• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Spoilers First concept art for ‘AVENGERS: DOOMSDAY’

Huh.

I am surprised to say I would probably watch this movie. I'm not a huge fan of the MCU these days. Or a fan at all maybe, but this... looks like a fun take?

Just please god don't burden it down with a thousand complicated lore-explanations and links to other shows/movies. Characters can just show up! People get it!

*An X-men comics story from the 1980s when a Conan-era magician called Kulan Gath (yes, the Hyborian age is canonically the past of the Marvel universe) magically rewrites New York into a swords and sorcery setting for a couple of issues. Comics, everybody!
Hell yeah to all of that!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Just please god don't burden it down with a thousand complicated lore-explanations and links to other shows/movies. Characters can just show up! People get it!
the princess bride queue GIF

Generally speaking, the Avengers movies have been the payoff to setup done in other movies. There's gonna be links.
 

the princess bride queue GIF

Generally speaking, the Avengers movies have been the payoff to setup done in other movies. There's gonna be links.
Just because you screwed something up before, doesn't mean you have to screw up in the same way again! Ever since Endgame it's been a long string of failed or so-so setup/payoffs, and honestly Endgame didn't even need any setup that wasn't the previous Avengers movies.

But my faith in the competence of Kevin Feige is... low... so they may just pursue the same failing strategy once more!
 

Just because you screwed something up before, doesn't mean you have to screw up in the same way again! Ever since Endgame it's been a long string of failed or so-so setup/payoffs, and honestly Endgame didn't even need any setup that wasn't the previous Avengers movies.

But my faith in the competence of Kevin Feige is... low... so they may just pursue the same failing strategy once more!

The MCU is making the same mistake that comics make regarding "Continuity" (which is why the word can get a bad reputation in both fields). And I don't quite understand why. To me, the solution is simple: You should tell each story as if it is an entirely new story. It shouldn't matter if a character is introduced to us for the first time here, or if they have been in something before. At the same time, you don't need to do everyone's origins or use giant piles of expository to "fill the audience in". You just need to have everything they need to know exist within the framework of this story. Having seen other stories with the characters or situations should be a perk, not a requirement.
 

The MCU is making the same mistake that comics make regarding "Continuity" (which is why the word can get a bad reputation in both fields). And I don't quite understand why. To me, the solution is simple: You should tell each story as if it is an entirely new story. It shouldn't matter if a character is introduced to us for the first time here, or if they have been in something before. At the same time, you don't need to do everyone's origins or use giant piles of expository to "fill the audience in". You just need to have everything they need to know exist within the framework of this story. Having seen other stories with the characters or situations should be a perk, not a requirement.
I really can't agree with this. To me, some level of continuity is important. If a thing has been previously established in the same story framework, it should stay the same – at least in broad strokes – or the differences should be explained. If regular Asgardians have previously been shown to easily kick a truck across a parking lot, Asgardians should not be shown with regular human strength in another movie. If the Kingpin has previously been shown as strongly dedicated to his wife Vanessa, he should not be shown next as a philandering womanizer – at least not without a good explanation, such as Vanessa no longer being in the picture and him trying to fill the hole she left.

That said, you don't have to use all the continuity. If Kingpin isn't involved in a story, his romantic involvements or lack thereof are not relevant. Writing someone out and replacing them with someone else is usually a better option than changing them. Maybe the Rose, or Tombstone, or Mr. Negative are running organized crime in NY these days – that's a better option than redefining who the Kingpin is.

I do agree on one point though, and that's that you don't need to fully introduce everyone in every story, and you don't have to start with an origin story. I know that Chris Claremont had a principle when writing the X-Men, which was that every comic is someone's first. That didn't mean "Continuity is useless" – anyone familiar with the Claremont era knows that it was an amazing soap opera of nested plot threads all over the place. What it means is that any comic needs to quickly introduce the main cast (often via a Danger Room sequence), and also remind the reader of any character that recurs. "Juggernaut! I thought we dropped you in the middle of the ocean!" — "Yeah, took me a month to walk back along the ocean floor." Of the MCU movies, I actually think the Incredible Hulk does this best – we see some newspaper clippings and such during the intro, but otherwise we're just dealing with a Bruce Banner that's already been on the run for quite a while. Guardians of the Galaxy sort of does the same, but it does form the origin story of the group, if not its members.
 

I really can't agree with this. To me, some level of continuity is important. If a thing has been previously established in the same story framework, it should stay the same – at least in broad strokes – or the differences should be explained.
I don't disagree at all with this statement and don't understand why you'd think that what I said and what you're saying here are mutually exclusive.
 

I don't disagree at all with this statement and don't understand why you'd think that what I said and what you're saying here are mutually exclusive.
I may have misread your "You should tell each story as if it is an entirely new story." I strongly believe that connected stories should be part of the same continuity. If Fisk is acting one way in Daredevil, he should act more or less the same way in Hawkeye, or at least have an explanation of the changes.

That said, I'm OK with massaging continuity in response to real-world changes – moreso in comics than in film, because of the sliding timescale comics (at least Marvel) work with. For example, in the comics Tony Stark originally got captured in Vietnam, and this has later been retconned as an unspecified South-East Asian country, Afghanistan, and now the fictional country of Siancong (where Frank Castle and Ben Grimm also served, though in unrelated roles). That makes sense, because the Vietnam War was 50 years ago, the specifics of the war aren't vital to his character, and I don't believe he'd had a "rebirth" event (the way Magneto was regressed to childhood and later re-aged to the prime of his life). I'd be much less inclined to accept Magneto's connection to the Holocaust being removed from the comics, as that is such a huge part of his motivation.
 

Come to think of it, I am much more open to canon-breaking in RPGs than in books, comics, movies, or TV. I think it might be because in passive media like those, the story is what's on the page, while in RPGs the story is what happens at the table. The published material is more like a manual for making your own story, not the story itself.

So for example, I have no issue with the latest version of Deadlands saying the US Civil War ended in 1871 instead of still being ongoing in the current year of 1884, despite the edition before being set in 1879 with the Civil War still ongoing. Basically, the designer decided that having the war still ongoing didn't add enough to the setting to make up for the discomfort of some players when others were playing Confederates, and so he figured out a way to retcon that. That's perfectly fair IMO, because the book-world doesn't exist until it actually hits the table and becomes the game-world.
 

To me, some level of continuity is important.
Which is what distinguishes you from easily 90% of people going to MCU movies or superhero movies of any kind.

Most people just don't give two shakes of a lamb's tail about continuity details so long as the personality and vibes of the hero/villain in question are on point. This is why different versions of the same hero/villain in different shows and movies tend to actually be popular.

I don't disagree at all with this statement and don't understand why you'd think that what I said and what you're saying here are mutually exclusive.
I think it's about level of detail. @Staffan says "broad strokes", which is reasonable, but then goes into examples which aren't "broad strokes" at all.
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top