVEL logo on ALL those films, & that’s all they need. And it doesn’t help matters, when Marvel proper is yelling things like “# it’s all connected”, which may not mean what john Q public thinks, bit again, they are none the wiser.

            So, all of this to say, Marvel does in fact have films that can be measured, prior to 2008. But that’s mot the conversation that Marvel fans ever wanna bring up, when they are throwing film failures like Green Lantern in the faces of DC fans. It’s just that Marvel has trained their diehards to be ashamed of those pre-MCU films (& for the most part, rightly so), but they already have the cognitive dissonance already built n. In fact, there are far more non-Disney Marvel films, than MCU films, by nearly double at this point.

            But you can’t say all the Tim Burton Batman movies were universally liked. The first one was almost certainly the best of the 3, and it has generally (if not overwhelmingly) positive reviews: Metacritic gives it a 69, IMDB users rate it a 7.6, and Rotten Tomatoes scores it 72. Batman Returns had numbers almost as good (68, 7.0, and 80, respectively), but Batman Forever comes up well short of these reasonably positive numbers, at 51, 5.4, and 40. I personally like the first one best, though I don’t love it, but I thought all the Batman movies pre-TDK were too corny by far (and, again, I love all 3 TDK movies – as well as MOS – so there goes your Marvel apologist angle). But if you’re going to bring up pre-CU movies, you can’t just cherry pick. Batman & Robin was a steaming pile of garbage, and so was Green Lantern (even those involved with the project admit as much).

            Two points:

            1) Batman Forever was technically not a Burton film. Not sure why you don’t realize that, as it’s pretty well documented:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Forever#Development

            When people talk about the Burton films, they are ALWAYS referring to the first two. The “third” film marks the Schoemacher regime, which was indeed terrible. Bit that’s not the point, which leads me to….
            2) You’re STILL dodging the point. And even though you attempt to half-address it later on, all of this that precedes is a complete non-starter. Unless you wanna talk about how every single FF film since the 80’s has been horrible (there foes that Marvel apologist angle thrown right back in)…..?

            As far as Spidey goes in Civil War, I will happily concede that a large part of my lack of issue with his inclusion has to do with the fact that he’s one of my 2 or 3 favorite characters, and I’m just happy he’s playing in the big pool now, instead of being mostly mishandled by Sony. And he may be young, and just starting out, but he is out there fighting villains already, so I don’t have a problem with Tony bringing him in. As far as Tony lying to Aunt Marisa – I mean May – obviously many superheroes conceal their identity (frankly, I think this is overused in comics and is often a crutch, but there are times when it does make sense) to protect those they care about, and therefore I don’t think it was Tony’s place to “out” Spiderman, as it were.

            Well, I appreciate your honesty, at least in the beginning. Although, you slid back I to the typical Marvel apologist cognitive dissonance towards the end.
            Dude, I know you’re smart enough to know, that involving children in dangerous situations is WRONG. There are domestic labor laws in America, as well as international laws (n case you don’t live in the States) that protect children against those sort of thing. And even though legality & morality are ambiguous in the Marvel universe, Tony broke everyone of those laws, from the moment he knocked on “Aunt Marisa’s” (LOL) door. Did you see her sign a waiver of some sort?
            AND, he did this as a gov’t operative. What of Peter had died/become seriously injured during that “Silly War”? Would the gov’t (which is a strange entity in the MCU as it is), just paid to male it all go away? Would Tony have gone to jail? Why was Gen. Ross (who should have been in jail himself, based on his own past transgressions) not at all upset about omen of his operatives employing a child soldier?
            But hey, you’ve already stated that you have no problem with a maniac–oop, excuse me: a “very complex character”– who happens to be a weapons manufacturer for the gov’t, who also doubles as a gov’t operative, employing child soldiers like a 3rd world dictator, & getting them almost killed, simply because you get your childhood wish of seeing all these characters together. Got it.
            No Marvel apologist mentality there….. Although, it behooves me to point out, that this is the same mentality you tried to hit me with, later on in your response, which I’ll address shortly.

            I’m curious, though – I legitimately don’t know how old Flash is supposed to be in the new Justice League movie, but he looks pretty young – are you OK with his being recruited to fight Steppenwolf and/or Darkseid?

            There is absolutely no incarnation of DC history, in which Barry Allen is depicted as being underage. Even in the JL clip, Barry clearly lived alone. You don’t do that, unless you’re an adult.

            Lastly, I’m not dodging your point about villains – it’s just not the only metric I use to evaluate the merits of a hero or movie. And I’d make the point that just because a villain is “iconic” – and that means different things to different people – doesn’t mean the character was done well or properly in a given movie. And some villains can be iconic and still stupid. Both franchises have their share of these – it’s inevitable, given the sheer volume of their bodies of work. Just using a couple of examples, I think Penguin is an incredibly lame villain, and on the Marvel side, I think the same of the “real” Mandarin.

            Wow, the Penguin is lame…. Okay then. But personal taste aside, that doesn’t change the fact that he’s iconic, & widely revered. And “iconic” only means “different things to different people”, much in the same way that “hero” does; meaning, the definition changes, only when people change the meaning in their minds.
            But to bring up a point from earlier: you don’t seem to have a problem with the poor, nonsensical way these Marvel characters are being handled, but you go out of your way to highlight the flaws in DC films.

            Olive Branch Alert: I saw the trailers for Wonder Woman and JL, and they both look promising. I’m excited to see how they turn out. You did mention you dislike 95% of Marvel, so that made me curious – what/who is in the other 5%

            I’ve always loved Spidey as a character. He’s the true heart & soul of the Marvel universe, & that’s really saying a lot. I actually liked/loved the last 2 Spidey films, but despised what’s been done with him in the MCU.
            I like the Hulk, with the Dr. Jekyll aspect. However, they’ve completely ruined the character over the decades in the comics, & the last Hulk film is the last thing I liked from him (& omen of the few Marvel films that I actually like overall).
            I like Black Panther as a character, but aside from one particular run, I’ve never been a fan of what Marvel has done with him (or the lack thereof). And Silly War is no exception.
            Daredevil is cool, I suppose. But I’ve had no interest in seeing the show, & seeing as I don’t have Netflix, that’s not an incentive for me to sign up for it.

            And…… That’s about it.

          • Thanostic

            You and I are on the same page with Spidey and Hulk, which are probably my two favorite cb characters. Black Panther is really solid as well. I’ve always been an X-Men guy as well, though the Fox movies have been up & down through the years.

            Have you seen SS yet? I’m curious what you’re going to think given the pretty lousy reviews it’s gotten. I’m seeing it next week, so I’ll reserve judgment til then, but thought I’d see what you thought.

          • SAMURAI36

            I’ve seen SS twice. It’s AMAZING!! Gonna go see it again next week. There have only been a handful of bad reviews for it, but the audience reviews have been vastly positive. I highly recommend that you check it out, asap.

      • Nancy Castro

        <<o. ✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤:::::::!be367p:….,

    • Worldmind

      Hey guess what. Movies change shape as they’re being made, on their way from pitch to script to shoot to edit to screen. Happens with nearly every movie, not sure if that’s news to you. If DC had the balls to release the real half-decent 3 hour version of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Completely Unnecessary Subtitles (minus r-rated elements, whatever they were) instead of the truncated hacked-up vomit, the internet wouldn’t have been in the blaze that it was.

      • SAMURAI36

        I’m sure there’s a point somewhere in that senseless, juvenile rant, but it should come as no surprise to you, that I missed it. I’d suggest to you to punch above your intellectual weight, but I suspect that’d be like asking a baby to ride a motorcycle.

        • Worldmind

          All films change shape, and shift a little, or a lot, in tone. This particular film-maker is referencing that. Why is it a bad thing? And also, why do you just assume that “if DC had said this or that, everyone would be on top of them”? You could answer all or none of this, or just throw pathetic insults. I really don’t care for that.

          • SAMURAI36

            Interesting, that you “don’t really care for that”, when your own response was flip and snarky. One gets as one gives.

            Anyways, my initial statement was intended to point out the bias, as it pertains to these things. And, as you can see from the convo I’m having with someone else on this thread, I’ve outlined the reasons as to why.

  • SAMURAI36

    Also, what does “different from any Marvel movie” mean? Will there be less dumb jokes? Less juvenile plots? More meaningful villains? Heroes that actually act heroic?

    I’m betting top dollar that none of this is going to be the case. Especially since the director doesn’t seem to have a clue what the movie will even be.

    • Fenix

      When have they not acted heroic?

      • SAMURAI36

        I’m not answering this, for a couple of reasons:

        1) I’ve already answered this. SEVERAL times on this site. I’ve gone into detail ad nauseum about the subject. Feel free to surf my Disqus account, and look for those discussions.

        2) I’ve dealt with you enough to know that you really don’t want the answer. You just wanna troll me, into getting into a senseless back and forth with you. I also know that you’re smart enough to look for the answers yourself, by doing what I suggested in #1. And that’s if you haven’t already read my critiques on the MCU, which I’m pretty sure you have.

        So nice try, but I’m not biting.

        • Fenix

          The only troll here is you. The MCU specifically shows the heroes actually being heroic and saving people. How many times do you actually see Superman save anyone in BvS or Man of Steel? Maybe once in BvS at the Mexican factory fire and when he rescues Lois in the beginning but proceeds to sonic boom murder her captor.

          • SAMURAI36

            This is how I know idiots like you didn’t watch either of these films.

            MOS:

            https://youtu.be/z8EydFeuPK8

            BVS:

            Even if you only saw the TC, Superman saved Lois, the Mexican girl, the astronauts in the rocket, the sailors on the ship. And that’s just the TC. The UC reveals much more, like the Senate hearing.

            Also, nice try, but Superman didn’t kill anybody.

            Now, if you’re done trolling, I’m done giving you anymore attention. One more idiot I’m putting on my block list. Buh-bye now.

  • SAMURAI36

    In fact, I’m betting that this new Thor film will read like that terrible “Hulk vs” movie that Marvel did awhile back.