# Spiderman No Way Home Trailer



## Tonguez (Aug 24, 2021)

Go stephen!?!


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2021)

Did anyone else see the two of them on top of the bridge and have to remind themselves that MJ is not Gwen Stacy?


----------



## Zaukrie (Aug 24, 2021)

That looked great.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2021)

I have always liked Doctor Strange and Spider-Man team-ups.


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 24, 2021)

was that...was it a pumpkin grenade?

"okay Stephen"
"That feels a little weird but I'll allow it"


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Aug 24, 2021)

I wonder if it was just Peter not shutting up that made the spell go weird or if that specific moment is tied into the sudden existence of the multiverse? On another note, I think Strange no longer having his Infinity Stone might be why he would not be aware that the multiverse now exists until it is too late. Or will that turn into an actual MCU plot hole? If the multiverse came into being all along the timeline at the same time, people like Strange should know about it, without realizing he did not know about it before that. Or am I just not seeing how the timeline branching unchecked through all of history is not going to cause plot holes with some character's knowledge? But still a cool trailer for another great movie.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 24, 2021)

Well I will say this went a lot differently than I was expecting. I didn't expect Strange to be such an integral part of the movie.

And now I'm shut up and take my money!


----------



## John R Davis (Aug 24, 2021)

Looks splendid. May even drag me back into the cinema!


----------



## Staffan (Aug 24, 2021)

Interesting that they seem to be pulling from one of the least well-regarded stories of the new millenium for the movie (although minus the actually bad parts).


----------



## MarkB (Aug 24, 2021)

This has a lot of potential. Supervillain team-ups are a bit old-hat, but the sudden emergence of Spider-man's greatest foes, to a Spider-man who's never fought or even met any of them? That's a battle worth seeing.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> I wonder if it was just Peter not shutting up that made the spell go weird or if that specific moment is tied into the sudden existence of the multiverse?




Good question.  



Enevhar Aldarion said:


> On another note, I think Strange no longer having his Infinity Stone might be why he would not be aware that the multiverse now exists until it is too late. Or will that turn into an actual MCU plot hole? If the multiverse came into being all along the timeline at the same time, people like Strange should know about it, without realizing he did not know about it before that.




I don't think there's a plot hole in evidence.

The implication of Loki is that Infinity Stones are _local_ - they don't have powers outside their own timeline.  So, there's not a strong argument that the Time Stone would inform him about multiversal reality.  

And, while he's Sorcerer Supreme, it isn't like he's been studying for it since he was a child, or something - it is a job he's picked up in the last few years, and it may just be a subject that he knows little about.  

And also, it looks to me mostly like Strange expects that, done properly, the spell would work just fine.  One of his hallmarks is more than a bit of arrogance, after all.


----------



## Janx (Aug 24, 2021)

How do we know the whole thing isn't a dream sequence? Sort of.

We're not shown any snippet of anybody not recognizing Spiderman. We are shown a whole lot of mirror world.

What if Strange is teaching spidey a lesson, and the spell wasn't what he said it was?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 24, 2021)

Janx said:


> How do we know the whole thing isn't a dream sequence? Sort of.
> 
> We're not shown any snippet of anybody not recognizing Spiderman. We are shown a whole lot of mirror world.
> 
> What if Strange is teaching spidey a lesson, and the spell wasn't what he said it was?




But ... wouldn't that require the trailer to be misleading, instead of actively giving away _all the main plot points of the movie?_

I thought that was against the law, or federal regulations of trailers, or something, which required the studios to release at least three trailers for every movie that given away all major plot twists?


----------



## Rune (Aug 24, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> But ... wouldn't that require the trailer to be misleading, instead of actively giving away _all the main plot points of the movie?_
> 
> I thought that was against the law, or federal regulations of trailers, or something, which required the studios to release at least three trailers for every movie that given away all major plot twists?



I think trailers that are cut to give away the entire movie’s major plot points and/or funniest jokes are generally the product of three of factors:

1. A lack of decent material in the movie to work with. 
2. Laziness/lack of creativity on the part of the trailers’ editors. 
3. Studio interferance. 

Often, all of the above.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2021)

Janx said:


> What if Strange is teaching spidey a lesson, and the spell wasn't what he said it was?




What If...? is a different series.

"It was all a dream to teach you something," is a trope that's likely to _really cheese off_ viewers in this context.  I cannot say it clearly isn't that, but it would seem a very bad move.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2021)

Rune said:


> Often, all of the above.




The question we need to ask ourselves is whether marvel's in the habit of making trailers that give away all the big juicy bits.

If not, that may imply that these snippets aren't yet the most interesting parts of the film!


----------



## Rune (Aug 24, 2021)

Umbran said:


> The question we need to ask ourselves is whether marvel's in the habit of making trailers that give away all the big juicy bits.
> 
> If not, that may imply that these snippets aren't yet the most interesting parts of the film!



Oh, I can’t think of any Marvel Studios trailers that do that (at least with plot – maybe a little with jokes). They wisely go heavy on misdirection, too. 

I think, in this case, they chose to reveal Alfred Molina because he had already publicly said (implied?) that he was going to be in the movie.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2021)

Rune said:


> Oh, I can’t think of any Marvel Studios trailers that do that (at least with plot – maybe a little with jokes). They wisely go heavy on misdirection, too.
> 
> I think, in this case, they chose to reveal Alfred Molina because he had already publicly said (implied?) that he was going to be in the movie.




Yeah.  And Marvel movie trailers do often give you the very basic setup/premise of the film, which I suspect is the point here.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 24, 2021)

The idea of Spider-man trying to regain his secret identity is an interesting one in the context of the MCU, which pretty much swore off the whole secret-identity trope from day one with "I am Iron Man", and has largely been all the better for it.

Then again, Peter's secret identity has always been a lot more fundamental to his stories than to many other Marvel heroes, so it is good that they're actually addressing that in detail, whether or not he actually gets to regain his anonymity in the end.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 24, 2021)

MarkB said:


> The idea of Spider-man trying to regain his secret identity is an interesting one in the context of the MCU, which pretty much swore off the whole secret-identity trope from day one with "I am Iron Man", and has largely been all the better for it.
> 
> Then again, Peter's secret identity has always been a lot more fundamental to his stories than to many other Marvel heroes, so it is good that they're actually addressing that in detail, whether or not he actually gets to regain his anonymity in the end.



Yep, especially in the context of a kid suddenly becoming a super famous person. Tony has already been famous a long time when he comes out, Steve and Wanda had governmental seclusion as people start to hear about them.

but Peter is thrown out into the world and exposed for all to see, and it looks like they are going to take the time to show how jarring that is


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 24, 2021)

I think the big gamble in this movie is around the number of villains.

Two villains in a movie has rarely gone well, and 3 villain movie have generally tanked (ala Superman 3).

there’s just not enough screen time to make your villains interesting when you have that many.

So my hope is that most of the villains coming back will be more cameos, and we only focus on 1-2. Otherwise inthink it’s going to be just too much for one movie


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> there’s just not enough screen time to make your villains interesting when you have that many.




I don't expect the villains to be the actual point of the film.  The point will be the meta-struggle Peter is having about his identity, and the villains complications and metaphors in that struggle.

And, possibly, a setup for the Sinister Six, because rarely does Marvel make a thing that isn't setting up other things.


----------



## Undrave (Aug 24, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I don't expect the villains to be the actual point of the film.  The point will be the meta-struggle Peter is having about his identity, and the villains complications and metaphors in that struggle.
> 
> And, possibly, a setup for the Sinister Six, because rarely does Marvel make a thing that isn't setting up other things.



I'm thinking Peter and Dr. Strange might be skipping into the multiverse and encountering different set-up for Spider-man (the one with Doc Ock seems to imply he's a rich public figure? Maybe Mr. Stark's heir?), with them trying to find their way back to the main MCU, and at the end Peter will be "You know, I'll try to make it work here instead." and the whole journey will have given him new confidence or something.


----------



## delericho (Aug 24, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> there’s just not enough screen time to make your villains interesting when you have that many.



While that's usually true, it's maybe less so here - because these are returning villains (and, indeed, all of Spidey's most famous villains) they don't need to spend a lot of time on the villain's origin stories. They should be able to just jump right into whatever else is going on.


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 24, 2021)

Undrave said:


> back to the main MCU, and at the end Peter will be "You know, I'll try to make it work here instead."



Let me fix that for you:

_to the main MCU *SPUMC*, and at the end Peter will be "You know, I'll try to make it work here instead."_


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Aug 24, 2021)

Umbran said:


> And, possibly, a setup for the Sinister Six, because rarely does Marvel make a thing that isn't setting up other things.




Yes and no, since a film about them would be all Sony and not part of the MCU. Unless there is some new agreement, or change in the current one, only the Spiderman films are MCU, and any spinoffs are Sony Spiderverse.


----------



## Undrave (Aug 24, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> there’s just not enough screen time to make your villains interesting when you have that many.



Spiderverse had Kingpin, Prowler, Tombstone, Doc Oc and Scorpion in the movie and managed to make it work. What they DIDN'T do is spend time on their origin story. They're there, they are villains, they have some kind of History and personality, but Prowler and Kingpin were the only ones that really had development time spent on them. Doc Oc had enough personality to be entertaining and that was enough.


----------



## Undrave (Aug 24, 2021)

Mirtek said:


> Let me fix that for you:
> 
> _to the main MCU *SPUMC*, and at the end Peter will be "You know, I'll try to make it work here instead."_



Don't you mean SPMCU?


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Aug 24, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Good question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The thing about all that that makes me wonder is once the mutliverse comes into existence, it does it along the entire timeline. That means the multiverse simply exists, before Strange was born, while he was training, when he became Sorcerer Supreme, in the fight with Thanos. That adds an additional layer onto all the previous movies, but especially Doctor Strange and dealing with Thanos. That scene where he is looking at millions of possible outcomes and only one is a good one? Instead of possible futures, now he was looking at all the alternate timelines and looking for one to emulate, so that his timeline would have the good outcome. Does he just know that is what he is doing or does he still think he was just looking at possible futures?


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 24, 2021)

Undrave said:


> Don't you mean SPMCU?



I wasn't sure, so I googled it. Apparently the official title is "_Sony_ Pictures _Universe of Marvel Characters_ (SPUMC)"


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Aug 24, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> But ... wouldn't that require the trailer to be misleading, instead of actively giving away _all the main plot points of the movie?_
> 
> I thought that was against the law, or federal regulations of trailers, or something, which required the studios to release at least three trailers for every movie that given away all major plot twists?




What Marvel does, and I am sure most other studios do too, is the first trailer or two always seem to contain scenes that do not make the final release. Especially movies that get a new cut close to the release date.


----------



## embee (Aug 24, 2021)

Mirtek said:


> I wasn't sure, so I googled it. Apparently the official title is "_Sony_ Pictures _Universe of Marvel Characters_ (SPUMC)"







That's getting dangerously close to Ren & Stimpy territory.


----------



## embee (Aug 24, 2021)

Is it too early to predict that the final post-credits stinger will be the NYC skyline showing the Baxter Building?


----------



## Rabulias (Aug 24, 2021)

embee said:


> Is it too early to predict that the final post-credits stinger will be the NYC skyline showing the Baxter Building?



I think the FF are fully in the Disney/Marvel/Fox film universe (licensing rights-wise, at least), not in the Sony Spiderverse, so I doubt we will see that reveal in this film.

Edit: About the trailer itself: Is that the _casket of ancient winters_ that Peter is holding out on the street? Is that why Strange's sanctum is covered with snow inside?

Edit 2: Having looked closer at it, it is not the _casket_, but it is some magical-looking thing.


----------



## Rune (Aug 24, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> What Marvel does, and I am sure most other studios do too, is the first trailer or two always seem to contain scenes that do not make the final release. Especially movies that get a new cut close to the release date.



They’ve also been known to digitally alter the background of a scene or even digitally remove a character. As I recall, they did that with Endgame.


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 24, 2021)

Staffan said:


> Interesting that they seem to be pulling from one of the least well-regarded stories of the new millenium for the movie (although minus the actually bad parts).




That was my first thought too

Second thought: Some viewers weren't alive when we got Doc Ock......and now I feel old......


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> That scene where he is looking at millions of possible outcomes and only one is a good one? Instead of possible futures, now he was looking at all the alternate timelines and looking for one to emulate, so that his timeline would have the good outcome. Does he just know that is what he is doing or does he still think he was just looking at possible futures?




So, we need to make some guesses...

We have the idea that the universe branches into a multiverse.  We do _NOT_ have the idea established in canon that this is actual Quantum Mechanical Many-Worlds, in which_ every possible universe_ is represented. And cinematically this makes sense. Otherwise the bulk of all the variant universes you'd never notice a difference locally. We get to see only a small local area around Earth. But, most of the universe is nowhere near Earth. So, most of "all possible" changes are far from Earth, and we wouldn't observe them. Statistically, if you crossed over at any time, it'd be to a universe that looked _EXACTLY_ like the one you left. Which makes for crummy stories.

This gives us the possibility that not all choices to guide yourself into the future are choices that create variant timelines.  Some choices create a variant, and some do not.  

Thus, there's no real way to know if Doctor Strange was looking at possibilities that are "within tolerance" for one timeline, possibilities for variant timelines, or a mixture of both.  We might simply rest in the idea that, from Strange's perspective, it was not evident that there's a difference in the two cases.  He saw results, not the multiversal cosmological implications of those results.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2021)

MarkB said:


> The idea of Spider-man trying to regain his secret identity is an interesting one in the context of the MCU, which pretty much swore off the whole secret-identity trope from day one with "I am Iron Man", and has largely been all the better for it.




However, note that to accomplish this, they have heroes with very little connection to normal life around them.  The Avengers are _isolated_ from the real world, so that their identities are largely irrelevant.  And that isolation is also limiting to the stories you can tell.



MarkB said:


> Then again, Peter's secret identity has always been a lot more fundamental to his stories than to many other Marvel heroes, so it is good that they're actually addressing that in detail, whether or not he actually gets to regain his anonymity in the end.




Peter is actually trying to maintain connections to normal people - his aunt, his normal friends.  As a comic, Spider-Man is compelling to many precisely because there is still a real life back there somewhere, and that makes Peter rather more relatable than other heroes.


----------



## Rune (Aug 24, 2021)

Umbran said:


> However, note that to accomplish this, they have heroes with very little connection to normal life around them.  The Avengers are _isolated_ from the real world, so that their identities are largely irrelevant.  And that isolation is also limiting to the stories you can tell.
> 
> 
> 
> Peter is actually trying to maintain connections to normal people - his aunt, his normal friends.  As a comic, Spider-Man is compelling to many precisely because there is still a real life back there somewhere, and that makes Peter rather more relatable than other heroes.



Hawkeye and Ant-Man do likewise. It is possible, though, that Hawkeye is as consistently undervalued in-universe as he is by fandom.

Ant-Man, on the other hand, has already been shown to be unknown to popular culture in Endgame. (Not to mention that he was gone for 5 years.)


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 25, 2021)

just to add more to the theorizing Was That Really Doctor Strange in the SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Trailer?


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 25, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> just to add more to the theorizing Was That Really Doctor Strange in the SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Trailer?



Hm, maybe



Spoiler



it was Agatha all along


 ?


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 25, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> just to add more to the theorizing Was That Really Doctor Strange in the SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Trailer?



Please No! Mephisto didn’t do it !!!


----------



## Older Beholder (Aug 25, 2021)

I'm pretty curious to see the episode of What if...? now, where spidey is wearing Dr Strange's cloak (as seen on the poster), wondering if there might be some clues or connection to the movie.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 25, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> just to add more to the theorizing Was That Really Doctor Strange in the SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Trailer?




A SKRULL!?!

Okay, so... this is amusing.  The author is a bit off, as the Skrulls proper in the comics are not significant users of magic, and they haven't been shown to be such in the MCU to date.  However...

The _Dire Wraiths_ are shapeshifters who use magic.  And they are an evolutionary offshoot of Skrulls in the distant past - they were exiled for using magic!  However, I don't know that Marvel has the rights to use Dire Wraiths in movies - those rights might sit with Hasbro, as they were originally part of the ROM: Spaceknight comic, and rights to Rom are with Hasbro, possibly currently licensed to Allspark Pictures and Paramount.


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 25, 2021)




----------



## R_J_K75 (Aug 25, 2021)

Now if we can only get the sandman in there too, we'd be talking.  Indy 7, he finally gets a  cell phone.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 25, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> just to add more to the theorizing Was That Really Doctor Strange in the SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Trailer?



That seems like a stretch. An impostor fooling Peter is one thing, but he'd also have to have fooled Wong.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 25, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> Spoiler




I've always loved that trope from Spider-Man movies - that in a pinch, New Yorkers have Spidey's back.

Disclaimer: I grew up in the suburbs on Long Island.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Aug 25, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I've always loved that trope from Spider-Man movies - that in a pinch, New Yorkers have Spidey's back.
> 
> Disclaimer: I grew up in the suburbs on Long Island.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Aug 25, 2021)

Why dont my pics/links come through?


----------



## R_J_K75 (Aug 25, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I've always loved that trope from Spider-Man movies - that in a pinch, New Yorkers have Spidey's back.
> 
> Disclaimer: I grew up in the suburbs on Long Island.


----------



## wicked cool (Aug 25, 2021)

why would the strange imposter even need peter? i do wonder why he froze his living room though

it remind me of the 3 drs in dr who-one dr (the current one at time) leads the way while the other 2 help but on the way battle some villians to get to the main villian


----------



## Undrave (Aug 25, 2021)

The Lizard Wizard said:


> I'm pretty curious to see the episode of What if...? now, where spidey is wearing Dr Strange's cloak (as seen on the poster), wondering if there might be some clues or connection to the movie.



I'm thinking it might actually be a reference to THIS issue of the classic _What If_ comics. 

(As an aside, I wish we'd get this story animated)


Umbran said:


> A SKRULL!?!
> 
> Okay, so... this is amusing.  The author is a bit off, as the Skrulls proper in the comics are not significant users of magic, and they haven't been shown to be such in the MCU to date.  However...
> 
> The _Dire Wraiths_ are shapeshifters who use magic.  And they are an evolutionary offshoot of Skrulls in the distant past - they were exiled for using magic!  However, I don't know that Marvel has the rights to use Dire Wraiths in movies - those rights might sit with Hasbro, as they were originally part of the ROM: Spaceknight comic, and rights to Rom are with Hasbro, possibly currently licensed to Allspark Pictures and Paramount.



Dire Wraiths were in the (previous) IDW comics Hasbro universe after the _Revolution_ event so I'm pretty sure those guys are off the table for Marvel.


----------



## Marc Radle (Aug 25, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> why would the strange imposter even need peter? i do wonder why he froze his living room though
> 
> it remind me of the 3 drs in dr who-one dr (the current one at time) leads the way while the other 2 help but on the way battle some villians to get to the main villian




I wonder why Strange’s Sanctum Santorum is frozen as well. I have yet to hear any explanation for this (and I’ve looked!), but it seems like a pretty big thing to not explain …

Perhaps more interesting is, regardless of why it is … why is Strange allowing it to remain? We see a man shoveling up snow in the trailer, but Strange is clearly powerful enough to fix it with magic, yet it would appear he has not done so.

Completely understood that trailers are hard to pull full context from, but the frozen Sanctum Santorum is a very odd and intriguing mystery to say the least …


----------



## MarkB (Aug 25, 2021)

Marc Radle said:


> I wonder why Strange’s Sanctum Santorum is frozen as well. I have yet to hear any explanation for this (and I’ve looked!), but it seems like a pretty big thing to not explain …
> 
> Perhaps more interesting is, regardless of why it is … why is Strange allowing it to remain? We see a man shoveling up snow in the trailer, but Strange is clearly powerful enough to fix it with magic, yet it would appear he has not done so.
> 
> Completely understood that trailers are hard to pull full context from, but the frozen Sanctum Santorum is a very odd and intriguing mystery to say the least …



Well, the sanctum wasn't originally his, and it contains lots of powerful artifacts as well as portals to multiple locations. Maybe he tried to do a little spring cleaning or remodeling, and it got out of hand.


----------



## Undrave (Aug 25, 2021)

Marc Radle said:


> I wonder why Strange’s Sanctum Santorum is frozen as well. I have yet to hear any explanation for this (and I’ve looked!), but it seems like a pretty big thing to not explain …



I have a simple explanation: Summer in New York is HOT AS BALLS.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 25, 2021)

Marc Radle said:


> I wonder why Strange’s Sanctum Santorum is frozen as well. I have yet to hear any explanation for this (and I’ve looked!), but it seems like a pretty big thing to not explain …




Exactly.  And you know, the best way to make magic seem magical is to _NOT_ explain it.  So, I expect they won't.  It is just this weird thing at the Sanctum Sanctorum, signaling that well... stuff's gonna get weird.


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 25, 2021)




----------



## trappedslider (Aug 26, 2021)




----------



## Janx (Aug 26, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Well, the sanctum wasn't originally his, and it contains lots of powerful artifacts as well as portals to multiple locations. Maybe he tried to do a little spring cleaning or remodeling, and it got out of hand.



it struck me as a sight gag.  Something's gone odd.  Wong is dressed and pulling luggage like he's set to go on vacation, or at least escape the cold.  The fact that nobody talks about "why is the house full of snow" builds on the joke.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 26, 2021)

Janx said:


> it struck me as a sight gag.  Something's gone odd.  Wong is dressed and pulling luggage like he's set to go on vacation, or at least escape the cold.  The fact that nobody talks about "why is the house full of snow" builds on the joke.



Hehe makes sense for Peter, you don’t go into a mans home asking for a favor and complain about the mess!


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 26, 2021)




----------



## MarkB (Aug 27, 2021)

trappedslider said:


>



Honestly, it would surprise me if they did a multiverse story and didn't have him still be alive in at least one of them. It lets them twist the screws on Peter, and maybe even do a discount version of the origin story.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 27, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Honestly, it would surprise me if they did a multiverse story and didn't have him still be alive in at least one of them. It lets them twist the screws on Peter, and maybe even do a discount version of the origin story.




There's already one in the Spider-Verse canon, I believe, in which May dies, instead of Uncle Ben...


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Aug 27, 2021)

Umbran said:


> There's already one in the Spider-Verse canon, I believe, in which May dies, instead of Uncle Ben...




There was a What If? issue from 2004 that switched it up, but I could swear I saw it also done in a live-action or animated show too, but I can't find it, so maybe I am imagining it?


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 27, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> There was a What If? issue from 2004 that switched it up, but I could swear I saw it also done in a live-action or animated show too, but I can't find it, so maybe I am imagining it?



The Spider-man from the 90s at the end of the shows run had a verse in which uncle ben was still alive, talked down spider-carnage from destroying the multiverse.


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 27, 2021)

because they could...they did


----------



## KS_Collector (Aug 27, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> Go stephen!?!



Perfect? No. But it left me with a smile at the corner of my lips.


----------



## KS_Collector (Aug 27, 2021)

But did anyone think his problem would be easily solved? It was just him revealing himself again, but this time only to whoever he wanted to know.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 27, 2021)

KS_Collector said:


> But did anyone think his problem would be easily solved? It was just him revealing himself again, but this time only to whoever he wanted to know.



Not really. That wouldn't get him back the relationship he's built up with MJ that's based on her already knowing who he is. He'd have to do it over again, and might screw it up this time. The same is true to a lesser extent with Ned and Aunt May.

And another aspect is that, if nobody ever knew he was Spider-man, that means Tony Stark never knew he was Spider-man. Technically he should lose the fancy suits and gadgets the moment the spell completes.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 27, 2021)

MarkB said:


> And another aspect is that, if nobody ever knew he was Spider-man, that means Tony Stark never knew he was Spider-man. Technically he should lose the fancy suits and gadgets the moment the spell completes.




If he loses the gadgets, then he probably dies at the hands of Mysterio, and isn't able to ask for the spell to be cast - paradox.  

Luckily, Tony is dead.  It is like he's hiding in an apocalypse - the information didn't and can't leak from him, so he can know... and then die again, and everything's fine.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Aug 27, 2021)

I think I get what might have gone wrong with the spell! It did not wipe everyone's memories, it transported Strange and Parker into an alternate timeline where his secret was never revealed. And then the two have to travel the timelines to find their way home again. This is why we will see other versions of Spider-Man and see villains from the other two trilogies. And with a title like No Way Home, maybe they stay stuck in the Multiverse until the next Doctor Strange movie, where they finally make it home before the Madness sets in.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 27, 2021)

Umbran said:


> If he loses the gadgets, then he probably dies at the hands of Mysterio, and isn't able to ask for the spell to be cast - paradox.



Or Mysterio never tries to kill him, and Skrull!Fury never tries to recruit him, because he isn't in charge of Stark's legacy, and Mysterio never exposes him to the world - de-paradox.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 27, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Or Mysterio never tries to kill him, and Skrull!Stark never tries to recruit him, because he isn't in charge of Stark's legacy, and Mysterio never exposes him to the world - de-paradox.




It is Skrull!Fury, not Skrull!Stark.  

And Peter is in Venice and on the scene when the Water Elemental attacks, regardless.  He'd still be involved at that time.  Fury wouldn't give Peter the Glasses, but he'd still want Spider-Man to help deal with the Elementals, so Peter is probably still involved, and will still eventually figure out what Mysterio is doing, and need to die.

Note:  If Stark and Peter never meet, it is not clear the Glasses would become a McGuffin.  They are only in play because Stark bequeathed them to Peter.


----------



## GaelMaverick (Aug 29, 2021)

Getting hyped by it


----------



## Rune (Aug 29, 2021)

Umbran said:


> It is Skrull!Fury, not Skrull!Stark.
> 
> And Peter is in Venice and on the scene when the Water Elemental attacks, regardless.  He'd still be involved at that time.  Fury wouldn't give Peter the Glasses, but he'd still want Spider-Man to help deal with the Elementals, so Peter is probably still involved, and will still eventually figure out what Mysterio is doing, and need to die.
> 
> Note:  If Stark and Peter never meet, it is not clear the Glasses would become a McGuffin.  They are only in play because Stark bequeathed them to Peter.



Strictly speaking, the glasses are not a Macguffin, since they actually _do_ something. The entire point of including a Macguffin is that it could be _anything_. It’s just a _thing_, whose sole function is to be desired. 

The very fact that the glasses have a function in the movie keeps them from being a Macguffin. 

And since we’re on the subject of the glasses, I wonder why no one talks about how Mysterio never handed control of EDITH back to Parker (in the way Parker had to pass it to him earlier in the bar scene). We can’t even be _sure_ that Parker has the _real_ glasses. 

My bet is that Mysterio (with control of EDITH) is our Sinister Sixth.


----------



## GaelMaverick (Aug 29, 2021)

Rune said:


> Strictly speaking, the glasses are not a Macguffin, since they actually _do_ something. The entire point of including a Macguffin is that it could be _anything_. It’s just a _thing_, whose sole function is to be desired.
> 
> The very fact that the glasses have a function in the movie keeps them from being a Macguffin.
> 
> ...



That is a good guess. What about the rumor that Garfield´s spidey will be a villain? Since reading that I thought that he would be the one behind the "multiversal" Sinister Six, and its final member.


----------



## Rune (Aug 29, 2021)

GaelMaverick said:


> That is a good guess. What about the rumor that [ Spoiler ]? Since reading that I thought that he would be the one behind the "multiversal" Sinister Six, and its final member.



I prefer to ignore rumors. Even when they are accurate (which is not often) knowing what they are ahead of actually watching the movie/show/whatever can never positively affect my viewing experience.

At best they will lack the necessary context of the surrounding movie/show to be meaningful. At worst, they will spoil elements that are meant to be revealed in a certain context. For no good reason and no benefit to me, as a viewer.

For my own sake, I will assume the rumor you’re talking about is inaccurate and promptly forget it.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2021)

Rune said:


> Strictly speaking, the glasses are not a Macguffin, since they actually _do_ something. The entire point of including a Macguffin is that it could be _anything_. It’s just a _thing_, whose sole function is to be desired.




Sure.  Technically incorrect use of the term.  Good on you for stopping someone on the internet from using a word incorrectly.


----------



## Rune (Aug 29, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Sure.  Technically incorrect use of the term.  Good on you for stopping someone on the internet from using a word incorrectly.



Really, I was just making an excuse to transition into talking about how Peter Parker doesn’t currently control EDITH. 

But, yay me. I won something.*










*(Nothing.)


----------



## GaelMaverick (Aug 29, 2021)

Any hopes for Daredevil and his crew (especially Kingpin) appearances? Blame me, but I still think the Netflix series is still the best Marvel thing outside the books and big screen.


----------



## Rune (Aug 29, 2021)

GaelMaverick said:


> Any hopes for Daredevil and his crew (especially Kingpin) appearances? Blame me, but I still think the Netflix series is still the best Marvel thing outside the books and big screen.



I certainly hope for that, though not necessarily in Spiderman. Most of the Defenders would be good, actually. 

They could recast Danny Rand, though.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Aug 29, 2021)

GaelMaverick said:


> Any hopes for Daredevil and his crew (especially Kingpin) appearances? Blame me, but I still think the Netflix series is still the best Marvel thing outside the books and big screen.




For the Hawkeye series on Disney+, the rumor is Kingpin, yes, and played by Vincent D'Onofrio. Daredevil by Charlie Cox, no, but only because of scheduling conflicts for him.


----------



## GaelMaverick (Aug 29, 2021)

Well, it is that you don´t like spoilers/rumours but xxxxxx xxxxxx was seen on the film location. And Kingpin, which is still the best MCU villain (yeah, counting Thanos IMHO) is a spider villain originally after all. 

Totally agree on Iron Fist, and unfortunately would approve a Luke Cage reboot also. Although liking the actor himself, the story went down on the half of the first season, and bananas on the second season, beyond the saving for me.


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 29, 2021)

GaelMaverick said:


> Any hopes for Daredevil and his crew (especially Kingpin) appearances? Blame me, but I still think the Netflix series is still the best Marvel thing outside the books and big screen.




Its still not confirmed by Marvel but there is some speculation and rumour that Charlie Cox filmed scenes for Spiderman 3 and will appear at least as a lawyer if not in full DD costume.


----------



## Rune (Aug 29, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> Its still not confirmed by Marvel but there is some speculation and rumour that Charlie Cox filmed scenes for Spiderman 3 and will appear at least as a lawyer if not in full DD costume.



There’s been speculation on the youtubes that the guy in the trailer who slams down the files in front of Peter (and can be seen walking in front of the room just prior) is Charlie Cox. I don’t buy it, though, since Matt Murdock’s public persona requires a cane to get around.


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 30, 2021)

Rune said:


> There’s been speculation on the youtubes that the guy in the trailer who slams down the files in front of Peter (and can be seen walking in front of the room just prior) is Charlie Cox. I don’t buy it, though, since Matt Murdock’s public persona requires a cane to get around.



Yeah I dont think thats him, the shirt and general body profile isnt a good match - it could be Foggy Nelson though (and would be awesome if it was)


----------



## MathewOfEarth2 (Aug 31, 2021)

GaelMaverick said:


> Well, it is that you don´t like spoilers/rumours but xxxxxx xxxxxx was seen on the film location. And Kingpin, which is still the best MCU villain (yeah, counting Thanos IMHO) is a spider villain originally after all.
> 
> Totally agree on Iron Fist, and unfortunately would approve a Luke Cage reboot also. Although liking the actor himself, the story went down on the half of the first season, and bananas on the second season, beyond the saving for me.



Although I prefer DD, I think nothing will be as fun as seeing Kraven appear, my dream is to have the classic stories represented in the movies.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 31, 2021)

MathewOfEarth2 said:


> Although I prefer DD, I think nothing will be as fun as seeing Kraven appear, my dream is to have the classic stories represented in the movies.




My absolute favorite Kraven story appeared, iirc, in the Ultimate Spider-Man comic.  In it, Kraven has a reality TV show where he hunts various big game and dangerous animals.  He publicly declares that he's going to hunt down Spider-Man, and show himself capturing the hero on TV.  He shows up at the scene, where Spidey is trying to rescue people form a crashed car, and attacks the hero.

But Kraven is just this guy.  Spidey knocks him out with a single punch, and goes back to his rescue.  The ignominious defeat gets Kraven's TV show cancelled.

Kraven is kind of a shmuck who is into the whole thing for self-aggrandizement and ego.  I am more than happy to watch such a guy lose


----------



## Rune (Aug 31, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Kraven is kind of a shmuck who is into the whole thing for self-aggrandizement and ego.  I am more than happy to watch such a guy lose



Well, with a name like Kraven…


----------



## wicked cool (Sep 1, 2021)

i would argue that the punisher was as good and it was a true shame that it also got cancelled. John Bernthal was perfect and the best punisher of the 3 cast (2 movies)


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> John Bernthal was perfect and the best punisher of the 3 cast (2 movies)




I will agree that Bernthal acted the role with skill, and the series was technically well made.  However, I don't think it is a shame it got cancelled, as I don't think the character is particularly heroic.  He's a deeply damaged man who commits many, many homicides.


----------



## Rune (Sep 1, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I will agree that Bernthal acted the role with skill, and the series was technically well made.  However, I don't think it is a shame it got cancelled, as I don't think the character is particularly heroic.  He's a deeply damaged man who commits many, many homicides.



I enjoyed the performance, but we probably didn’t need _quite_ so many flashbacks.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 1, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I will agree that Bernthal acted the role with skill, and the series was technically well made.  However, I don't think it is a shame it got cancelled, as I don't think the character is particularly heroic.  He's a deeply damaged man who commits many, many homicides.



This.  

Punisher is…not a great character.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This.
> 
> Punisher is…not a great character.



Carefully handled, he can work as a villain or antagonist - he posed a good counterpoint to Daredevil, for example.  

But alone?  Just not a hero.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 1, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Carefully handled, he can work as a villain or antagonist - he posed a good counterpoint to Daredevil, for example.
> 
> But alone?  Just not a hero.



Exactly, yeah. As a foil to DD or Spider-Man, very useful narrative tool. Just, as you say, not a hero.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Sep 1, 2021)

The initial Punisher comic book back in the 80's/90's was good and he was more of the anti-hero back then. Besides, if people can enjoy psychopathic junk like Dexter or Hannibal or The Sopranos, where the bad guy is glorified, why not Punisher?


----------



## wicked cool (Sep 1, 2021)

exactly. next up wolverine wont be a hero.


----------



## Marc Radle (Sep 1, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Besides, if people can enjoy psychopathic junk like Dexter or Hannibal or The Sopranos, where the bad guy is glorified, why not Punisher?




I actually dislike all three of those shows for that exact reason …


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Besides, if people can enjoy psychopathic junk like Dexter or Hannibal or The Sopranos, where the bad guy is glorified, why not Punisher?




I mean, you just admitted it is "junk" so...

And, really this is a strawman.  I didn't say people cannot enjoy such fare.  I said that _I didn't find it a shame_ it was cancelled.  I, personally, find it an ill-fitting piece for under the Marvel banner, which is otherwise about heroic figures.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Sep 1, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I mean, you just admitted it is "junk" so...
> 
> And, really this is a strawman.  I didn't say people cannot enjoy such fare.  I said that _I didn't find it a shame_ it was cancelled.  I, personally, find it an ill-fitting piece for under the Marvel banner, which is otherwise about heroic figures.




Well, Deadpool and Ghost Rider aren't full-on paragons on virtue. Namor has certainly been prickly in the past. And Venom? Eh ... he does eat people, no matter how much you might play it for laughs. 

By the 90s, and certainly when Marvel left the CCA in 2001, they had more than their fair share of main characters that weren't exactly heroic figures.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 1, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> The initial Punisher comic book back in the 80's/90's was good and he was more of the anti-hero back then. Besides, if people can enjoy psychopathic junk like Dexter or Hannibal or The Sopranos, where the bad guy is glorified, why not Punisher?



People can do whatever they like, including liking Punisher. I find his basic premise to be only really worthy of a limited run comic and maybe the occasional re-examination of that run, for a ton of reasons, but that needn’t impact your enjoyment. 


wicked cool said:


> exactly. next up wolverine wont be a hero.



Last I checked, Wolverine isn’t a mass-murdering psychopath who thinks that societies big problem is that cops don’t do enough murder. 


Marc Radle said:


> I actually dislike all three of those shows for that exact reason …



Same. Well, Dexter was interesting sometimes.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Last I checked, Wolverine isn’t a mass-murdering psychopath who thinks that societies big problem is that cops don’t do enough murder.




So, comics-canon, not even Punisher believes that.  He very specifically tells cops their role model should be Captain America, not himself.



Spoiler: Punisher on what cops should do


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 1, 2021)

Umbran said:


> So, comics-canon, not even Punisher believes that.  He very specifically tells cops their role model should be Captain America, not himself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I could be wrong, but that was written in response to the fact that people were IRL lionizing Punisher and putting his symbol on actual cop cars and tactical vests and the like. Very important statement to make. 

The Nextflix version, at least, looks down on vigilantes who don’t do what he does. I can’t see him disagreeing if someone said the cops should have more freedom to use deadly force.  

But yes, comics canon, Punisher is that weird edgelord fantasy of the monster who knows he’s a monster but takes on that “burden” to Do What Must Be Done(tm). It’s all very manly, very 90’s, and very tired.  

And don’t get me started on the tacit approval of a whole world of superheroes who absolutely could take Castle down and actively choose not to…


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well, Deadpool and Ghost Rider aren't full-on paragons on virtue.




I think Deadpool is an overdone fake-edgy gimmick, so...

And there's a bit of a different between not being a paragon of virtue, and shooting at people _for littering_.








Snarf Zagyg said:


> Namor has certainly been prickly in the past.




Namor is not clearly presented as a hero - he's often the villain of the piece.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> And Venom? Eh ... he does eat people, no matter how much you might play it for laughs.




Yep.  Not a fan of Venom, either.  I'm pretty consistent.  

And, as to Venom - the symbiote was introduced in 1984.  The Eddie Brock version of the character showed up fully in 1988.  For several years he appeared strictly as a villain.  He was given his own comic in 1993, in which they tried to transition him to an anti-hero.  After several stories in that line, it was cancelled in 1997, in significant part because Marvel's Editor-in-Chief at the time (Bob Harras) _was not comfortable with the character having his own title_.

So, let us not pretend that Venom-as-hero is somehow unquestionable, when their own editors aren't always behind it..


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 1, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Yep.  Not a fan of Venom, either.  I'm pretty consistent.
> 
> And, as to Venom - the symbiote was introduced in 1984.  The Eddie Brock version of the character showed up fully in 1988.  For several years he appeared strictly as a villain.  He was given his own comic in 1993, in which they tried to transition him to an anti-hero.  After several stories in that line, it was cancelled in 1997, in significant part because Marvel's Editor-in-Chief at the time (Bob Harras) _was not comfortable with the character having his own title_.
> 
> So, let us not pretend that Venom-as-hero is somehow unquestionable, when their own editors aren't always behind it..



Also Venom is a character who _regrets_ his villainous actions, and is only ever successfully shown as a hero in the context of seeking redemption, such as in the Agent Venom run.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Sep 1, 2021)

Umbran said:


> So, let us not pretend that Venom-as-hero is somehow unquestionable, when their own editors aren't always behind it..




I'm not pretending anything; just noting that you can't exactly claim that Marvel doesn't have a history of anti-heroes, or that the presence of same is "ill-fitting" under the Marvel banner.

If you prefer your heroes ... heroic, that I can understand. But the world of TV and movies has certainly trended in the direction of grimdark.


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 1, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I, personally, find it an ill-fitting piece for under the Marvel banner, which is otherwise about heroic figures.




really? Iron Man is started life as an unscrupulous weapons manufacturer with a drinking problem, Black widow was an assassin, Hulk is an outright monster.  if anything Punisher was a more honest portrayal of vigilante behaviour, reflecting some of the 1970s cynicism


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I'm not pretending anything; just noting that you can't exactly claim that Marvel doesn't have a history of anti-heroes, or that the presence of same is "ill-fitting" under the Marvel banner.




That they have been present does nothing to argue against _MY_ finding them ill-fitting.  I mean, tomato hornworms are ill-fitting in your home garden, but they are unfortunately often present.


----------



## Rabulias (Sep 2, 2021)

Just some idle thoughts: 
Folks online have thrown out theories that the Dr. Strange who (mis)casts the spell is not really Dr. Strange, but is Mephisto (again!), or the Chameleon, or a faked-death Mysterio. At the end of _Spider-Man: Far From Home_, we are left with not only the revelation of Peter's identity, but Mysterio falsely believed to be a hero. Beck being shown to be alive and shown to be responsible for the elemental attacks would help clear Spider-Man's name going forward. This would help if they leave Peter's identity public. Or maybe Sony wants to lean into the "Spider-Man Menace" angle that the comics used to hold?

The only problem with the Beck theory (and the Chameleon) is where did they learn to cast spells? Working magic is not a problem with Mephisto, of course, but I doubt they will be going that direction. So I was thinking maybe Wanda had something to do with this? We have a mysterious invisible figure descending on Wanda's cabin in the end credits scene of _WandaVision_. If that was Dr. Strange arriving, what if Wanda was able to magically control/nudge/manipulate him in some way to lead him to more reckless behavior regarding the multiverse? Or maybe disguise herself as him and take his place?

Looking forward to this movie more every day!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 2, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> really? Iron Man is started life as an unscrupulous weapons manufacturer with a drinking problem, Black widow was an assassin, Hulk is an outright monster.  if anything Punisher was a more honest portrayal of vigilante behaviour, reflecting some of the 1970s cynicism



All of those either have those elements as _backstory_, or as the thing they're trying to overcome. Punisher just is willfully a homicidal psychopath. 

Also, Stark's drinking problem doesn't belong on that list.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2021)

Rabulias said:


> So I was thinking maybe Wanda had something to do with this?




The cheeky behavior and wink says more Loki to me.



Rabulias said:


> We have a mysterious invisible figure descending on Wanda's cabin in the end credits scene of _WandaVision_.




 I think that's just our camera viewpoint, not an entity.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Also, Stark's drinking problem doesn't belong on that list.




Yah.  Alcoholism itself is not a moral failing.  If you want to knock Tony, knock him for not getting treatment.  Mind you, they seem to cause an issue once - at the party - and we don't see him drunk after that, do we?


----------



## Rune (Sep 2, 2021)

Umbran said:


> The cheeky behavior and wink says more Loki to me.




That could explain all of the snow. He might have opened the Casket of Ancient Winters. 

The question would be: _Why_ would he do the spell? And _how_ could he do it without enchanting everybody?


----------



## Rune (Sep 2, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Yah.  Alcoholism itself is not a moral failing.  If you want to knock Tony, knock him for not getting treatment.  Mind you, they seem to cause an issue once - at the party - and we don't see him drunk after that, do we?




Might as well also knock Hank Pym for abusing his wife.


----------



## Undrave (Sep 2, 2021)

Umbran said:


> There's already one in the Spider-Verse canon, I believe, in which May dies, instead of Uncle Ben...



There's also a classic What-If story where Uncle Ben is the one bitten by the spider. At the end of that one, Ben dies and Peter uses his science knowledge to gain the same powers and becomes Spider-Man. 

There's also 'Spider-Mam' in the Spider-Verse comic who is Aunt May (the old white haired version!) who got the Spider powers!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 2, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Yah.  Alcoholism itself is not a moral failing.  If you want to knock Tony, knock him for not getting treatment.  Mind you, they seem to cause an issue once - at the party - and we don't see him drunk after that, do we?



Well, and like, he's obviously also depressed and suffering from PTSD, and honestly I think you have to kind of set his lack of treatment at the feet of the social order in which he lives, at least in the first couple IM movies. 

I also honestly find it hard to believe that MCU Pepper hasn't ever bullied him into seeing a therapist. Literally just "I will not see you until i hear from Doctor Kumar that you've had a talk with him, Tony", and oh hey Tony is in therapy. (Dr Kumar is my doctor's name)


Rune said:


> That could explain all of the snow. He might have opened the Casket of Ancient Winters.
> 
> The question would be: _Why_ would he do the spell? And _how_ could he do it without enchanting everybody?



Loki can do magic other than enchantment, a Loki that has run around the multiverse a bit and learned some stuff, with a bit more dedication than he has previously had, could be truly terrifying.


Rune said:


> Might as well also knock Hank Pym for abusing his wife.



Um...abusing people is actually a moral failing all by itself, and Hank Pym should be "knocked" for it. What on earth are you trying to say, here?


----------



## Rabulias (Sep 2, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I think that's just our camera viewpoint, not an entity.



In June, Disney+ added an altered version of the scene and there is an invisible _something _descending from the left over the mountains as the camera POV zooms in on the cabin. See more here:


----------



## Rune (Sep 2, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Loki can do magic other than enchantment, a Loki that has run around the multiverse a bit and learned some stuff, with a bit more dedication than he has previously had, could be truly terrifying.




Strictly speaking, the variant from the end of Loki season 1 learned how from Sylvie, but he definitely isn’t capable of grand-scale enchantment by that point. Of course, time has no meaning in the TVA…


doctorbadwolf said:


> Um...abusing people is actually a moral failing all by itself, and Hank Pym should be "knocked" for it. What on earth are you trying to say, here?




Exactly that. Hank Pym should be added to the list of morally flawed Marvel heroes.


----------



## Rune (Sep 2, 2021)

Rabulias said:


> In June, Disney+ added an altered version of the scene and there is an invisible _something _descending from the left over the mountains as the camera POV zooms in on the cabin. See more here:



Pretty sure that’s just a lens artifact. Digitally added, of course.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 2, 2021)

Rune said:


> Strictly speaking, the variant from the end of Loki season 1 learned how from Sylvie, but he definitely isn’t capable of grand-scale enchantment by that point. Of course, time has no meaning in the TVA…



Exactly that, Loki has been limited mostly by his own smug arrogance and lack of need to grow beyond that. The variant has had those traits punched into submission by experience, and met Lokis more powerful than himself. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Loki rivals Strange going forward.


Rune said:


> Exactly that. Hank Pym should be added to the list of morally flawed Marvel heroes.



Okay, it came across like you were equivocating between Pym's abuse and Stark's addiction, and I was like....uhhhhhh lol

ANyway, yeah, TBH I think they should have either moved Pym into the villain space or removed that event in one of the various reboots, years ago, but barring that, yeah. Abusers aren't just morally flawed, they're unacceptable targets of hero worship on any level. (not that I think hero worship is ever actually a useful and good thing, but that's even further tangential)


----------



## Rune (Sep 2, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> (not that I think hero worship is ever actually a useful and good thing, but that's even further tangential)




The entire industry is built on it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 2, 2021)

Rune said:


> The entire industry is built on it.



Okay.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Well, and like, he's obviously also depressed and suffering from PTSD, and honestly I think you have to kind of set his lack of treatment at the feet of the social order in which he lives, at least in the first couple IM movies.




The social order in which he lives is one in which he is immensely wealthy.  He could get treatment.

One of my usual players has PTSD.  They find Tony to be one of their favorite characters in the MCU, but also notes that unless you are at the point where you are deemed no longer competent to make decisions, you are responsible for a decision to not seek treatment.

Things can still go wrong for those with mental health issues while in treatment, and some leeway may be given.  But it you aren't even trying, then that, at least, is on them. 



doctorbadwolf said:


> Loki can do magic other than enchantment, a Loki that has run around the multiverse a bit and learned some stuff, with a bit more dedication than he has previously had, could be truly terrifying.




And, in the comics, is truly terrifying.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Um...abusing people is actually a moral failing all by itself, and Hank Pym should be "knocked" for it.




Yep.  Really, have none of you read The Ultimates?  It was an alternate universe Avengers, written my Mark Millar.  In normal comics continuity, I believe Pym hits his wife once (which is not acceptable).  In Ultimates, he's a habitual offender, who verbally, emotionally, and physically abuses her on a regular basis.  When Ultimates Cap learns this, he calls Pym out, goads him into growing to giant size and then drops a building under construction on Pym, nearly killing him.

Not that Ultimates Cap is a Boy Scout - he's a violent jingoist, who at one point, when asked if he was going to give up a fight uttered the immortal words, "What do you think this A on my forehead stands for?  France?!?"  Because everyone Millar writes is, in some way, a dillweed.


----------



## ART! (Sep 2, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> really? Iron Man is started life as an unscrupulous weapons manufacturer with a drinking problem, Black widow was an assassin, Hulk is an outright monster.  if anything Punisher was a more honest portrayal of vigilante behaviour, reflecting some of the 1970s cynicism



Stark's heroism consists at least in part of him making amends for his weapons manufacturer history _and_ his alcoholism. Ditto Natasha. One of the core premises of Hulk/Banner is the question of whether he's a "monster" or not.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Exactly that, Loki has been limited mostly by his own smug arrogance and lack of need to grow beyond that. The variant has had those traits punched into submission by experience, and met Lokis more powerful than himself. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Loki rivals Strange going forward.









Doctor Strange #381-#385  Loki: Sorcerer Supreme


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 2, 2021)

Umbran said:


> The social order in which he lives is one in which he is immensely wealthy.  He could get treatment.



And one in which seeking treatment is treated as a weakness.


Umbran said:


> One of my usual players has PTSD.  They find Tony to be one of their favorite characters in the MCU, but also notes that unless you are at the point where you are deemed no longer competent to make decisions, you are responsible for a decision to not seek treatment.
> 
> Things can still go wrong for those with mental health issues while in treatment, and some leeway may be given.  But it you aren't even trying, then that, at least, is on them.



And, if you'll recall what I said, it was that in the first couple movies it's not really a fair criticism. Eventually it becomes outright hard to believe that those around him haven't been trying to get him into treatment. Like, it's not like they show Pepper trying and Tony refusing or simply failing to follow through, they just act like everyone around him would just...not try? I think maybe we shouldn't try to get too nitpicky about real world particulars, here. The story simply doesn't make sense if we do. 




Umbran said:


> And, in the comics, is truly terrifying.



Yeah, they have slowly moved toward the comics over time in the MCU, in terms of who and what Thor and Loki really are. Ragnarok is _definitely_ not all science. Odin is dead, and speaks to Thor from death. They're supernatural beings, not just aliens with advanced tech.


Umbran said:


> Yep.  Really, have none of you read The Ultimates?  It was an alternate universe Avengers, written my Mark Millar.  In normal comics continuity, I believe Pym hits his wife once (which is not acceptable).  In Ultimates, he's a habitual offender, who verbally, emotionally, and physically abuses her on a regular basis.  When Ultimates Cap learns this, he calls Pym out, goads him into growing to giant size and then drops a building under construction on Pym, nearly killing him.
> 
> Not that Ultimates Cap is a Boy Scout - he's a violent jingoist, who at one point, when asked if he was going to give up a fight uttered the immortal words, "What do you think this A on my forehead stands for?  France?!?"  Because everyone Millar writes is, in some way, a dillweed.



Yeah tbh I think Wasp is the only Ultimates team member I actually like in The Ultimates. Ultimates Cap is...just terrible. A complete 180 from nearly any other Cap ever written. Thor is just kindof a dumb arrogant jerk. etc. 

But! That universe is chock full of really good character _premises_, which they used well in the MCU early on, especially in the first Thor movie. The whole thing where Loki pretends to be Thor's very mortal brother and convinces people that Thor is just a crazy metahuman is very good. I kinda wish they'd done more with that in the MCU, but the nods to it are very cool.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> And one in which seeking treatment is treated as a weakness.




I am not sure that's really true, but regardless, I don't think, "They would have thought I was weak," makes much of an excuse for harm brought to others.



doctorbadwolf said:


> And, if you'll recall what I said, it was that in the first couple movies it's not really a fair criticism. Eventually it becomes outright hard to believe that those around him haven't been trying to get him into treatment.




The original Iron Man movie was far back enough for them to play the generally false "I'm strong enough to handle it" card.  Marvel was brave enough to show a hero with a problem, but not brave enough to show a hero getting help for his problem.



doctorbadwolf said:


> But! That universe is chock full of really good character _premises_...




And, we got Miles Morales from it, and that's a plus.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 2, 2021)

Umbran said:


> I am not sure that's really true, but regardless, I don't think, "They would have thought I was weak," makes much of an excuse for harm brought to others.



I never said it was?


Umbran said:


> And, we got Miles Morales from it, and that's a plus.



Sure, I was only speaking to the actual team called the Ultimates, in their primary story run, not the entire Ultimate universe.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 2, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I never said it was?




Setting aside how it may be in accurate - Why point out that the social order views seeking treatment as weakness, except as a mitigating circumstance for not seeking treatment?



doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure, I was only speaking to the actual team called the Ultimates, in their primary story run, not the entire Ultimate universe.




Fair enough.  In my defense, you did say (emphasis mine), "That *universe* is chock full of really good character _premises...." _


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 2, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Setting aside how it may be in accurate - Why point out that the social order views seeking treatment as weakness, except as a mitigating circumstance for not seeking treatment?



First, mitigation and excuse aren't the same thing. Second, why keep ignoring the fact that my position has always been that his lack of treatment is only really a mark against him after the first couple movies, when enough time has passed that his need for treatment, ie that he cannot just deal with it on his own, is very clear by the harm that has been caused as a result of his not dealing with his trauma?


Umbran said:


> Fair enough.  In my defense, you did say (emphasis mine), "That *universe* is chock full of really good character _premises...." _



Yes, as a separate point from the point where I said that Janet is the only "Ultimates team member" that I like. Not trying to be nitpicky, it just comes across like you skimmed and then responded, so I felt I should clarify.


----------



## trappedslider (Sep 3, 2021)

Rune said:


> Pretty sure that’s just a lens artifact. Digitally added, of course.



they also added in a few musical notes from Doctor Strange


----------

