Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

[xChurch]

I feel like the fact a big chuck of the previous pages have nothing to do with the movie tells you about all you need to know.

[PrimiOne]

Question: would you guess the universe of this deadpool?





Yeah you are right : 616.

You can feel betrayed ,not gonna tell you how to feel ,that's up to you, but 90.3317% times whenever two realities clash and 616 it's involved ( or the actual name after the Future Foundation created the 7th multiverse : Earth prime) ....it almost never goes well for the other universe.

The other universes, if not a self-story ( EarthX,Ultimates,AoA...) are just there to make 616 shine and I care about the fate of X and Y and Z as much as I care about the fate of those same X and Y and Z you could see in the image so in the end it's as much a "betrayal" to the character as the faces of the dead mutants in the cover of "Days of future past"....none.

This was Wanda story, this was America and Strange story.....X and Y and Z will shine when they get their turn on the spotlight and be aware that ( Marvel learnt this many decades ago) putting every reality at the same level leads to the interchangeable card syndrome. If every Strange or X or Y in the multiverse are all the same....Why should you care? There's many copies.In the end the only result is Rick Sanchez nihilism: I don't give a fuck...there's a billion Morty's out there.

No , this is essential: 616 is special, not gonna go into details about why (related to the Celestials and later the Beyonders) but you just can't trade multiversal cards and get to the same outcome , no. I'ts 616 Loki who gets to Kang while President Loki is bitten by Croc Loki , it's 616 Strange who stops the Witch not the defender Strange stomped by a transdimensional beast or the Strange absorbed by the DarkHold or the Strange killed by the illuminati , it's 616 Wanda who gets to be candidate to the Demiurgue ( the being ,his son in the comics , that in the future will hold all the magic in the multiverse - that is by the way a finite resource, if someone has every...there's none to others) not mommy Wanda.

Multiversal threats are handled by 616 versions.

So I see no disrespect to the characters here. The scene is aimed at making something that I don't specially like, the transitive moment: Wanda took 3 minutes to kill the Illuminati that were the guys ,don't lose context, who killed Thanos.....forget about stopping her, it's just not gonna happen,all hope is lost. As I said I don't specially like the if X beat Y and Y beat Z then X beats Z but this is not betrayal because they are not the 616 versions.

But well ,again, I'm not gonna tell you how to feel. If you feel that the smartest man alive should have a better plan to fight a reality changing goddes than trying to reach her with the hand you are probably right but don't lose sight that this is not 616 Reed and he , like everyone, will be not "another irrelevant copy" but special.

And on another topic: we already have incursions here...does anyone doubt about the Secret Wars?

[Ielenia]

I am not bothered that alternate universe versions of already established characters got owned, I have problems with the new ones that got introduced. It was HORRIBLE first impression for Mr F and Blackbolt. Like, both huuuuge and powerful Marvel characters, yet they got owned so easily while they powers weren't even properly shown.

Eh, at least Black Bolt had a chance to demonstrate his abilities in the flashback when he whispered "I'm sorry" to strange and literally atomized the guy.

[Rennadrel]

The academy is dying because people are tired of art movies winning all the prices. Movies people literally dont see. Going to completely avoid all the agenda bs stuff because thats just useless. People would definitely tune into the Oscars again if they started giving away oscars to movies people actually want to see.

Imagine thinking that people holding an art form in higher regard than mediocre Disney capeshit not being worthy of awards recognition is somehow a bad thing. As much as I think the Academy and its members are a bunch of privileged and hypocritical douchebags, at least the Academy upholds some modicum of respect for film production by recognizing actual cinema rather than popcorn flicks.

[Ihavewaffles]

[[Apok]]

I was under the impression that John Krasinski was supposed to play Mr F, in upcoming F4. Because if he does, then it would be awkward. Why not bring back Ioan Gruffudd for that small role? MCU is not bothered with tapping into "less then stellar" movies, as we seen in No Way Home (no Miles Teller though, that would be too much :v). I am not bothered that alternate universe versions of already established characters got owned, I have problems with the new ones that got introduced. It was HORRIBLE first impression for Mr F and Blackbolt. Like, both huuuuge and powerful Marvel characters, yet they got owned so easily while they powers weren't even properly shown.

If anything it was more of a show of how hubris can bring Down even the mightiest.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I was under the impression that John Krasinski was supposed to play Mr F, in upcoming F4. Because if he does, then it would be awkward. Why not bring back Ioan Gruffudd for that small role? MCU is not bothered with tapping into "less then stellar" movies, as we seen in No Way Home (no Miles Teller though, that would be too much :v). I am not bothered that alternate universe versions of already established characters got owned, I have problems with the new ones that got introduced. It was HORRIBLE first impression for Mr F and Blackbolt. Like, both huuuuge and powerful Marvel characters, yet they got owned so easily while they powers weren't even properly shown.

Technically speaking, it wasn't the first time Blackbolt has shown up in the MCU. I just wish that it was.

[IMG]https://tvseriesfinale.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/marvels-inhumans-abc-canceled-no-season-2-590x304.jpg[/IMG]

[Zenfoldor]

Want to throw a little theory I've been working on for a while in here. I haven't seen this movie or even read reviews.

Theory is the difference, in movies, between audience and pro reviewers on rotten tomatoes. Specifically, when movies get great critical reviews but terrible audience reviews. It is a simple correlation I've noticed. Here's the theory:

When movies on rotten tomatoes have very high critic but very low audience scores, and there isn't an overt political agenda, the reason is usually because that movie had a terrible ending.

Theory continues that reviewers have to judge the entire movie, and not just the content of the 3rd act. They have to judge things like directing, cinematography, special effects, acting, and theme, instead of just the narrative destination. It is really not fair to the people who worked on a movie or the audience, to critique a movie based on one singular aspect(the ending of the script) with no credit given to the art of film-making or any of the facets of it. However, audiences do not feel the need to be fair with their assessments(especially when the disparate parts don't come together seamlessly), they simply assess based off the most prominent and memorable feature of a movie, the ending.

Keep in mind, I'm not judging the audience, I tend to agree with them. "The Lady, or the Tiger?" endings have been GROAN inducing since that work was written, and shall continue to be. Endings that betray the audience are also super high risk, even though perhaps they also have the highest reward. Usually they just fall flat. Wicker Man for example.

[Progenitor Aquarius]

It was fun movie. Maybe on Tuesday I’m going to get my campus friend and go again. Haha

[Makabreska]

Overall I am a bit disappointed that the movie, with all it's multiverse premise, did not have bigger consequences for entire MCU.

And I wonder what multiverse finale of this phase could be?

[Syegfryed]

Which should prove to you that such critics are not nearly as intelligent as they think they are. I've read plenty of critical reviews claiming confusion on subjects that were very clearly explained in a variety of movies.

Wanda's motivations are perfectly clear. Watching Wandavision just tells such an audience member why those motivations are so very strong. The fact that such critics can't imagine that on their own...well, like I said; they aren't nearly as intelligent as they think they are...

Yeah, this kinda make me scratch my head, maybe its because some criticsjust don't like the movie, at all, and are paid to review then, so they are rly biased against it. Some things are very clear and easy to understand, but they don't get it, or say the movie did bad in X, just because the movies he like do that

I did some search for reviews in spider-man, and some people said things like they never watched a super-hero movie before

I know the Inhumans series was a disaster, but I felt like they did Black Bolt dirty again with how easily he got destroyed.

They did dirty with all the illuminati tbh, especially Xavier and Richards, hopefully this just means we will se then again in the future, and this is foreshadowing for secret wars

- - - Updated - - -

I was under the impression that John Krasinski was supposed to play Mr F, in upcoming F4. Because if he does, then it would be awkward. Why not bring back Ioan Gruffudd for that small role? MCU is not bothered with tapping into "less then stellar" movies, as we seen in No Way Home (no Miles Teller though, that would be too much :v). I am not bothered that alternate universe versions of already established characters got owned, I have problems with the new ones that got introduced. It was HORRIBLE first impression for Mr F and Blackbolt. Like, both huuuuge and powerful Marvel characters, yet they got owned so easily while they powers weren't even properly shown.

He is probably sill going to be the MCU mr fantastic, there is even rumors saying he will also direct it.

That said... I think a few things in this movie were either severely underutilized, but also misused. Wanda, controlling a multi-dimensional being like Shuma-Gorath? As for underutilized things, I think "evil Strange" and the "Illuminati" thing could've been its own movie. They were felt... rushed

It wasn't shuma, it was Gargantos

Also, god damn, Wanda was so unnecessarily brutal and monstrous in killing the Illuminati. Poor Mr. Fantastic and Black Bolt....

The idea was to make the movie close to the horror genre, thats why they had some creepy stuff like wanda going out of the glass like the ring girl.

- - - Updated - - -

Question: would you guess the universe of this deadpool?

Now that you mentioned, it brings me back.

It wasn't universe 616 the prime universe of the comics? and the mcu was supposed to be another with since all the changes?, i think it was universe 199999 or some shit like that.

I personally thing it was bad idea to make the mcu the 6146 as well...

[Polybius]

Critics do nothing for me, and I only hear their reactions after watching the movie myself. This one was over the top, but it has more to appreciate out of than your average film. Magic is very hard to pull off, even harder to please everyone.

Rule of thumb for me is to expect nothing, not even from lauded artists.

[Mehrunes]

Technically speaking, it wasn't the first time Blackbolt has shown up in the MCU. I just wish that it was.

[IMG]https://tvseriesfinale.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/marvels-inhumans-abc-canceled-no-season-2-590x304.jpg[/IMG]

Is it still canon though? Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. isn't anymore and it's also created by ABC.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Is it still canon though? Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. isn't anymore and it's also created by ABC.

Maybe not...but, it is the same actor playing the character...much like Pat Stew and Prof X. So it's not like it's a completely fresh take.

[Svifnymr]

Is it still canon though? Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. isn't anymore and it's also created by ABC.

I haven't seen Doc Strange, but wouldn't the entire premise be that it is Canon, in some universe somewhere? It's not the important timeline, so none of it matters for real canon, right?

[Koriani]

Because I want to see general opinion and what scores people are giving it? I expect people to have some basic decency, and to follow forum rules, and use spoiler tags on movie details when it's been out for all of about a day. I do suppose decency and maturity are asking a bit much for MMO-C, tbf.

Same.
Common decency.
Some of us come for the reviews and though we try hard to 'gloss' over the screen when we realize we're about to read/are reading a spoiler - sometimes that's not obvious until your past the point of no return.

There weren't spoilers for 11 pages of the thread - why not give a few weeks of spoilers before breaking out into full plot details, uncensored. Don't pretend threads around here only start once a release date hits. haha. Vast majority of these threads have dozens, sometimes hundreds of pages, before you get to 'release' and the chance of a single spoiler. So I call bullshit on the 'don't come in and read if you don't want spoilers.'

We're just asking for some politeness here. Thank you to those that give it.

- - - Updated - - -

9. Spoilers If you have information from say a book (Or any other source) a movie or TV show is being adapted from you need to use spoiler tags. Same thing if you have found reliable leaks online. Do not ruin other's excitement when we have a system in place to deal with this. Otherwise spoiler tags are not required, regardless of how a topic is titled. You should be able to discuss the most recent events that have aired or been released without needing to use spoiler tags. If you want to discuss spoilers, use the tags.

Those are this subforums rules and have been for a long time.

Well that rule is confusing. So before a media release, if you're talking about online leaks, books, other 'canon' (I guess?) sources - you are SUPPOSE to use spoiler tags. So even if the books' been out five years?

Then the bolded part. But then RIGHT AFTER the bolded part it then says "If you want to discuss spoilers, use the tags." So if you spoil it no tags, but if you discuss those spoilers later- use a tag?

Just saying - that wording at the end just negates the sentence before it? *shrugs*

- - - Updated - - -

The hand wringing over the content is the funniest shit I've ever seen.

1995 Jumanji was more intense than this.

To me its just a 'good example' of the somewhat backwards standards of the American Movie ratings and how they have changed over the past few decades.

Because basically, in this day and age, violence (as people are commenting for Dr. Strange) doesn't get you that R Rating. That may have been the case 20 years ago, but not anymore. Esp. fantasy violence (zombies, giants, not 'normal people').

For *many* movies the biggest/main thing that gets them R rated vs. PG13 (in the US anyway) is SEX/Nudity and *extreme* violence (realistism, not fantasy creatures). Flash a single tit and you can get an "R" rating in the US, but yeah - you can blow up all the people you want and show all sorts of graphic violence, and qualify for pg13 or be aired on prime time tv.

Its really silly that it works that way - but it is more often true than not - that a naked boob separates pg13 and R.

So to me that's where you're getting the 'surprise' from some people (and certainly those with small children) about how graphic Dr. Strange is "For its Rating". As they don't realize just HOW GRAPHIC you have to be, to get an R rating "just" for violence.

By their very nature, being superhero show/movies with fantasy-creature-characters - its probably 'near impossible' for them to get an "R" rating without throwing in some naked women/sex. No matter how violent or graphic they may get.

(Not seen the movie yet so no idea how graphic we're talking - just commenting on people's reactions to the violence of pg13. Its also a whole other topic to discuss why anyone would bring a 'small child' to something that is suggesting 13 and up - and a whole commentary of the American immunity to violent images on tv, that its 'not a big deal' to do that in the first place. =D)

[PrimiOne]

Now that you mentioned, it brings me back.

It wasn't universe 616 the prime universe of the comics? and the mcu was supposed to be another with since all the changes?, i think it was universe 199999 or some shit like that.

I personally thing it was bad idea to make the mcu the 6146 as well...

This is a can of worms....I sometimes think they do it on purpose to stir controversy and discussion.

On one side we have Feige confirming the official denomination is E-199999 years ago, on another side we have a producer of "Black Panther" telling us we are never ever going to see 616 T'Challa again , that if we ever see another T'Challa it would be from another universe meaning they are not gonna recast Chadwick Boseman ( the right thing to do) wich doesn't mean there's no Black Panther ( that's just the title of whoever gets to be Bast's avatar).

So what it is? In the comics it's the Cpt. Britain corps the ones who sets the designation of the universes not the Illuminati and surely not an scientific working for them but there's no corps in the MCU so the key to understand this mess is : the MCU exist inside the comics universe. There's comics that presents us an universe with the exact sequence of events depicted in the MCU so they obviously needed a number and that is E199999 ( can't be a 616 because that's the main universe and in that universe killing Obadiah Stane wasn't the first thing Stark did).

That relation is not biyective: there's no comic universe inside the MCU ( and probably never). So if you look from the comic perspective main universe is E616 and MCU is E199999 but from the film perspective main universe is E616.

In the end it doesn't matter, Christine's words made the two designations equivalent and we will probably use it as the same thing in the future but we can see why they did it: as a reference for fans 616 is synonymous of main universe, it means the core of the stories so it's less confusing than E199999 ( what happens if we suddenly finds an E616 in the MCU?)

Overall I am a bit disappointed that the movie, with all it's multiverse premise, did not have bigger consequences for entire MCU.

And I wonder what multiverse finale of this phase could be?

There's consequences. The most important stated by Reed: your fuckityfuck of multiversal realities create incursions, create ovelapping of realities where one or both are destroyed. This is going to be the backbone of this chapter as the gems were for previous chapter.

The finale is difficult to tell , not even Marvel know right now with detail but given the precedent they like to take the bone of an story and give it another flesh: the summary of the Infinity Saga is the same in comics and films , Thanos try to gather all the gems, heroes try to prevent that, Thanos wins, Thanos erase half universe, heroes gather the stones and unfuck the universe. Same summary but the details are completely different so based on that this chapter will be Battleworld and everyone versus Doom I guess.

[Faltemer]

Well that rule is confusing. So before a media release, if you're talking about online leaks, books, other 'canon' (I guess?) sources - you are SUPPOSE to use spoiler tags. So even if the books' been out five years?

Yes, this is refering to situations where say a movie is being adapted from a book. In a thread specifically for the movie it is very possible some people haven't read the book. In which case you are supposed to use spoiler tags. If you want to specifically discuss the book there might already be a thread for it or you could make one.

Then the bolded part. But then RIGHT AFTER the bolded part it then says "If you want to discuss spoilers, use the tags." So if you spoil it no tags, but if you discuss those spoilers later- use a tag?

Just saying - that wording at the end just negates the sentence before it? *shrugs*

More of incorrect phrasing on my part when I typed that I guess. "If you want to discuss things that should be spoiler tagged, use the tags"

Overwhelmingly people seem to have always got what the rules are here. Just occasionally someone would come into a thread for a TV/Movie/Whatever after a new episode or the movie would come out. Then complain that 90% of what everyone typed wasn't tagged, despite that obviously being a backwards way of doing things.

[Koriani]

More of incorrect phrasing on my part when I typed that I guess. "If you want to discuss things that should be spoiler tagged, use the tags"

Overwhelmingly people seem to have always got what the rules are here. Just occasionally someone would come into a thread for a TV/Movie/Whatever after a new episode or the movie would come out. Then complain that 90% of what everyone typed wasn't tagged, despite that obviously being a backwards way of doing things.

Oh was that your phrasing after the bolded - or the rule's phrasing? I had taken it to mean it was part of the original rule as typed (and no I didn't go look - ha).

Because no, that's not obvious to me. What's obvious to me is - "If you want to discuss things that should be spoiler tagged, use the tag." To me - within the first few weeks of something coming out, it "Should be spoiler tagged." Its not a backwards way of doing things - even when you jump into a thread mid-season to talk about the episode from last night. To me, if it was JUST last night, yeah, you should still spoiler tag - as a polite, nice person, for the next guy who may not have seen it yet. So its still under 'things that should be spoilered." If its a month old - ok - fine.

I mean I do that in person - when I go to a friend, before I start talking about the movie that's been out (even a month), I ask them if they've seen it and adjust what I say accordingly. Obviously we can't account for everyone's schedules on a forum, just seems like something where the more 'logical' rule would be to spoiler tag for a week (as an example) and not 'immediately upon airing - no longer need spoilers.'

*shrugs* We don't have to debate or anything; don't mean or want to sidetrack the thread. I just noted that /if/ that was the original rule as given - that last bit, that last sentence, seem to negate what came before it and could perhaps benefit from a clarification or rewrite.

I get what YOU are saying - I just happen to default to the side of 'being nice for the next guy', even if its been a few weeks. But then as someone who never watches tv 'live', and rarely watches shows the day they come out - I also usually fall into the group of people being 'spoiled' even a month later. But I DO read threads knowing that in mind and trying to 'skim' as much as possible between the discussion posts.

Again - dont mean to derail or get into a lengthy argument about it. Let's move on. (And here I am in a thread for a movie I've not seen as I have been since page one - lol - so far avoided *most* spoilers that were not marked.)

[PhaelixWW]

Is it still canon though? Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. isn't anymore and it's also created by ABC.

Agents of SHIELD didn't really go off-canon until things got all wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. It definitely absorbed the impact of CA:TWS on SHIELD, and incorporated the Sokovian Accords from A:AoU. By the time it ignored the Snap from A:IW, the cast had already jumped around in time quite a bit, so I guess the best way to deal with it is to imagine that it became a branching timeline at that point.