More Marvel at Disney

[hakepb]

The problem is they are really just rehashing the same story with new characters we dont really "love". They made a mistake BIGTIME by not letting Kylo keep the mask on. He was such a bad-a with the voice and stopping the blaster shot in midair in the first one and then they turn him into a whiny kid. I know that is part of the story but they need a scare you to death villain like Vader was. Vader was scary and mysterious and cold... Kylo freaked me out more until they had him take his mask off.

I’d agree Kylo is not a great villain. A lot of contemporary movies have really struggled depicting villains... and it’s why the latest trailer had to bring in Palalatine.

But look at the great job Marvel did with Loki. Menacing and whiny isn’t necessary if the villain mostly has better strategy.

 

[jknezek]

I’d agree Kylo is not a great villain. A lot of contemporary movies have really struggled depicting villains... and it’s why the latest trailer had to bring in Palalatine.

But look at the great job Marvel did with Loki. Menacing and whiny isn’t necessary if the villain mostly has better strategy.

Forget Loki. Think of Thanos or even the villain from Black Panther. Both had causes, reasons, drive. They were fantastic, understandable, even somewhat justifiable reasons for doing what they were doing, if not how they were doing it. I have yet to see anything from Ren or the stunted and undeveloped Snoke that approaches the development of Marvel's best villains.

 

[Tandy]

Forget Loki. Think of Thanos or even the villain from Black Panther. Both had causes, reasons, drive. They were fantastic, understandable, even somewhat justifiable reasons for doing what they were doing, if not how they were doing it. I have yet to see anything from Ren or the stunted and undeveloped Snoke that approaches the development of Marvel's best villains.

Yes for some reason (even tho he is in the first one for sure) I never see Loki as a villain. I see him as a trickster who tries to get one over all the time but I never really hate him or see him as bad. They did a good job with that.

I just needed a person in this trilogy to think "oh man here he comes you are in trouble" and I dont have that. The most I get with that are Snokes red guards and they are throw away characters. Even Phasma (I know it sounds sexist but it is not) isnt really intimidating with the woman's voice. They just needed one that you were fearful when they showed up. A true "dark side" character.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

Yes for some reason (even tho he is in the first one for sure) I never see Loki as a villain. I see him as a trickster who tries to get one over all the time but I never really hate him or see him as bad. They did a good job with that.

I just needed a person in this trilogy to think "oh man here he comes you are in trouble" and I dont have that. The most I get with that are Snokes red guards and they are throw away characters. Even Phasma (I know it sounds sexist but it is not) isnt really intimidating with the woman's voice. They just needed one that you were fearful when they showed up. A true "dark side" character.

True.

Even Boba Fett, who really is hardly more that a throw away villain in Ep V and VI, is more memorable than Kylo Ren, Phasma, and Snoke, combined.

Heroes are also underdeveloped, and uninteresting. When kids can't remember their names after seeing the movie, you know you have a problem! After the movie, I overhead kids talking about it, and they called them the pilot, the ex-stormtrooper, and couldn't remember the names. Only name they all remembered was Rey.

 

[Anthony Vito]

While not know what the actual list of characters that can and cannot be used (what about Black Panther?), I think it will be very interesting to see going forward with the next phases of the MCU. With the MCU likely making a serious shift in focus of its characters, will the next generation of characters all be ones Disney can use? Also, if the popularity of those characters grows to what the Avengers currently is, will Disney even care as much whether they are cut off from certain characters that are no longer even in the movies? Think if 10 years from now they have a hit movie at the level of Endgame (which I doubt, but no one thought 10 years ago that they'd build it to this) and that it focuses on the Guardians characters, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, etc.

 

[1lilspark]

@Anthony Vito for a hot second there was talk about Black Panther (but he was in a mural in a gift shop at IOA) as well as Captain Marvel (but we can’t use the word Marvel)

I still think Tomorrowland could use a proper Doctor Strange meet

 

[DanBoris]

@Anthony Vito for a hot second there was talk about Black Panther (but he was in a mural in a gift shop at IOA) as well as Captain Marvel (but we can’t use the word Marvel)

I still think Tomorrowland could use a proper Doctor Strange meet

His use in the mural would not be enough to give Universal the rights, but the fact that he is strongly tied to both the Fantastic Four and the Avengers in the comics would.

 

[BrianL]

Forget Loki. Think of Thanos or even the villain from Black Panther. Both had causes, reasons, drive. They were fantastic, understandable, even somewhat justifiable reasons for doing what they were doing, if not how they were doing it. I have yet to see anything from Ren or the stunted and undeveloped Snoke that approaches the development of Marvel's best villains.

Yeah, but...I'll just jump in here and say that there was nothing like that from Vader or Palpatine either. They are pretty much evil for the sake of evil. Now, with Anakin we at least saw his journey int he prequels, but in the OT he is just as much a cipher as Kylo Ren (actually more so as at least we understand part of Kylo's motives such as they are). Star Wars is a universe of big ideas and little nuance. It has always been that way.

 

[jknezek]

Yeah, but...I'll just jump in here and say that there was nothing like that from Vader or Palpatine either. They are pretty much evil for the sake of evil. Now, with Anakin we at least saw his journey int he prequels, but in the OT he is just as much a cipher as Kylo Ren (actually more so as at least we understand part of Kylo's motives such as they are). Star Wars is a universe of big ideas and little nuance. It has always been that way.

Yes. But the OT is 40 years old. Movies have moved on and the best ones have villains with backstories. The OT was a space western with a fantasy component. It was original on it's own. The special effects were groundbreaking. It had a lot going for it that is hard to replicate these days. These days you actually need the components of a good story if you aren't going to do something groundbreaking. This new trilogy is derivative, to be kkind.Kind of the opposite of groundbreaking. They need to tell a better story, and that includes having better villains.

 

[BrianL]

Yes. But the OT is 40 years old. Movies have moved on and the best ones have villains with backstories. The OT was a space western with a fantasy component. It was original on it's own. The special effects were groundbreaking. It had a lot going for it that is hard to replicate these days. These days you actually need the components of a good story if you aren't going to do something groundbreaking. This new trilogy is derivative, to be kkind.Kind of the opposite of groundbreaking. They need to tell a better story, and that includes having better villains.

I do not think that your assessment of older movies as not needing the "components of a good story" is very accurate, nor do I agree that the OT didn't possess them. It is just a different kind of movie to the Marvel ones. Honestly, other then their interconnected nature, the basic stories of the Marvel films are also derivative, at the very least of the comic books they are based on.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

Yeah, but...I'll just jump in here and say that there was nothing like that from Vader or Palpatine either. They are pretty much evil for the sake of evil. Now, with Anakin we at least saw his journey int he prequels, but in the OT he is just as much a cipher as Kylo Ren (actually more so as at least we understand part of Kylo's motives such as they are). Star Wars is a universe of big ideas and little nuance. It has always been that way.

Palpatine is evil for the sake of evil, yes. But not Vader, even in the OT.

In ANH, we learn very early that he was once a Jedi who betrayed them. This promises the deliverance of more of a story.

ESB we find he's Luke's father, and there is a connection between them. JEJ did a great job with voice acting in the final scene to show he does have a connection with Luke, and that he is not evil. Of course, in ROJ, he saves Luke and ends the Sith.

Though we don't know the back story until the prequels, we know there IS a story that would explain his fall from being a Jedi.

 

[jknezek]

I do not think that your assessment of older movies as not needing the "components of a good story" is very accurate, nor do I agree that the OT didn't possess them. It is just a different kind of movie to the Marvel ones. Honestly, other then their interconnected nature, the basic stories of the Marvel films are also derivative, at the very least of the comic books they are based on.

I think you vastly oversimplified my point. Star Wars the OT was essentially a brand new thing. This retread trilogy lacks the new and shiny and so they probably should have tried something else. Maybe villains with a good and solid backstory would have helped. Maybe. It still has made buckets of money at least, so I'm sure Disney is not too upse .

 

[BrianL]

I think you vastly oversimplified my point. Star Wars the OT was essentially a brand new thing. This retread trilogy lacks the new and shiny and so they probably should have tried something else. Maybe villains with a good and solid backstory would have helped. Maybe. It still has made buckets of money at least, so I'm sure Disney is not too upse .

Well, I took it as you saying a movie with thin villains was okay 40 years ago but not anymore, as if older movies were held to a lower standard and not as good. I don't know that I even see the villains as "thin" in the OT, just simple, which is not necessarily bad to me. While I certainly see the point that the Sequel Trilogy has been derivative, I've also been able to enjoy it. I mean, the OT was derivative too in some ways. All movies are really. You have to look back pretty far to find a wholly original idea in Hollywood.

 

[BrianL]

Palpatine is evil for the sake of evil, yes. But not Vader, even in the OT.

In ANH, we learn very early that he was once a Jedi who betrayed them. This promises the deliverance of more of a story.

ESB we find he's Luke's father, and there is a connection between them. JEJ did a great job with voice acting in the final scene to show he does have a connection with Luke, and that he is not evil. Of course, in ROJ, he saves Luke and ends the Sith.

Though we don't know the back story until the prequels, we know there IS a story that would explain his fall from being a Jedi.

I get that, but the OT alone didn't really give his motivations or backstory. Certainly in A New Hope, Vader was just there. I like that there was more to the world and that the prequels eventually gave us that story, but it took a while. Of course, I am not arguing that the movies needed to even give that story, just that the ST is being held to a standard that the OT was not by a lot of fans. I think it's fine just the way it is.

 

[Nsaudra]

I really think Disney is trying to update there parks, that's really good cause most of the movies my son had never herd of till we had a moviecation before our trip... still he was clueless when it came to princesses.

 

[diswis]

Ha. They should take some of the 2.5 billion for endgame (not even including IW's profit) and get back some rights for the og 6, or at least to use them in an attraction. They could make a war machine ride w cameos from Iron man? (Not sure if war machine is off limits)
All jokes aside, they really should make one.
Make it like SWGE, but without all the cuts.

 

[diswis]

I can't recall, but Drax was a member of "The Infinity Watch" at the time and some of those characters may have been depicted. As far as I know, if they even show up on a mural in a gift shop, they are off limits. Drax looked very different than he does now, but if he was shown then that'll do it. Those characters may have been in one of the 90's cartoons, which would explain it (this would have included Adam Warlock, Drax, Moondragon, actually Gamorra too). Those cartoons were heavily used as the models for how the characters would appear at Universal (and they were quite popular). I found it surprising that Dr. Strange was not included since he did appear once or twice on the 90's Spider-Man cartoon.

I might've missed something, but I hope that's not the case.
I know it's completely different, but he is in DL on Mission Breakout.

 

[BrianL]

I might've missed something, but I hope that's not the case.
I know it's completely different, but he is in DL on Mission Breakout.

Yeah, DL is under no constraints at all, hence why Spider-Man is getting a ride there and already does meet & greets along with Captains America and Marvel, etc.

 

[HeightRequirement]

Nope. The '94 contract specifically grants Universal the rights "in perpetuity" (legalese for "forever or they don't want them anymore") while Universal still has a Marvel presence inside their Orlando parks.

This is the breakdown...

• Universal has the theme park rights to most Marvel characters EAST of the Mississippi. There are some exceptions, mostly characters debuted after 1994
  • Characters may be used by any other theme park WEST of the Mississippi
  • Theme park usage of characters used by Universal Studio Orlando are not allowed to be marketed East of the Mississippi
  • Theme park usage of character NOT used by Universal Studio Orlando is allowed to be marketed within 300 miles of Orlando
• Universal owns the word "Marvel" for ALL theme park usage EAST AND WEST of the Mississippi. That means Disney cannot use the the word "Marvel" in theme parks or theme park marketing, even at Disneyland Resort

To re-iterate this last point, Disneyland/DCA will be rolling out a new "super hero" land at DCA with new "super hero" rides, but CANNOT use the word "Marvel."

Universal has the Simpsons rights sewn up until at least 2028, which is the earliest Disney can truly exert pressure on Comcast to trade for Marvel rights. Everyone expects Universal would prefer to keep Springfield over Marvel, the only true Marvel-centric ride at IOA is Spider-Man, everything else is the equivalent of an overlay.

I think a Marvel land at WDW would be epic. They have the space for it and Disney Imagineers would do a great job.

 

[DanBoris]

Ha. They should take some of the 2.5 billion for endgame (not even including IW's profit) and get back some rights for the og 6, or at least to use them in an attraction. They could make a war machine ride w cameos from Iron man? (Not sure if war machine is off limits)
All jokes aside, they really should make one.
Make it like SWGE, but without all the cuts.

I enjoy Marvel, and Marvel based rides at WDW would be cool, but I would rather see them use the money that would go to buying out the contract, to actually build rides for something they can use.