DisneyJayL
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
That’s true. Still, in my opinion both were dumb ideas.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Captain Marvel spoiler thread
- Thread starter Princess Leia
- Start date
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
Just got back from seeing it. It's exactly what I expected, another solid entry in the MCU. I hadn't read anything so I went in blind except what was in the main trailers. I loved Ben Mendlesons character so I hope we see him again. The Avengers name thing didn't bother me but neither did the Solo name origin. This might be my favorite performance of Fury, he was great. I didn't know about the opening with Stan Lee, man that was rough.
In The Winter Soldier, Alexander Pierce shows Cap a picture of him with Fury. The picture isn't dated, but he tells Cap that the photo was taken 5 years after they met. Pierce goes on to tell Cap that he was at State Department in Bogota when the embassy was taken by rebels. He says that Fury was Deputy Chief of the S.H.I.E.L.D. station there and that when Fury saved the hostages, Pierce promoted him (to Director). Fury still has both of his eyes and he is bald with facial hair. Also the reason why Fury created the Avengers initiative seems to be a retcon as well. And there's some confusion now regarding the timeline of the tesseract.
sedati
Well-Known Member
Yes, that falls under ret-con.
Anything this ambitious is going to have issues. I sort of hope when Endgame is released they can go back and fix a few of these quibbles. It's easy enough to change the "Eight Years Later" in Spiderman, and change out the picture you described. Maybe they can even do a deep fake get Cheadle in Iron Man and Levi in Thor.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Is that really a retcon? Couldn't Fury simply have shaved his head at some period in his life before losing his eye?
Edit: I guess your point is more that Fury was promoted to Director at that point, but I suppose that could be explained by the process happening some time after the embassy incident. But I see what you are saying.
Last edited:
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Now that the Fantastic Four are back, I'm hoping that we at least see Super Skrull at some point.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
I disagree actually. The Solo thing was eye rolling awful indeed. Just stupid.
But I at least always thought it was odd having the name of this superhero program as "The Avengers Initiative". Without any explanation, it's a weird name. Now, no big deal, never had to be explained, we can just accept it - I'm not one who thinks that ever factoid needs to be canonically presented - but it was certainly something that could be given a backstory at some point. And this was actually a pretty good rationale that he wanted to find more heroes like Carol to protect the Earth so he used her nickname.
And its not a retcon at all. Nothing was changed, just more information added.
So was Coulson just trolling Pepper and Tony in Iron Man with SHIELD’s full name, orrrr....????
Because they said SHIELD like 5 times in Captain Marvel.
Because they said SHIELD like 5 times in Captain Marvel.
Retcons, inconsistencies, people not staying dead...
...perfect comic book stories!
...perfect comic book stories!
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
For me, I took it as the reason they were making hydra weapons with the cube was because of thor. But based on the end of the first iron man, he says avengers anitiative. That was before thor so it was a plan in my mind before that. Now I just assumed it was because of Captain America, but now we know it was Carol. It's not the cleanest bit of storytelling ever but it's also not bad. It is very from a certain point of view as Obi-Wan would say.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
I think the point is that a lot of it could’ve easily been avoided if they just thought “you know, we don’t have to make it like so much happened because of her. Let’s just make another story that’s consistent with what’s already established.” If fans can catch this kind of stuff the people making the movies should be more than capable.
Last edited:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Some of y'all get so lost in the weeds talking about retconning its funny.
My take on some of these:
My take on some of these:
- Fury is a spy from the Cold War era. He would not divulge every little piece of his plan(s), or even how he came up with the idea. He'll play it close to the vest and only provide enough information to get what he wants out of people.
- Fury would never admit that a "cat" is the reason he lost is eye. He'd make a battle story out of it and then put it out in the rumor mill to become legend.
- Plans get put in drawers all the time, get taken out from time-to-time, dusted off, refined, and then put back in the drawer until the time is right.
- SHIELD is a government agency, so it is locked in constant bureaucracy, specifically with the World Council. Likely the primary reason why it took a decade for things to start with the Avengers Initiative. Also one has to think Fury was waiting for the right heros to emerge.
- Marvel has been playing the long game. They aren't going to show all their cards in one or even twenty films.
- Its comic book stories, they inherently change small details while still maintaining the entire continuity of the universe.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
None of that explains the inconsistency pointed out with when Alexander Pierce knew him and made him director of SHEILD in Winter Soldier.
Edit: or in The Avengers where it’s heavily implied Thor was their first taste of advanced alien life.
You act like it’s some herculean task to keep a story consistent. If fans can do it the people making it can.
Last edited:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
While not established in the MCU, yet, but in the comics Fury has been the director multiple times in his career. So we don't know if his directorship in the MCU was continuous. Its not a for life position, just like in real life the director of the CIA and the FBI are not for life. So he may have stepped down or may have been demoted at certain points of his career. AoS alludes to this when Coulson steps down and hands over the directorship to Jeffrey Mace.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Actually I did explain that in Point 1. Fury is trained as a spy, he plays it close to the vest. He is not going to come out and say, "Thor buddy I hate to break it to you, but you're not the first alien I've seen."
Mike S
Well-Known Member
They would’ve started making weapons based on Hydra after the Kree and Skrulls arrived then. Not some 20 odd years later after Thor. The whole reason stated for starting that program was because they realized how outgunned they were by alien races.
See the inconsistency?
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie don’t get me wrong. It’s just hard not to notice these things.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
The picture shown in the movie was a bald Fury with both eyes. He said when he met him he was deputy director of an outpost near Bogota (I think that’s what it was) and then after the mission where he defied orders to save lives he was made director.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Do we know when Goose coughed up the Tesseract? No, its not established the actual date when that is done. Although I would assume its sometime later in the 90s.
Also with any scientific discovery it takes time. Its not like one day they have the Tesseract and then the very next day they have advanced weapons. They obviously have been studying it for a long time. But it takes time to unlock the secrets needed to make advance weapons.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
They already had Hydra’s original weapons from WWII to study. And Hydra seemed able to do it after just getting the Tesseract.
See it yet?