Thunderbolts* (MCU)

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

Okay, we have an official Teaser Trailer (but quite a big one)…

 

 

The big early setpiece is that someone puts all the players together in a Standard Issue Deathtrap Room Mk4 - possibly as a test, possibly to get shot of the lot. Working out who did it, why, and who gets first turn at removing their liver through their eye sockets is the rest of the movie.

Bucky shows up later on, and is shown watching the Contessa, so much double/triple-crossery ahoy.

 

And who the hell is Bulletproof Bob?

 

…ah, IMDB gives it away, the swines. It’s Bob Reynolds aka The Sentry, but - depending on which version they’re running with - may have absolutely no idea about that. Possibly nobody else does either, if he has the same mass-mindwipe powers as the comics.

Edited September 23 by ThaOGDreamWeaver
Bobobobbob.

[Techwright]

12 minutes ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

And who exactly is Bulletproof Bob?

 

Someone who is ridiculously overpowered in the comics.  I'm grossly understating.  I'm not clear from this trailer if he's to be the antagonist, or if he's joining the team, but if the latter, he's definitely taking Thor's role.  With that, Thunderbolts will have analogs to Black Widow, Captain America (tripley), Hulk, Hawkeye, and Thor.  They're lacking an analog to Iron-Man, and I suppose Ghost will serve as an analog to Ant-Man or Wasp though with phasing rather than size changes.

 

If that is a teaser, I'll probably love the trailer.  This raised my anticipation for this film.  Ghost's new outfit looks great.

 

Still wondering what the asterisks in the title is meant to imply about the team.

 

 

[Excraft]

No thank you.  I already saw the Avengers movies.  The OG Avengers were the "A" team with bankable stars.  I've no interest in the "D" team. 

 

56 minutes ago, Techwright said:

They're lacking an analog to Iron-Man

Marvel/Disney is waiting to see whether or not Ironheart is going to flop.... which we all know it will. 

[Without_Pause]

Sentry was the one hero who could stand up to World War Hulk. Note, they really want to do a WWH movie. 

[Techwright]

4 hours ago, Excraft said:

Marvel/Disney is waiting to see whether or not Ironheart is going to flop....

 

I agree on the waiting to see bit.  It's just that Ironheart wouldn't go with Thunderbolts anyway.  She'd be teamed with the Young Avengers, which by the time the MCU will finally be getting around to assembling them will be the Old Avengers.   It's one of the MCU problems at the moment: too many irons in the fire waters down the potency (to deliberately mix metaphors).

 

So T* will still need an armor technomage.  I'd suggest someone other than Justin Hammer.

[InvaderStych]

On 9/23/2024 at 9:33 AM, Techwright said:

Ghost's new outfit looks great.

 

With any luck, and if they are smart, they'll give HJK more to do than just fight scenes in a neat outfit. Her talents were wasted in the Ant Man movie.

 

  

On 9/23/2024 at 10:31 AM, Excraft said:

I already saw the Avengers movies. 

 

I'll probably watch it anyway just for some "Brain Off, Show Me The Shiny Action Set Pieces" fun, but it does look like they are leaning on the same formula that was used in multiple Avengers movies. Get some characters, have them bond through fighting each other, introduce the McGuffin, deal with the McGuffin, close with a cheeky group shot in the credits. Tweaking the formula here by using morally ambiguous characters is all well and good, but it's still the same numbers they usually use as a painting guide.

 

Likely to have some solid moments and great production value, as usual, but expecting them to break new ground is setting oneself up for disappointment. Take that further, it does seem that the audience doesn't really want them to try breaking new ground anyway. As much as I wish it were otherwise, we're not likely to see another Legion or Logan.

Edited September 24 by InvaderStych

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

12 hours ago, InvaderStych said:

Likely to have some solid moments and great production value, as usual, but expecting them to break new ground is setting oneself up for disappointment. Take that further, it does seem that the audience doesn't really want them to try breaking new ground anyway.

I live in hope that there'll at least be some proper double-crossing intriguery shenanigans, and not just a single Big Bad (the anti-Bob?) or they round a corner into their Shadow Simulacra or whatnot.

 

I am pleased that they're using practical FX as much as possible for this one - no major CGI and absolutely no goddamn AI.

Unless you look at the posters.

Edited September 25 by ThaOGDreamWeaver

[InvaderStych]

2 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

I live in hope that there'll at least be some proper double-crossing intriguery shenanigans, and not just a single Big Bad (the anti-Bob?) or they round a corner into their Shadow Simulacra or whatnot.

 

Some twists and turns would be fitting in this one.

 

One thing did strike me as odd, but perhaps my memory is fuzzy ...

 

Didn't they already setup Walker as Elaine's plaything in a short scene in F&WS? Scene in the teaser didn't hold their reaction shot to seeing her long enough for me to tell, but he did look surprised. I suppose it is possible, given the article he was reading about himself, that their deal went south and she dropped or pretended to drop him in between scripts

 

2 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

I am pleased that they're using practical FX as much as possible for this one - no major CGI and absolutely no goddamn AI.

 

What we saw of the set pieces did look to be well done and executed practically, here's hoping that holds true throughout.

 

2 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

Unless you look at the posters.

 

Oh ... yeah ... that poster on IMDB is ... well, the nicest thing I can say about it is that it exists. 🤣

[Without_Pause]

18 hours ago, InvaderStych said:

I'll probably watch it anyway just for some "Brain Off, Show Me The Shiny Action Set Pieces" fun, but it does look like they are leaning on the same formula that was used in multiple Avengers movies. Get some characters, have them bond through fighting each other, introduce the McGuffin, deal with the McGuffin, close with a cheeky group shot in the credits. Tweaking the formula here by using morally ambiguous characters is all well and good, but it's still the same numbers they usually use as a painting guide.

This essentially describes the latest Deadpool movie.

[TTRPGWhiz]

"Bulletproof Bob" (aka, The Sentry) has one of the wilder origin stories, in- and out-of-universe, of any character at the Big Two. Well worth a bit of research, and I'm super curious if the MCU implements any of it.

 

The Sentry's mini-series was written and illustrated by Paul Jenkins and Jae Lee, hot on the heels of their Inhumans series. They are both quite good (Jenkins won an Eisner for Inhumans).

[biostem]

So is this show going to basically be "Marvel's Dirty Dozen"?  It seems like many of these characters would hate each other from the get-go...

[TTRPGWhiz]

24 minutes ago, biostem said:

So is this show going to basically be "Marvel's Dirty Dozen"?  It seems like many of these characters would hate each other from the get-go...

 

it’s a movie, not a show; and yes

[Techwright]

17 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

...and not just a single Big Bad (the anti-Bob?)

Setting aside "what about Bob?" for the moment,  I know you know Ross is more Rogue (by CoH definitions) than he is hero or anti-hero.  Did you forget about him, since he's not in the teaser?  I'd consider him at very least a nasty, scheming, controlling menace, though perhaps not the Big Bad.

 

17 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

I am pleased that they're using practical FX as much as possible for this one - no major CGI and absolutely no goddamn AI.

Unless you look at the posters.

 

Perhaps no CGI in this teaser, yes, but ...did you forget about Ross? 

Edited September 26 by Techwright

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

1 hour ago, Techwright said:

Setting aside "what about Bob?" for the moment,  I know you know Ross is more Rogue (by CoH definitions) than he is hero or anti-hero.  Did you forget about him, since he's not in the teaser?  I'd consider him at very least a nasty, scheming, controlling menace, though perhaps not the Big Bad.

I agree there's a big Void in my thinking...

 

1 hour ago, Techwright said:

Perhaps no CGI in this teaser, yes, but ...did you forget about Ross? 

As Harrison is neither in the trailer nor announced on IMDB, but is shown Hulking out in CA:NWO... I have a feeling the Thunderbolts*  title isn't related to ol' Tad. I mean, we've changed everything else...

[UltraAlt]

On 9/23/2024 at 12:33 PM, Techwright said:

Still wondering what the asterisks in the title is meant to imply about the team.

 

Reboot?

Recon?

[UltraAlt]

13 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

The Sentry

 

There is no such thing as the Sentry. He never existed.

Someone would remember him if there ever was a Sentry.

I think you are making him up.

[Techwright]

6 hours ago, UltraAlt said:

 

Reboot?

Recon?

Of what, exactly?  The Thunderbolts haven't formed yet.

 

In baseball (and there's sports folk out there who understand this better), an asterisk is used to denote an accomplishment, but with a condition that makes it suspect or sullied.  A player might have an achievement score with an asterisk beside it, because of steroid use proven after the fact, but not proven in conditions that would remove the score. 

 

I'm wondering if Thunderbolts* is due to something like that:  it's been pitched to its members as a lofty-ideals team like the Avengers, but they'll discover they've been manipulated (something we already highly suspect due to scenes with the contessa) and the victories they have are actually being used for the wrong purposes.

[TTRPGWhiz]

On 9/26/2024 at 2:55 AM, UltraAlt said:

 

There is no such thing as the Sentry. He never existed.

Someone would remember him if there ever was a Sentry.

I think you are making him up.

This guy gets it

ETA: well...maybe not, given the confused emoji reaction lol

Edited September 27 by TTRPGWhiz

[TTRPGWhiz]

14 hours ago, Techwright said:

Of what, exactly?  The Thunderbolts haven't formed yet.

 

In baseball (and there's sports folk out there who understand this better), an asterisk is used to denote an accomplishment, but with a condition that makes it suspect or sullied.  A player might have an achievement score with an asterisk beside it, because of steroid use proven after the fact, but not proven in conditions that would remove the score. 

 

I'm wondering if Thunderbolts* is due to something like that:  it's been pitched to its members as a lofty-ideals team like the Avengers, but they'll discover they've been manipulated (something we already highly suspect due to scenes with the contessa) and the victories they have are actually being used for the wrong purposes.

 

There are some likely clues to this within the initial Thunderbolts comic.

[UltraAlt]

18 hours ago, Techwright said:

Of what, exactly?  The Thunderbolts haven't formed yet.

 

The MCU

 

 

[Ghost]

I sure hope they have some money left to finish that crappy CGI from the end of the newest trailer.

[Excraft]

On 9/24/2024 at 5:59 PM, InvaderStych said:

I'll probably watch it anyway just for some "Brain Off, Show Me The Shiny Action Set Pieces" fun, but it does look like they are leaning on the same formula that was used in multiple Avengers movies. Get some characters, have them bond through fighting each other, introduce the McGuffin, deal with the McGuffin, close with a cheeky group shot in the credits. Tweaking the formula here by using morally ambiguous characters is all well and good, but it's still the same numbers they usually use as a painting guide.

The problem in trying that formula here is that none of these characters are even remotely "D List" characters.  They're not going to hold the same interest or have the same gravitas as a Tony Stark or Steve Rogers or Natasha Romanoff or Thor.  Let's face it, Black Widow was a huge flop.  Why even bother trying to put those characters into another film?  That's half your cast coming from a movie that was an enormous steaming turd of a flop. 

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

Let's face it, Black Widow was a huge flop.

...in the middle of a pandemic. But still clocked nearly $400m. A record for that nasty summer, and drove a bunch of people to Disney+.

(And bought Scarlett a couple of new houses when she sued them for it.)

So for once, flop is relative.

 

I will cheerfully agree it was not a good movie and audibly clunked at a lot of points: even Ray Winstone looked bored by his bit as Central Casting Evil Ruskie, and Taskmaster was a non-entity.

 

Yelena and Alexei, though, felt like they'd got cut in from a somewhat better script, and the Pugh fully redeemed her with a cheerfully psychotic performance in Hawkeye. (I'm never making Kraft Dinner the same way again.)

 

I think giving a good character/performance from a bad movie another shot can be A Good Thing. Margot needed three goes at Harley - in all three she was a standout, but the last one just worked.

[Ghost]

50 minutes ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

...in the middle of a pandemic. But still clocked nearly $400m. A record for that nasty summer, and drove a bunch of people to Disney+.

(And bought Scarlett a couple of new houses when she sued them for it.)

So for once, flop is relative.

 

I will cheerfully agree it was not a good movie and audibly clunked at a lot of points: even Ray Winstone looked bored by his bit as Central Casting Evil Ruskie, and Taskmaster was a non-entity.

 

Yelena and Alexei, though, felt like they'd got cut in from a somewhat better script, and the Pugh fully redeemed her with a cheerfully psychotic performance in Hawkeye. (I'm never making Kraft Dinner the same way again.)

 

I think giving a good character/performance from a bad movie another shot can be A Good Thing. Margot needed three goes at Harley - in all three she was a standout, but the last one just worked.

Don’t forget the other things it had going against it.

The movie came years too late.

The main character was already dead.

Lastly, Kevin Feige had no confidence in Black Widow as a character that people wanted to see.

considering everything, I think it did pretty damn good.

 

 

 

Edited September 27 by Ghost

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

...in the middle of a pandemic. But still clocked nearly $400m.

 

Yeah against a budget upwards of $300 million (if not more since budgets are always understated).   Even without COVID, there's no way that it would have pulled in a billion + at the box office.  They'd have been lucky to barely break even.  It just wasn't that good of a movie.

 

1 hour ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

Yelena and Alexei, though, felt like they'd got cut in from a somewhat better script, and the Pugh fully redeemed her with a cheerfully psychotic performance in Hawkeye. (I'm never making Kraft Dinner the same way again.)

 

Nothing against Florence Pugh as I'm sure she's a fine actress.  Yelena just isn't an interesting character in my opinion.  We've already seen Black Widow.  Yelena is the bargain basement/budget/clearance sale Black Widow ripoff. 

 

1 hour ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

I think giving a good character/performance from a bad movie another shot can be A Good Thing. Margot needed three goes at Harley - in all three she was a standout, but the last one just worked.

 

All of those films were flops too lol.