Who Was The Best Film Batman?

Firstly this is just my view based on all the live action Batman actors appearing in films. So animated or tv series and old historic Batmans of black and white era are excluded. Mostly my reason for this is because they are vastly different mediums two which the story was told and well they chose good actors to portray this role for that time. So putting them in the same category as the live action film category just didn’t seem fair. Secondly this is just my thoughts on this subject and thus I’m open to more debate on the matter. I am not a big Batman fan, I don’t sit in in the realm of canon law from the comics. Purely looking at this from a film perspective.

So let’s begin to which I am going to go backwards in time. Starting from newest to oldest.

Robert Patterson

After watching The Batman there was two thoughts I had about it. 1. This feels like the logical conclusion for a sequel to the Gotham TV series. 2. Robert Patterson was not a good Bruce Wayne. Which is not necessarily the actors fault. Whilst in the Batsuit I could totally by Patterson as Batman. But then as Bruce Wayne it just felt completely off for his character. it’s almost like we saw the Bruce Wayne from the Gotham TV series grown up and it was also influenced by The Gritty vibe of the Joker movie. And somewhere in this mix, this radically different but early days of Batman just didn’t sit right with me. Like an uncanny valley effect nothing seemed right about this film yet they followed the core idea. All I could say about that film was “it was inspired by” because you could see Gotham, Joker, even Christopher Nolan’s influence in the story telling of Batman. So this felt almost like a fan film or parody and it set the wrong vibe. I think Patterson should of been given more time to prep for this movie as I feel he was given wrong directions for this film. The fact they are making a sequel to this film leaves me feeling “Meh” as I’m just not excited about this franchise of Batman.

Ben Affleck

The problem I have with Ben Afflecks Batman was that it was set in the Justice League World. Batman is complex, his real costume is that of Bruce Wayne and that’s something that’s slightly unhinged about the guy. He is Batman 100% of the time and Bruce Wayne is but a mask he wears when he’s needed for public. Now I like Affleck as an actor and I feel this was such a wasted potential for him. He played somewhat the Iron Man Robert Downey Jr role in the DC Justice League movies and it didn’t work. What we the viewer needed was more context to this Batman and what would of helped this is if Ben Affleck was given the chance to have at least a trilogy of Batman films to develop his character before the Justice League came about. The justice league just lacked chemistry and you didn’t feel any of these characters would ever join together. This is not Afflecks fault, again it was the studios use of the character that kind of betrayed the actor portraying Batman and it also betrays the complexity for Batman for the character being displayed.

Christian Bale

I don’t look at Christopher Nolans Batman Trilogy as one of the greatest trilogies of all time. Batman Begins, Dark Knight was its best two films and suffered badly with its third movie. Nolan wanted to make a conclusion to his trilogy and I feel that this one decision clouded the films ability to tell the story. So Dark Knight Rises kind of sucked because the focus was on story and conclusions and didn’t offer enough fandom moments that made the two films before it iconic. Onto Bale himself, I think Bale portrayed Bruce Wayne and Batman almost to perfection. Just one element was missing that would of been the cherry on top. That was a crazy and humorous side to Bruce. Not in Batman for. But in Bruce form. As I said Bruce is just a mask for Batman as he’s batman 24/7. The only time I felt this to be present was only subtly in Dark Knight but then became non existent in Dark Knight Rises.

George Clooney

Clooney gets too much hate for this role when it wasn’t his fault. Bad script. Bad director, and someone was on LSD at the time when they thought this looks visually good, Batman & Robin film is the product of when too many people interfere with an established order. When you strip away the very terrible movie. Clooney was a perfect choice for this role. He is very similar to Keaton. In fact if Clooney had been in Batman Forever you’d probably be more forgiving of him playing Batman. I’m frustrated with this one because Clooney is a good actor and the fault isn’t him but that of the director.

Val Kilmer

Kilmer is a tricky category because he was the first to take over the role of live action film Batman and he is vastly different to Michael Keaton. Was he good as Bruce Wayne and Batman? Absolutely but if he did Batman and Robin after Batman Forever then I think it wouldnt of been good for him. Batman Forever I think is actually better than people give it credit for. It’s still a continuous story from Tim Burtons Batman era as the script was adapted from Burtons third movie idea. So it was great for this transitional phase because it’s literslly between Burton and Schueler era but it’s just downplayed by the laterd influence. Just didn’t sit right. But Kilmer could of been a good franchise of Batman but it just should of been a completly new universe for it.

Michael Keaton

So Burton had it right, for its time period as well. He crafted us a Batman that you totally believed in. Something that didn’t happen till Christopher Nolans films. I will only agree with one thing that the studios said which wanted to make toys. batman returns albeit very iconic was too dark. The first movie with Jack Nicholson’s Joker was perfect, then it went full Burton by the sequel and well it was too far away from thr mark. Enough to say, don’t make a third movie. Which is a shame, because Burton should of been allowed to make a trilogy and if he just lightened up a little with Batman Returns we may have seen the third outing. But one thing he did get right was Michael Keaton’s casting as Batman, as Bruce he was distracted and not really present which was good because as I said before Bruce is just a mask, he’s Batman. Batman pretends to be Bruce Wayne in public and Burton portrayed this very accurately on many occasions.

So after my analysis, who was the best Batman actor? It’s a mix of Michael Keaton and Christian Bale they both hit the role almost perfectly and thus no contest they both sit at the top spot.

As for the worst, sorry but Robin Patterson takes that spot.

As for the rest, they was just wasted potential and could of been really good. And not a reflection of the actors that portrayed them.

It’s not a matter of who acted the worst because they all acted well but the problem comes from director and script, if both or one is bad then it’s VERY notiable. So it’s not the actors fault.

What’s your thoughts

Come On Barbie Let’s Go Party

Most would probably think my interests in film are bias to superhero movies. Not true, I look at all genres of films and I love a good comedy.

But I was a bit perplexed by a Barbie Movie. Personally I feel it wasn’t marketed very well. The first I knew of a Barbie movie was when it was released at cinema and went head to head with Oppenheimer.

And there is something incredibly sad about that. See I’ve watched the film but it wasn’t something I was intending to watch. Mostly because it was advertise very well as a comedy. And the themes of the film suggest that this film should be for everyone. So I’m perplexed by they promoted it in such a way to exclude and encourage more people to watch.

Anyway. So what lead to me watching this film. Weirdly YouTube – seeing that Ryan Goslin talk positive about it and then seeing what cast they had in this film. And nearly everyone wanted to be in it. It intrigued me.

So YouTubing some clips from the film and seeing a Stella comedic performance from Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling I felt this film needed abit of justice. Thus I went to watch the film.

And yes, it’s good. It’s funny, it has an important message and that message hits everyone. I saw reports that the film had become a piece of woke propaganda but it is simply not that. Instead it explains the problems of the world in a palatable narrative that works well even for story telling.

The whole film is really a piece on Identity and finding out who you are and being comfortable with who people are. Whilst being funny in many many scenes.

This film has a good vibe. And I highly recommend it to people of all.

My only criticism is there needed to be more Allan one of the funnest characters in the movie was sparsely used and should of appeared more but let’s hope for a sequel where him and midge for that matter kind of shine.

I’m short Barbie is a good 2023/24 film to watch for a humourus take of a toy franchise

Who could cameo in a 60’s Fantastic Four movie?

MCU is a tapestry of stories where there is an actual timeline. But something I noticed Marvel does well in historical scenes they like to include characters from the past to cameo. Good example is the likes of Howard Stark, Jarvis, Peggy Carter and Hank Pym in 1970 during the time travel aspect of endgame.

Now 1968 I believe is the year the film may be set in. Forget the notion of if we see the. In modern times and just focusing on well who could cameo in the late 60’s. All mentioned in the above timeline would make sense to cameo. however I was thinking, what new cameo could we get?

Well we could see a mar-vell Kree working on the pegasus project. We have no real idea how long she’s been on earth, (not Captain marvel but her elder mentor from the Captain marvel movie)

Another cameo I think would be quite cool could be David Banner, the hulks father. He was heavily involved with the super soldier serious and in the comics experimented on Bruce before Bruce had the accident that turned him into the hulk. And I think having more background on this character could be interesting. Because so far all we have on backstory is the Edward Norton film. Which doesn’t really go to heavy into the origin. So putting hulks father in the film could be a good nod to the future of hulk.

Another cameo I’ve thought about was Loki and Thor, as in the tv series Loki we discovered they came to earth quite a bit to do stunts or pranks like the d.b.cooper so makes sense we could see Loki. I mean despite he is now the god of stories. You could have him revisiting events of his past or just be a story from his past.

You could also have wenwu the mandarin cameo he’s lived for thousands of years I’m guessing he would of traveled a bit.

And then we have the Eternals as kingo made loads of movies. So potential for him to appear.

It would be good to explore the richness of the tapestry of the mcu

Anyone have thoughts of cameos

Bond, James Bond… (Thoughts on the future of the films)

Daniel Craig’s James Bond era came to a close and the question everyone has is (who plays the character next)

But by this point I’ve seen so many fan casting it’s hard to disagree with them. But the trouble with fan casting is that fans will go on the idea of what actor would play a really good bond instead of looking at it from a directors point of view. A director selects the roles of the film based on the script they want to tell and how that character is portrayed basically gives a blue print for the actor they are looking for. So it’s all fine people wanting to say Henry Cavil would be perfect. But he might not be perfect for the bond script that exists.

Another factor is the director gets to pick and nine times out of ten they look at there back catelogue of films and tend to pick actors they worked with before (not always) but it does play a part in casting specific roles. In James Bond there is not just the character of Bond to cast, there is the other characters. M, Q, MoneyPenny and then you have the villains.

So I thought to myself why not cast a film based on a director. So first what director do you pick. And I came up with one that I thing would put 110% focus in a film. Christopher Nolan. His handle on the Batman Trilogy and Nolan’s films I general cries out for him to be the perfect new era James Bond director. Firstly we would be surely gaurenteed his involvement for a trilogy. in Batman he wanted to complete the cycle hence we got a Batman trilogy. Now whether new bond has 3 films or more. I think Christopher Nolan would be heavily linked to all films made even getting up to 5 films with a new bond.

With that said. Question is, who would Nolan pick for Bond?

So this is going off the base of his previous films. I’m sure he would have some new actors in the list but there would probably be a lot of returning so I’m only going to fan cast over Nolan’s previous films.

Let’s start with the main guy, James Bond.

For me this was an easy pick, you could say Christian Bale but Bale is kind of too old to be bond now especially now that whoever plays bond is going to be bond for multiple years. So basing this on a requirement for a younger actor and one that can embody this role my Nolan pick for James Bond is Tom Hardy. Yeah I know the picture above probably gave it away. But Tom Hardy has multiple times been a fan casting, having worked with Nolan before in inception and Dark Knight Rises this actor has range. But just look at that those roles he played. In Inception he was a quintessential British character and in dark night rises he played a guy who didn’t mind throw in a few punches to get the job done. Merge those two characters together you have James Bond.

But I don’t want to linger on just this character what’s more interesting is casting the rest of James Bond. So let’s start with The 00 agency

M – for the pick of James Bonds boss I figured James D’arcy could play this role. In the Daniel Craig era we had two M’s originally the Dame Judy Dench M and The Ralph Fines M and looking at the latter and how much it reminded me of this senior gentleman like role that we saw from fines was what we saw back in the Sean Connery era. So James D’arcy would fit this role perfectly.

Q – old or new? There has been several Q’s but las much as I liked Ben as a younger Q in Craig’s era. There was something more homely with the aged tech guy that had spent his life around gadgets and building the latest new technology. For this Michael Caine would be perfect and let’s look at the logic of this. He was Alfred in dark knight, he wasn’t just the butler, he helped Bruce Wayne build his Batman including gadgets. Albeit the tech came from the character of lucious fox, Michael Caines Alfred had the enthusiasm to help this be assembled and that is the quality that makes me see him as Q.

MoneyPenny – now I figure instead of having her behind the desk was better utilised by having MoneyPenny more active in the Craig era really refreshed the character. This is something I think should be continued. And for this Anne Hathaway would be perfect to portray. She has been in multiple Nolan films from Catwoman to Intersteller she would be perfect to keep bond on his toes watching how he spends the money.

I’m also going to include another character more newer as only really in the Craig era of bond but the character of C – a somewhat second in command to M that kind of manages the operation of the office. For this role I thought a somewhat likeable character who isn’t a field agent but has just that little bit more higher rank than bond that would annoy bond with red tape. For this Joseph Gordon-Levitt would be perfect to play. Managing the agency and putting bond through testing on behalf of M would give audiance a bit of warmth and humour in more slower parts of the movie.

So now it brings me to the villains and this is difficult because unless you have a script there is no villains and if your looking at past iconic villains well I think we should avoid that because he had that in Craig’s run. We don’t need a new Blofeld – that being said Christopher Waltz was perfect in that role so why try and replicate that. Instead new characters new stories that ain’t tied to previous novels.

As no script it’s hard to predict what the villains would be. But all we have is Nolan and at least a trilogy of bond films so based on actors from previous Nolan films I have four actor that could easily be the villains of the trilogy of new films.

First on my list is Cillian Murphy – he’s played both villian and heroes in Nolan’s film and I think he would be perfect for the first villian for James band Tom hardy to face off with. I like parallels having cillian Murphy play the villian to James Bond Tom hardy kind of makes me think of a flip of a coin. Take the show Peaky Blinders where Cillian Murphy was the central lead character and Tom Hardy played a somewhat villian to Cillians character. The role reversal for James Bond would be like a reunion in an alternate reality. And I think that would be fun. Not only that Cillian makes perfect villains, kind of like Mads Mikklesln character in casino Royale

In a sequel or two my next picks are John David Washington, Robert Patterson and maybe even Harry Styles. Imagine if you will a celebration of Nolan actors as a group of villains working together but have separate roles. Like how you had spectre connecting everything – having multiple villains bond going against in the sequel would be interesting chase and these actors together would make that perfect mix of actors.

Finally the final Villain the last movie villain, they should have someone who really tests bond. And I think the best way they could do that is have someone who was once a 00 agent and who would be perfect for that. Christian Bale. Bale usually is a lead hero but of recent times he’s done more villainous roles like in Thor love and thunder. But I also think it would be a fitting end and again another Parallel to dark knight rises with the roles filmed Batman vs Bane to Tom Hardy Bond vs Christian Bales Villian

So what do you think? Do you agree with this fan cast? Do you have your own take based on a different director and actors. Leave a comment with your answers

Fantastic Four – Let’s talk about it

So marvel announces the fantastic four cast with graphic depicting cast of the core main four leads.

Interesting choices, I do not have much to say on the casting because the only actor I know in this is Pedro Pascal and it’s an interesting choice for Reed Richards. But guessing how good an actor will be in the role it’s too early to really figure out. So I won’t delve into this, or speculate.

Instead my focus would be what is the story going to be about? Well the image provided gives us a unique view which is it seems themed 1963 era. How do we know this well the magazine the thing is reading can be identified as the life magazine December issue.

So the Fantastic Four movie is going to be set in the 60’s? Hmmm this on its own asks multiple speculation and questions one being where have they been all this time if they was turned into superheroes in the 60’s. Well…

Here’s my thoughts. Setting it in 1963 would of been around the time Nasa Mercury mission to put a man in space occurred. Which kind of gives an interesting take on what the fantastic four would be doing in space. They are simply trying to be the first usa astronauts in space.

Why this is interesting is because previously they have explained the fantastic four getting there powers from some kind of experiment or cosmic event in space. So it’s a fictional reason for them to be there and get there abilities.

But setting it in 1963 kind of gives this story more reality. No fictional reason for them to be there. They simply could of been a group trying to be some of the first astronauts in space. And with that something happens to them before they there return to earth which gives them there abilities.

I like this because it grounds them in reality where as previously they have been seen as the same old troupe of accident happens during there mission that gives them there super abilities.

It’s fresh and bold way to revive them and give them purposes. So now the big question. What happens after and do they exist in the future or current present of the marvel universe.

So here is my thoughts, if the fantastic four is going to be a franchise they can’t stay in the 60’s especially if they want to interact with future based characters. So time travel has to be a part of the story.

The other route could be they stay in the 60’s and explains there induction into early shield as we know Hank Pym was doing missions as Antman in the 70’s and so forth. So shield had super powered heroes on there roaster since Steve Roger’s creation. Maybe even before, I mean they had a variation of the other human torch at the stark expo in Captain America the first avenger. Not the Johnny storm fantastic four but still.

I like both routes but as much as it would be cool to set up a 60’s-00’s era of superheroes predating Iron Man would be kind of a cool prequel addition. I feel that it isolated the fantastic four to only that era.

So time travel to the future gives them the most flexibility.

They could do a whole lost in space and time change differences to explain the time travel too. It travels away from earth time on the ship is different to earth so time moves slower for them than those on earth by time they make it back it’s the future. Which is a possibility they could do. Or they just get pushed instantly into the future.

Now between the two scenarios kind of gives you some avenues to explore. 1. If they get lost in space and find there way home but as time was slower for them they missed out on 70 years of history on earth. If that’s the case then the movie would have to feature a space adventure which is interesting. They would have to explain how they got there powers but also the villain would be alien. And one that I could see them coming across i Annihilus – I mean you could explain Galactus and silver surfer and even have that also part of the Plot but I’m guessing it would include Celestials and possible connections to the Eternals.

But let’s say, Annihilus becomes the villian as the first herald of Galactus and gets defeated by the fantastic four. Annihilus is of that level of villain he could be one and done story and not have to deal with them in the future but the fanatic four defeating Galactus herald means Galactus needs a new herald aka silver surfer and they set there eyes on the civilisation that destroyed its first herald four humans and there from earth setting up the coming of Galactus for a future appearance.

Fantastic four come back to earth but the ear is current times of marvel films and Met by Nick Fury

That’s the lost in space route.

Second route in my oppinion is more likely would involve Von Doom but with a generation of Von Dooms. Say Victors dad was a major funder of the project and lost alot of money from the failed mission resulting in the fantastic four going missing. Victors dad dies over time and his son Victor takes up his fathers business and now ruler of Latvaria. Upon hearing of the fantastic fours return in the future where dooms son Victor now in char he, doom seeks revenge (pre-secret wars story agenda) Victor seeks to reclaim lost profit from the fantastic four and thus attempts to steal information they found. Eventually learning about the multiple universes from there data setting up the secret wars future. But prior to that Victor becomes more like his Von Doom persona gaining the armour and abilities and mask maybe based on stark tech he purchased. (A nod to armour wars) the new/old fantastic four defeat Doom but only causing doom to retreat into his plan of secret war.

So there we have it. This is my anjalysis is based on one image released.

What if MCU Captain America Worked For The TVA?

Any MCU fan would have watched Avengers Endgame and saw how Captain America went back in time and stay in the past. Only for us to see old man cap passing the shield. Writers explain “Branch Timeline” however he travelled back to this timeline to pass the shield. Thus having not to explain what happened to Captain America staying hidden for over 70 years. but I have a new theory on this, despite what the writers say, what if Captain America was in the MCU past and lived through the history watching events unfold. “But what about the butterfly effect” well there has been more marvel properties since the original idea that could explain what Cap did.

For one, Loki series introduces the TVA. And they explained that the time travel that the avengers did was part of the sacred timeline and needed to happen. Ok but what about Caps divergence creating a branch. Well there is two trains of thought

1. There is only one timeline in the tva. The sacred timeline so in theory, cap could t of gone to a parallel world because it would go against Kangs plan with the one timeline.

2. Which would mean that Cap staying in the past, had to happen in that timeline. Not an alternative. But then what about the butterfly effect. Surely his return to the past with future knowledge would change the future?

My answer to this, yes, yes it would…unless he had help. See the TVA doesn’t always prune it’s variants some mindwiped becomes employees and in the case of Loki with no mind wipe did what he was supposed to do because it was always Kangs plan.

But as the TVA keeps the timeline in check, they would need to look for any variation branch timelines. This is where Cap becomes very useful. See he knows what is to come in that timeline, he knows how it should go. And he’s patriotic, he would fight to keep everything the same so no butterfly effect would occur.

So my theory is this, Captain America when he went back was picked up by the TVA, and given the usual explanation of variant branch timelines. But as he’s from that future he has a unique idea of what’s to come. And as he missed 70 years of live events he is less likely to trigger a butterfly effect because he was not there to witness how events went but only read about them. If he read about them at all. He wasn’t in the future for very long we don’t know how much of the past he researched. But we could denote he would have read at least some things.

TVA hired Captain America to become a TVA agent to help the 70’s of history unfold without variant branch ones by keeping it on track. I mean think of the scenarios he could have been involved with. Cap could have been responsible for Nick Fury becoming the director of shield. Considering he works with Peggy Carter in founding shield. Making sure they get the one person they can trust to lead shield in the future and nobody else takes that spot.

You could also cement this as a possibility because in one scene from Loki season 1 we saw a Peggy Carter be brought to the TVA. Maybe she wasn’t a variant but the actual Peggy Carter. See she’s linked with Cap so if cap has a new mission to keep the timeline on track he would need a trusted ally. That’s where Peggy comes in. The TVA brings her in explains Captains situation and how the both of them become honour members of the TVA.

This then brings me to my other theory, on Captain America being the grand parent of Captain Britain. Obviously Cap is missing in history, so he needs a new identity. A new masked hero called Braddock. Only Peggy knows who he is and as part of the guise he is a British operative liaison for shield. (Which coincides with what Peggy said in the 70’s) this switch of identity and possibly locating to England might be the cover. Then Peggy and Cap (now braddock) has a kid then years later become grandparents to a kid who would become the future Captain Britain if they ever introduce this character..

Timeline kept on track, history doesn’t diverge, TVA Happy.

Loki / Deadpool 3 & 2 TVA’s?

Seen a lot of Easter egg hunting of the new Deadpool and Wolverine trailer but nobody seems to be noticing this. Or maybe some have partially commented on it but not compared in this way.

The TVA seems to be coloured different in the Deadpool and Wolverine trailer. And it got me thinking. What if there is two TVAs? A Loki or MCU universe and a Fox universe? Or maybe it’s the same TVA but the colour plays an important part of the story.

First off the TVA seems to have three common colours in both the Loki series and the Deadpool trailer. They are Black, Brown and Gold… but those colours are not the overal theme of the place, more an accessory.

When you look at the main theme the colours differ. Green and Orange was in Loki, Red and Blue in the Deadpool trailer.

Before we delve into that I want to explain some thing in comic books. See when colours was limited in early comics they would use reds, blues and yellows to denote a hero. And green, orange and purples to denote a villain… don’t believe me go look it up. What colour is fantastic four suits compared to dr. Doom, look at superman costume vs lex Luther… put Thor and Loki next to each other…. Now you see it.

Which brings me back to “on film” has these colours system ever been used in film or tv shows of a comic nature. Yes. First time we saw that was in Punisher Warzone that stared Ray Stevenson in the role. Watch the dvd making of and they do a whole piece on using only green, orange and purple.

Cut to the Loki tv series. What colours was prevalent in that, the tva was orange, Loki was green and some of the worlds they visited was purple. And technically Loki was a villain somewhat a reformed one by the end

Cut to Deadpool and the trailer is coloured different the tva seems to be more red and blue so does the tva change colour depending on its central character? Or are there two tvas. I mean that could make sense that if say the fox universe was merging with the Disney verse then they could have had there own tvas and explains also why we didn’t see Paradox in the Loki series.

But take a look at these pictures from the trailer of Deadpool, and wolverine and set photos from Loki and see if you seee what I see.

From Loki TV series… the use of greens and oranges

From Deadpool 3 trailer

If the tva is themed for its central star, would explain the green from Loki, and red from Deadpool based on there costumes.

What if the marvel MCU and fox x-men universes diverged at a single point

What if… 615 is the fox universe with mutants and 616 is the MCU and all what happened was a simple change that split the two universes on different paths.

My theory is simply this, sometime during the early 19th century mutants didn’t exist. No wolverine, no magneto, no Professor X, no x-men no mutants. Because of this we get the MCU universe. Super human serum invented leading to Captain America and extra. But if mutants had existed then the avengers and most of the MCU timeline probably didn’t happen. Let me explain.

Super Human Serum & Weapon X Program

In the comics they both happened around the same time and kind of connected but we’re talking movie universe. See in the X-Men world, mutants existed. There for research into creating a super human probably would have been replaced by the weapon x Programmes. Turning humans into mutants. Not everyone knows mutants exist but those that did tried to utilise this in the weapon x programs. So instead of Captain America being the hero of world war 2. It became Wolverine, wolverine literally replaces Captain America. There for Steve Rogers probably never got into the army as no super human program the project probably went to other scientists.

Iron Man & Sentinel Programs.

With mutants starting to appear, sentinels became the suit of armour around the world and based on the x-men films this happened in the 70’s so if sentinels was allowed to continue where does that leave stark industries. Well, there is a lot of implications here. Does shield exist? Maybe Howard stark went to work with bolvair trask. And eventually maybe Tony stark would be working in a trask lab because no obediah stain causing Tony to become iron man.

Avengers & X-Men

With mutants being the bigger threat. Possibly be no Nick fury assembling an avengers. Maybe shield exist but it’s origin is largely connected to Captain America but if no super soldier serum no shield? Well there could be more than one way shield gets invented. So shield could exist but the threat is mutants not humans. So maybe Nick Fury worked or helped Professor X to create the x-men. Ok that’s not in the x-men movies but if Nick who isn’t a mutant needs to create a task force for mutants you could either find someone like Professor x to help him create the x-men but be a silent partner. Or Nick could have been in the background of the weapon x programe. But alas no avengers because you have the x-men

Again, because of Captain America you basically have the response of how shield was created leading to Howard stark and then Tony then iron man and of course hulk. So none of this happens as no super human serum.

Eternals & Apocalypse

It is possible that Apocalypse lays dormant in the MCU. The x-men universe doesn’t really delve too much into ancient history. Other than apocalypse in Ancient Egypt – but say something happened and mutants didn’t exist in the future. No x-men first class characters to awaken apocalypse, then he still lays dormant. Given that apocalypse is embed with celestial technology that too can make sense given we have been introduced to them in Eternals

But if mutants existed wouldn’t Thanos still be looking to wipe out half the universe to stop the Celestials? With infinity stones.

Well maybe not. Remember I said an event that wiped out the mutants sometime in the early 19th century. What if that even was on Titan and Thanos was wiped out and died on his planet when the Celestial awoken. No Thanos no infinity stones right. But how does that lead to no mutants on earth?

Well, with no mutants on earth no need to hide the infinity stones. And one of them could have been used to wipe out mutants. Who would do that? What about a coven of witches? Like Agatha all along?

She’s been around along time. And tesseract is on earth, but so is the reality stone. And what could you change with the reality stone….

And that is my theory.

Thundercats shouldn’t be made into a live action movie, hear me out.

Firstly I don’t like to deal in absolutes but with a lot of live action adaptions of franchises from the 80’s and 90’s on the screens I turned my attention to contemplate what ones has yet to become a live action or semi-live action on screen film.

One of the most requested live action is Thundercats. There’s been fan casting, there has been a lot of ideas and talented artwork from fans pleading for this to be made. But alot of it seems to be on surface level. Sure Chris Hemsworth could look like Lion-O but that’s not the problem.

The problem with Thundercats is that it exists in a realm that requires you to understand what it is so the film can begin. What I mean by that is Thundercats is set in its own world and a reality far different from ours and that means part of a thundercats movie would have to deal with an origin story before they can jump right back into this world.

Origin stories are tricky sometimes they are ok. Especially to an unknown franchise as a first entry to the future franchise. However thundercats there will be fans that knows it from the 80’s, fans that know it from the reboot series and fans that will only know it of the thundercats movie that gets made. So you just can’t jump in and tell the first movie without the origin. In the same way you can’t portray the movie origin without probably annoying fans who will be critical.

So it’s a world not like ours, and origin story would be needed so that everyone can understand where this movie is coming from. And it has to appeal to all the demographic. It can’t just be a love letter to those of the 80’s.

The second problem is a project like thundercats would need more than one movie. It’s not a one and done scenario – trilogy at the least because if you make a thundercats movie and the only movie you make is an origin story then your gonna want people to see more. Origin stories are ok if you’re going to continue. If not then the movie has to stand alone, but that’s difficult with an origin.

Then there is the cast, you would need to have some pretty good cast members on the list but the characters are vast. You need most of them in it which means you would need at least 6 big name stars to run with it and that costs money. This then also fuels the fact you need more movies as those actors won’t just do one.

So the problem with thundercats the live action movie is that is too big a project to take a risk on.

Maybe it’s better staying as a memory in animated form or maybe create a new animated series to continue the adventures which is the trend with marvel making X-Men 97 to continue the x-men animated series. And then Heman revelations that literally continues heman from the original show.

Think I Fixed The Marvel Cinematic Universe – My Multiverse Explained Theory

Does anyone understand the Marvel Cinematic Universe anymore since the Multiverse Saga unfolds?

Its like a puzzle but the problem is two phases in and we are none the wiser as to where they are going with this other than Secret Wars being the concluding to the saga.

So whats a guy with OCD, a love for marvel and the ability to make a square peg fit a round hole.

I was thinking, the multiverse exists, deadpool is coming over from the Fox franchise of mutants and x-men worlds, Spiderman came over from Sony. So heres my thought what if each film studio was its own universe within the multiverse. i mean its kind of already been confirmed that with the notion that tobey maguire and andrew garfield spiderman existing albiet briefly in the disney marvel universe. so lets break that 4th wall even more so and look at all the marvel movies and tv shows that have been made by different studios. Now im only focusing on Marvel characters that other studios have made because Marvel licensed products turned into films by studios also kind of covers bizzarly Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and yes i know there is a reality where TMNT connects to Daredevils origin. But lets ignore that for now and just focus on the Marvel characters.

But before we do i want to talk about Kang. as He Who remains said, Every Nathaniel Richards in the 31st century simultaneously discovered the multiverse and they shared technology to advance each others worlds. Until the war and purging of timelines. based on that idea then it would be safe to say that the 20th Century Fox – Mutant heavy timeline would of had a Kang (and he kind of did appear in Quantomania in theory but we will explore that in a minuet) and there must be a Kang in Sony’s Spiderverse. So the question is which one and what about the other studios that made Marvel Films. Well this is where it gets weird

We’ve kind of been introduced to six Nathaniel Richards Variants (Kang, Immortus, He Who Remains, Victor Timely, Rama Tut and Scarlet Centurian) sure we saw more in the cut scene but they were kind of throw away extras to show the infinity of them in existance. The Council Of Kangs but the 6 i mentioned have taken a more center stage.

Co-Incidently 6 Kangs – 6 studios made Marvel films.

20th Century Fox – with X-Men, Fantastic Four, Daredevil

Sony – as Columbia Pictures – with Spiderman and Ghost RIder

Lionsgate – after buying Artisan Films – Made Punisher Films

Disney – Obviously MCU

Warner Brothers who own New Line who made – Blade movies

Now to explain it all i made this graphic to basically save time in typing it out but here is how i see those characters fit ba\sed on the 6 kang variants we got and how they probably fit in one of those universes. Each studio is a universe so i marked that as say Sony Universe, Disney universe ect.

Let me know what you think, have i fixed the MCU Multiverse story?

FYI all these multiverse bar 1 was purged until Sylvia killed He Who Remains and restarted everthing so they all come back in a cycle.

Enjoy