|
On the subject of everyone knowing Walker has the serum in him: I would suspect that the fact that the council delivers an "other than honorable" discharge and removes Walker so completely from the military is an indication that they DON'T know he's enhanced. But then Val knows.
Stick with me here.
The military can't appear to condone the actions of Walker from the murder, so they very publicly distance themselves from the guy. However, as Shinny Shin Shin mentions above, some of the folks on the council could be Intelligence agents.
The Contessa in the comics was a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent pretty much consistently, although she then doubled as an agent for other groups over time. What if the military is publicly disavowing Walker, so that Val can recruit him, so that he comes BACK into the control of the military through an Intelligence branch... like SWORD or something? But, since over the weekend I read that in the comics Walker had ties to the RAFT, what if the Contessa is recruiting John, setting him up to fail, so that then he can be sent to the RAFT where not only can they experiment with his serum-enhanced blood but they can ALSO put him on the Thunderbolts which I think is pretty much confirmed to be a thing in the next phases of the MCU?
I know that's kind of convoluted and the military COULD'VE experimented on him as a soldier like they did with Bradley, except that the optics of grabbing John and declaring him dead to put him in a military prison somewhere might've been bad.
Rather, let's disavow him so the public KNOWS he's bad, then use our intel agent Val to get him to do more criminal stuff as a private citizen, and thus we can put him into the group of other hopeless criminals we can use with impunity. At least, that's what I THINK the council might be thinking.
But I might be overthinking it :)
That makes sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly, I've read that the Contessa was originally supposed to make her debut in the Black Widow movie, which of course got delayed. This interesting because...
In the comics, the Contessa turned out to be a Leviathan (Soviet) agent, working as a triple agent against both SHIELD and Hydra. Would be interesting if she had Russian ties here, working for whatever entity is creating the new Red Room we've seen glimpses of in the Black Widow trailers.
Others have speculated she's working for/with Thunderbolt Ross and is recruiting Walker for the Thunderbolts.
Alternatively, she also worked in the comics closely with Agent 13 (the Contessa was Agent 14). She might be working with Sharon on whatever shady, Batroc-hiring stuff Sharon is up to.
And at the risk of picking at wounds:
I'm not sure the term "retcon" applies when her actual history isn't actually changed. I understand that perhaps on her earliest appearances the intention was not that she was a double/triple agent, but revealing that she adds new information. To me "retroactive continuity" is to say Wonder Woman is now daughter of Zeus rather than sole child of Hippolyta formed from clay and given life--a new history actively replaces and contradicts with the new. The Contessa having been in deep cover doesn't change all that she did prior.
Russian agent doesn't necessarily mean villain, though I understand what you are saying. Nonetheless the show is presenting her as at least a grey area character. Clandestinely recruiting a clearly murderously insane John Walker is not a heroic act.
Does it have to be a heroic act? Why does that even matter? She's potentially using an asset? Isn't that what the espionage game is all about? Leveraging and using assets?
To me "retroactive continuity" is to say Wonder Woman is now daughter of Zeus rather than sole child of Hippolyta formed from clay and given life--a new history actively replaces and contradicts with the new. The Contessa having been in deep cover doesn't change all that she did prior.
The bit about being a secret Leviathan agent replaced her known history. I'm not exactly seeing how it's different than the Diana example - except that the new history is narratively consistent with the old.
If the definition of "retcon" is now stretched to mean something that actively contradicts the older continuity then that would probably slide a few agreed upon retcons off the list.
Does it have to be a heroic act? Why does that even matter? She's potentially using an asset? Isn't that what the espionage game is all about? Leveraging and using assets?
I was replying to thejeff who said he wanted her to be heroic, using that word specifically, and I was just noting she is probably not "heroic" in the classic sense based on what we know about her so far (ignoring comic book events). I don't care whether she is or not and I'm rooting for grey area/wildcard myself. I think one valid theory is she is working to fight the obvious bad guys, but indeed is a blackops type who is willing to do so by any means necessary.
And then he clarified
"Heroic" might not be the right word for an agent, but something other than outright villain was all I really meant.
And that's cool and I agree.
As for retcon, I rescind my nitpicking. I can see the fine line in my head but it's not worth derailing the thread for and I get what y'all are saying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to comment, but then DeathQuaker said it, so I'll just say what she said.
I've worked in and taught theater and camera acting for 26 years, and it is definitely true that comedic acting is harder than dramatic acting. This may not extend to comedians who are just playing themselves in a movie or sitcom.
Also, even though it veers into a lot of different genres, pretty much all Marvel movies and the Disney+ shows we have seen so far are at least in part action comedies, so peppering the casts with folks who have comedy chops makes sense.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for tomorrow's finale, I have only one concern:** spoiler omitted **
I have a feeling that "crumpling" of Walker's self-made shield is exactly what will happen. Which, you'd think, would seem obvious to Walker. I have my own theories as to why he went ahead and made one for himself.
One of those theories is that they wanted to showcase his currently disturbed state of mind (maybe a PTSD diagnosis), so as to more easily give the character an avenue for redemption. I wouldn't be surprised if, somewhere near the end, he's sitting in a room with Bucky's shrink.
Edit: That said, I have my doubts he'll be redeemed, because I have my doubts many fans will want him to be redeemed. I don't think a lot of fans like him. Which, of course, means the writers and the actor did what they intended to do.
That being said, ultimately, I think she was not the best choice for the role. If, as in the comics, they try to reveal her as Madame Hydra or an agent of Leviathan, all I'm ever going to see is her sitting in the diner with Jerry and the others. Maybe she'll do okay in the role. I think they could have done far better.It's been 23 years since she last did that role and she's been a lead in two successful, long-running shows since then, one of which wasn't a straight-out comedy (though it was still a dramedy), so it seems pretty silly trying to typecast her for a role that's a quarter-century in the rear view mirror.
My thoughts exactly. If you can't see her potential beyond Seinfeld you haven't paid attention to what she's been in since. She's an AMAZING actress and to be honest, they are very LUCKY to have her in that show, not the other way around...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's my Captain America. That was awesome.
There is an end credit scene.
So, is Sharon just evil or is she in deep SHIELD cover? I'm kind of digging it either way. I ask the latter because she used SHIELD tech this episode (the holoveil), she used a mercenary with SHIELD ties (she hired Batroc, whom Nick Fury hired in Captain America: The Winter Soldier), and a lot of the other tech she gave to the Flagsmashers seemed very SHIELDy in nature (although the mercury bomb was nasty). And it makes more sense if she led Sam/Bucky/Zemo to Nagel and allowed him to be killed (and also seems to sabotage her own efforts here) if she's a deep cover agent. (I am assuming either way, she killed the former Power Broker that Zemo knew and took his place.)
Or... was it Agatha all along? ;)
Trying desperately to avoid spoilers until I can knock off work in about nine hours...
|
As a fan of the comics, who absolutely loves when the MCU serves up a swerve that departs interestingly from 'canon,' I'm digging the development of Sharon. In the comics, she's been stuck as the fifth-most interesting spy chick, after people like Black Widow and Mockingbird, and tends to get used kind of inconsistently. But this, a meaty role, and she could end up being a major character, even if it's far, FAR, from her comic book role...
I liked the show, overall, but this last episode felt a little weird, pacing wise. Big climactic fight, in the middle of the episode, followed by 20 minutes of denoument? No. I'm a dude. Climax. Then nap.
When the punching stops, you got 5 minutes before you lose me. Wrap it up quicker!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Typical. I enjoyed the splodey, but after the rapid action I definitely thought "I'm not finished yet" and was grateful for the slower, steadier slide to final completion.
And then a little cuddle afterward.
|
|
After several weather-related technical interruptions, the wife and I finally made it through the entire episode. Now that the series is all said and done, I stand by my initial assessment that it was far superior to WandaVision. Though, admittedly, each show had a different purpose, I think.
Some thoughts....
For the most part, I like the new Captain America costume. It's a good blend of the Falcon suit, and Steve's various suits. Except the mask. I'm not sure why, but for some reason it seems...off....to me. Still, this show and subsequent movies will finally allow for something those who run the comic book universe will never have to stones to do - replace the identity behind the mask with another PERMANENTLY (or, at least until Mackie decides to move on from the MCU). I always liked they put Sam as Cap in the comics (even if I never collected any of those books), because it made sense. I'm glad to see they continued that here.
And, speaking of Sam as Cap. He did an awesome job, both in the fighting, and the speech-giving/winning of hearts and minds.
I liked Isaiah being added to the Cap museum. The only thing that bums me out about his inclusion is them making him so old. I'd have loved to seen him in action. I hope they utilized the character some more, as Carl Lumbly is a good actor.
I did not like Sharon as Power Broker. I thought the revelation of her as a villain was an insult to the character. Which is why I'm not quite sure I believe it, or that last phone call. I'm hoping all that was some kind of deep cover spy stuff.
Walker looked good in his USAgent costume. I look forward to seeing them do some more with him, after the way the writers screwed him over. He deserves a redemption arc. I still don't think Dreyfuss was the correct person for the role of the Contessa. That would have been better with a European actress, of which there are several, vastly superior ones I can think of just off the top of my head.
I hope we get to see more of Batroc. The actor they got to portray him is really growing on me.
Edit: Should we get someone from Paizo to change the thread title from "The Falcon" to "Captain America"?
Ok... Season 1, Episode 6. And that's it?
Anyone else think they filmed 12 and are just keeping the other half for 'Season 2'?
|
There were also 6 episodes of WandaVision, and I beleive what they are doing for Loki, etc.
This seems to be the approach Marvel is taking with these Disney+ series - keep them to 6 episodes so they can tell a single story that integrates with the movies and then move on. I doubt they would shoot an additional 6 only to hold them for some future second season.
Freehold will marathon at some point.
|
|
This show had 6. WandaVision had 9. Loki will also have just 6. No word yet (that I could find) on how many episodes are in the Hawkeye series, which I saw had recently wrapped filming.
It'll be interesting to see if they settle on "x" number of episodes going forward, or if they keep things a little more open. I, personally, hope they keep the numbers a bit more flexible, to allow the writers some breathing room.
|
|
Don't go just by # of episodes though. Wandavision episodes were closer to 30 minutes each while Falcon and Winter Soldier are around 50-60 minutes each, so it actually is longer in terms of total minutes of content.
Good point. I’d forgotten about that. I guess it depends on the show runner and writers, how they structure each episode to tell what they want. Which is cool, since it gives each creative team more of that flexibility.
Re: Casting an American actress for the role: I do know some Italian-Americans who play up being claimants to Italian noble titles if the Italian Republic hadn't abolished them post-WWII. One friend of the family used "Contessa" as a title socially until she died.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Another thought about Julia Louise Dreyfus as the Contessa - if she's a double or triple agent, wouldn't it make for a much more effective cover if she spoke fluent English without an accent, rather than sound Russian or Eastern European? If she can pull one of those accents off, and use it in a later scene talking with her bosses that would make a lot more sense than to have her sound foreign to start with.
Another thought about Julia Louise Dreyfus as the Contessa - if she's a double or triple agent, wouldn't it make for a much more effective cover if she spoke fluent English without an accent, rather than sound Russian or Eastern European? If she can pull one of those accents off, and use it in a later scene talking with her bosses that would make a lot more sense than to have her sound foreign to start with.
Not sure what you're talking about; she speaks with a normal American accent.
Unless you're saying she should speak with an accent, most spies fictionally and in real life are taught to lose their accents. (I actually think it's really weird that Yelena and Milena in the Black Widow trailers have accents, as the Black Widows have been trained to lose their accents since 1937--and while yes that clip comes from a TV show and people don't always accept the TV shows as canon, it still makes sense.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently watching Godzilla Vs. Kong. Will watch this next, possibly starting tomorrow.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Another thought about Julia Louise Dreyfus as the Contessa - if she's a double or triple agent, wouldn't it make for a much more effective cover if she spoke fluent English without an accent, rather than sound Russian or Eastern European? If she can pull one of those accents off, and use it in a later scene talking with her bosses that would make a lot more sense than to have her sound foreign to start with.Not sure what you're talking about; she speaks with a normal American accent.
Unless you're saying she should speak with an accent, most spies fictionally and in real life are taught to lose their accents. (I actually think it's really weird that Yelena and Milena in the Black Widow trailers have accents, as the Black Widows have been trained to lose their accents since 1937--and while yes that clip comes from a TV show and people don't always accept the TV shows as canon, it still makes sense.)
Earlier someone was complaining that she SHOULD have a Russian accent, and I was saying it makes more sense for her to speak flawless non-accented English if she's a double or triple agent.
Earlier someone was complaining that she SHOULD have a Russian accent, and I was saying it makes more sense for her to speak flawless non-accented English if she's a double or triple agent.
Also the Contessa is Italian so she definitely wouldn’t be speaking with a Russian accent.
Earlier someone was complaining that she SHOULD have a Russian accent, and I was saying it makes more sense for her to speak flawless non-accented English if she's a double or triple agent.Another thought about Julia Louise Dreyfus as the Contessa - if she's a double or triple agent, wouldn't it make for a much more effective cover if she spoke fluent English without an accent, rather than sound Russian or Eastern European? If she can pull one of those accents off, and use it in a later scene talking with her bosses that would make a lot more sense than to have her sound foreign to start with.Not sure what you're talking about; she speaks with a normal American accent.
Unless you're saying she should speak with an accent, most spies fictionally and in real life are taught to lose their accents. (I actually think it's really weird that Yelena and Milena in the Black Widow trailers have accents, as the Black Widows have been trained to lose their accents since 1937--and while yes that clip comes from a TV show and people don't always accept the TV shows as canon, it still makes sense.)
Ah. Missed the original context.
Something that amazed me was my reaction when
Just like in the comics, he went from someone I disliked to someone I could respect.
I also loved the way John and Bucky took down the remaining Flag Smashers. "This is a great App!" Ha!
I am astonished that the episode hooked me as solidly as it did. This was a really great series that essentially was about the legacy of Endgame generally (something DQ was talking about as necessary in the WandaVision thread) and Steve Rogers specifically. It was outstanding.
If this is the quality we are going to get through Phase Four, we're all in for a fantastic ride.
EDIT: Fantastic Four allusion not intended. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope Disney commits to this and gives more support to Sam Wilson's point of view, voice and politics than Marvel Comics gave to his four color counterpart when he was Captain America.
While they half heartedly placed Sam in opposition to critics who demanded he step down in the story, they also ultimately caved to those voices by restoring Steve's youth and then when fans cried foul at the storyline presented Marvel immediately caved to fan pressure and restructured their two cross over events so that it would result in a return to the status quo of Steve Rogers as Cap and Sam as Falcon.
Is there any actual evidence of that, rather than that being the intended storyline all along?I hope Disney commits to this and gives more support to Sam Wilson's point of view, voice and politics than Marvel Comics gave to his four color counterpart when he was Captain America.
While they half heartedly placed Sam in opposition to critics who demanded he step down in the story, they also ultimately caved to those voices by restoring Steve's youth and then when fans cried foul at the storyline presented Marvel immediately caved to fan pressure and restructured their two cross over events so that it would result in a return to the status quo of Steve Rogers as Cap and Sam as Falcon.
Other than the issues of both Captain America’s that slipped down the schedule while Spencer rewrote them, or the incongruities between what was set up in CWII with the visions of Miles Morales and what actually happened, or the altered issue count between the pre Pleasant Hill solicits and the final publish totals after it was over, or the quick jettisoning of All New All Different - nothing conclusive.
Nothing that entirely proves that it was pressure from fans who didn’t like Sam as Cap and not pressure from fans who didn’t like Hydra Cap - but reading forums at the time those fans posting were really more of a Venn diagram.
We’ve seen Marvel back down to angry fans before, this sure had the same hallmarks.
|
|
......rather than that being the intended storyline all along?
Sadly, intended or not, I think it always ends up going back to the status quo, with rare exceptions usually rooted in the popularity of the character. Sometimes I think it’s fan anger. Sometimes I think the change was a gimmick to drum up sales for a little while.
So, we get what we always have. Cap is Steve Rogers. Batman is Bruce Wayne. Etc.
And here I am, the kind of guy who thinks Bart Allen should have been the Flash since before I got married, and should still be the Flash for at least another 5 or 6 years.
There's a long history of comics always trending back to the status quo, whether they're caving to fan pressure (and you could write a thesis on the problematic vocal minority of comic book fans) or just to use some big return as a gimmick.
However, in a TV/Movie universe, I think it's less likely that a status quo is going to be maintained for a number of reasons:
1) Obviously, actors get old, so you can't keep them around forever.
2) Very few TV shows or movie franchises last as long as a classic comic book series, so there's less incentive to keep things the same. Comics have a fanbase where a large portion of readers want the status quo, and will enforce that with their wallets. TV and movies have a different sort of audience, and to keep them engaged, you have to shake things up more frequently. (James Bond is an exception as a long-running movie franchise. I guess Dr. Who would be as well, but I've never watched it.)
--2a) Plus, it's much easier for an audience to catch up on older TV shows and movies (especially in the age of streaming), than it is to catch up on old comic book storylines. I say this from experience: A few years ago I bought a Marvel Unlimited subscription to catch up on a few X-Men events that I'd missed and Bendis' and Hickman's Avengers storylines. It was a veritable nightmare finding out which titles were involved in which storylines and which order to read them in. Anyway, my point is that because an audience can catch up on distinct chunks of story with a TV show or movie, there's less need to maintain the status quo. Compare that to comics where you have mentalities like "Who's this Carol Danvers person as Captain Marvel? You mean Ms. Marvel? Warbird? Where's the Mar-Vell from my youth?!"
3) (This point is purely personal opinion:) I think that TV/movie execs do not have the personal investment in a character or a franchise that comic book publishers and editors do, so they are more okay with deviating from what the fans want. They front-load the hype from a change, and if it doesn't pan out, they've already been paid, so they can use all the money they've earned to showcase all the money they can make for another franchise and move on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked Falcon and the Winter Soldier, and I had set my bar low because I was fully prepared not to like it.
As implied in my above post, I like that the series created a lasting change (a new cap and a USAgent), and the writers did a good job of showing that Captain America's real superpower is to be idealistic, while being able to back up that idealism with actions and maintaining a faith that people will work out the right thing to do.
(Although if I were doing a thing, and some guy said not do the thing, and I said then what should I do, and the guy gave me a cheesy "Do better!" instead of concrete steps to a solution, I'd dismiss him out of hand. But for a superhero show, it worked.)
I like the conversation about race in the U.S., and Sam Wilson's line saying something like, "After all that's happened to black people in America, and you're going to tell me that I can't fight for it?" really touched me.
I thought that Bucky's arc was lacking, however. Yes, now he's better friends with Sam, but after he finally opens up to the old guy about what really happens to his son--an event that was broadcast in the first or second episode--the show immediately cuts away from that scene after only the barest hint of reaction. There was really no emotional payoff from that scene. All Bucky really got was a flashback showing that he was free from Hydra's brainwashing. But he's still the Winter Soldier, while Sam is now Captain America.
*********
And did Sharon Carter kill Batroc at the end? That's what I thought, but I see conversations in this thread like that didn't happen. I'd like for Marvel to leave more supervillains alive so that they can be recurring supervillains. So far I think all we've got Agatha Harkness and Zemo. Oh, and Vulture.
|
|
And did Sharon Carter kill Batroc at the end? That's what I thought, but I see conversations in this thread like that didn't happen. I'd like for Marvel to leave more supervillains alive so that they can be recurring supervillains. So far I think all we've got Agatha Harkness and Zemo. Oh, and Vulture.
For me, it's more of a "hope he's not really dead, just very badly hurt".
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
For me, it's more of a "hope he's not really dead, just very badly hurt".
And did Sharon Carter kill Batroc at the end? That's what I thought, but I see conversations in this thread like that didn't happen. I'd like for Marvel to leave more supervillains alive so that they can be recurring supervillains. So far I think all we've got Agatha Harkness and Zemo. Oh, and Vulture.
Also, future Scorpion is alive, and future Prowler from Spiderman. Mysterio seems to have died, but with him and illusions and trickery, and his post death video, he could possibly alive.
Also, future Scorpion is alive, and future Prowler from Spiderman. Mysterio seems to have died, but with him and illusions and trickery, and his post death video, he could possibly alive.For me, it's more of a "hope he's not really dead, just very badly hurt".
And did Sharon Carter kill Batroc at the end? That's what I thought, but I see conversations in this thread like that didn't happen. I'd like for Marvel to leave more supervillains alive so that they can be recurring supervillains. So far I think all we've got Agatha Harkness and Zemo. Oh, and Vulture.
Yeah, I actually thought of Scorpion when I thought of Vulture, but I barely remember him from the movie and he wasn't a 'super'villain yet, so I didn't include him. He hadn't really been put through the gauntlet where a writer might think the scene is more meaningful if he died. And I don't really consider Prowler as portrayed in that movie as a villain.
There's a long history of comics always trending back to the status quo, whether they're caving to fan pressure (and you could write a thesis on the problematic vocal minority of comic book fans) or just to use some big return as a gimmick.
However, in a TV/Movie universe, I think it's less likely that a status quo is going to be maintained for a number of reasons: [snip]
I had been writing a similar post that was far ramblier so thanks for saying what I was going to but intelligently.
2) Very few TV shows or movie franchises last as long as a classic comic book series, so there's less incentive to keep things the same. Comics have a fanbase where a large portion of readers want the status quo, and will enforce that with their wallets. TV and movies have a different sort of audience, and to keep them engaged, you have to shake things up more frequently. (James Bond is an exception as a long-running movie franchise. I guess Dr. Who would be as well, but I've never watched it.)
Doctor Who also in 1966 baked in the idea that the main character is going to change faces from time to time, so expecting the status quo would be foolish.
I think with superheroes, the passing of mantles works better if the mantle is established as a title intended to be passed along or shared by many, e.g., Green Lantern or Black Widow. I wish more often that if a comics company wanted to retire or kill a longtime here, they retired the title too. If they're not intending the new recipient to keep it (Azrael as Batman in the 90s) or fans won't accept it (Steve Rogers was Cap since the 1940s, too much history to fight to make a new one), they would just let any "successors" carry on legacy through actions but keep their own unique superhero names. Mind you I am not arguing that Sam in this TV show shouldn't be called Captain America--I think in the tv universe and the way they wrote this it works. But it also works because for the other reasons noted this is unlikely to be temporary.
And did Sharon Carter kill Batroc at the end? That's what I thought, but I see conversations in this thread like that didn't happen. I'd like for Marvel to leave more supervillains alive so that they can be recurring supervillains. So far I think all we've got Agatha Harkness and Zemo. Oh, and Vulture.
I'd like to see Batroc get collected by Sharon's people and healed, but with a "you work for me now, forever" condition. Probably reinforced with a chip in the head or whatever it is all the cool supervillains are doing these days. (Although maybe I am just being naive since so many fans are taking Sharon's turn at face value, but I still feel like with the use of Batroc and the SHIELD tech, Sharon is actually doing deep cover work for SHIELD tracking the movements of major supervillain players through the Power Broker role).
I do agree they need to kill off fewer villains (and or do things like end with them seemingly reformed but then they can go evil again later). Sometimes it does just make sense to kill a villain and it's always annoying when someone truly awful just needs to die and no one will let it happen though. I'd honestly rather a few extra dead villains than someone like a Joker who just inexplicably keeps living even though *someone*, even if not the main hero, just keeps going because writers can't bear to lose him for story (note, I understand why Joker specifically is kept alive but I'm speaking to the general premise and he was the first example I could think of; please do not reply to me with "but the Joker is best villain" arguments; that's not the point I'm making).
As for living villains, I believe we also have the dude who hates sorcerers at the end of Doctor Strange and Dormammu (who is alive, just promised not to return).
For some reason I can't remember, but I don't think Carol killed Yon-Rogg in Captain Marvel either so he and other Kree villains could return as well.
Not trying to undermine the point, but there are a few villains or potential ones around. But yeah, keep killing them off and I think that's also why we end up with "Uh, guys? We don't have any other villains for them to fight." "Oh, uh... Sharon is secretly evil now, I guess."
Another way to keep things fresh for TV is the DC/Warner approach: Run multiple series set in separate universes that don't directly interact with each other. You can cast different actors in different interpretations of the same character, tell different stories, etc.
The downside is you don't have a shared universe, but that can also be an upside: You don't have to worry about keeping continuity across multiple shows and/or film series. It's a less ambitious approach, but provides for a LOT more freedom and flexibility.
|
|
Though Marvel has 60 years of villains to draw on if they want to, so it's not like the movies have to reuse the handful they've introduced so far.
That brings up a good side point. It's not just villains - they've got 60ish years of heroes, villains, plots, etc. I think they've done a pretty good job so far of tapping into that history. With the expansion of the the MCU via streaming TV shows, I think they've got a great opportunity to pull even more stuff from over the decades. And I'd certainly love to see them keep pulling in older, more obscure stuff.
Though Marvel has 60 years of villains to draw on if they want to, so it's not like the movies have to reuse the handful they've introduced so far.
I was half-joking, but also noting they don't necessarily want to overintroduce new players while also focusing on the existing heroes. This said, the Contessa, who is probably a villain, was introduced, so.