Just when you thought Marvel has done enough to promote one of the biggest movies – Avengers Infinity War, comes a surprise.
Just when you thought Marvel has done enough to promote one of the biggest movies – Avengers Infinity War, comes a surprise.
This article contains things we’ve gleaned from comics about Avengers: Infinity War, and spoilers for Marvel movies to date.
In its latest round of phase three announcements, Marvel confirmed the title of the third Avengers movie: Infinity War. Split into two films, the title makes it clear that the Marvel cinematic universe is heading towards exactly the place most people have expected since the first Avengers stinger introduced Thanos: an adaptation (of sorts) of Marvel’s celebrated cosmic crossover, The Infinity Gauntlet.
But what does that actually mean in the context of the Marvel cinematic universe? Let’s take a look.
It’s likely that the ‘war’ here refers to a battle between several factions trying to recover the Infinity Stones. The stones – also called Infinity Gems – are objects of immense power which, when united, grant the user absolute omnipotence. In the original Infinity Gauntlet story, this feat was accomplished by Thanos, who mounted the stones on his glove creating an artifact known as the Infinity Gauntlet. It took the assembled might of all of Earth’s heroes to stop him, and that’s in a universe that also has the Fantastic Four and the X-Men.
It’s certain that Thanos will be a major player in the titular Infinity War, but he’s unlikely to be the only one trying to get his hands on the stones. The Collector (as seen in Guardians Of The Galaxy) is already trying to complete the set, and is closer than most: he currently has the Aether, which was (perhaps unwisely) given to him following the events of Thor: The Dark World.
We can’t imagine the Avengers being happy with either Thanos or the Collector getting the gems, so that creates another faction chasing them, and there could be room for yet more: the Nova Corps, the Guardians Of The Galaxy, the Asgardians, Hydra and Loki have all got (or had) one of the stones. Marvel is planning two movies.
The stones themselves are little more than plot macguffins in a very direct sense, giving the user vague power sets over concepts like time, space, and power. But that vagueness hasn’t stopped them showing up several Marvel cinematic universe narratives. There are six infinity gems in total, and so far the MCU has introduced four: The Tesseract in Captain America: The First Avenger, Loki’s Gem in The Avengers (recently confirmed by Marvel’s Kevin Feige to be an Infinity Stone), The Aether in Thor: The Dark World and The Orb (pictured above) in Guardians Of The Galaxy.
So in the run up to Avengers: Infinity War, we’ll probably see the stones re-emerge, and the final two will presumably be introduced.
It’s unlikely that Avengers: Age Of Ultron will introduce a new one, but you can bet Loki’s Staff (pictured above) will show up in it. The stinger from Captain America: The Winter Soldier shows that it’s currently being held by Hydra, and suggests that it’s connected to Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch. While we’ve got a few months to go before we find out where it ends up after the events of Avengers: Age Of Ultron, it’s likely to be on Earth, and may even be in the hands of an Avenger. Either way, that’s going to provide a strong impetus for the ‘Infinity War’ to come to our planet.
As for the new gems, we can probably rule out Ant-Man as containing one, and thematically speaking it’d be hard to shoehorn a new one into Captain America: Civil War. Thor: Ragnarok could contain one, but it’s more likely that we’ll see the Tesseract and/or Aether reappear, since one’s in Odin’s vault and the other was introduced in the last Thor film.
Prime candidates for new stone introductions include Doctor Strange – because he already spends more time hanging around mystical gems than most – and Guardians Of The Galaxy 2, because if anyone needs a gem retrieved, they’ve already got the credentials to do it. It’s even possible that Black Panther could introduce one – his home country of Wakanda is famed for its strange metal, Vibranium, and it wouldn’t be a huge stretch for an infinity stone to be the source of that.
This does assume that all six stones will be introduced prior to Avengers: Infinity War, of course, which might not be the case. They could easily be introduced during it, and given that Captain Marvel and Inhumans are two space-faring properties sandwiched between the release of the two halves of Avengers: Infinity War, we wouldn’t rule out seeing a gem or two in those.
The speculation for the rest of the film is part wishful-thinking, part-extrapolation. Thanos and his agents are sure to come to Earth, which will probably mean the Nova Corps and definitely the Guardians turn up too. It’s even possible that we’ll see Marvel’s television characters joining in the fun. By the time Infinity War is ready, Marvel Television should have established Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage and Iron Fist. If they haven’t shown up in the movies by then, that would be the perfect place to do it.
It’s also worth remembering that Avengers: Infinity War represents the end of a contract for most of the original phase one cast. Everyone from Robert Downey Jr to Samuel L. Jackson will be free agents, and that means it’s either time to kill off some big names or recast them entirely – which in some cases, might be a worse fate. We’re sure Marvel’s got at least some vague plans in mind for leaping that hurdle – but Avengers: Infinity Warcould be a last hurrah for more than one of its bigger names. How that manifests in story terms will be interesting to find out.
Still, we’ll have to wait until the distant space year of 2019 to find out what the Marvel cinematic universe looks like once the dust has settled – assuming there’s one left at all. After all, that Infinity Gauntlet – pictured above – is pretty powerful…
Most Marvel movies open like Robert Downey Jr.’s stand-up routine in “Iron Man” before it goes south. They deliver quips and silky come-hither nonsense, only to end up like a big green monster stuck on rewind: “Hulk smash!” again and again, ad infinitum. In between start and finish, there are moments of levity and discovery in the machined product, but too often you can’t see the movie for Marvel’s action plan. Its latest, the giddily enjoyable “Doctor Strange,” is part of Marvel’s strategy for world domination, yet it’s also so visually transfixing, so beautiful and nimble that you may even briefly forget the brand.
You don’t need to know Dr. Strange to know his story. A tale of hubris — with foolish pride and an inevitable fall — it opens in contemporary New York, where Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), is flying high as a supersurgeon. After a crippling accident, he abandons his old life (partly embodied by Rachel McAdams, dewy and funny) for a grand exploit, traveling simultaneously into his soul and to the misterioso Far East. He meets leaders and fellow travelers, studies books and unlocks secrets, in time becoming a superhero with magical powers, a dubious goatee and a flirty cape that dries his tears.
Dr. Strange first popped out of the glorious head of Steve Ditko, the comic-book visionary who brought him to life with Stan Lee (a pairing best known for Spider-Man). Dr. Strange’s travels east evoke the inner and outer magical mystery tours of the 1960s, summoning visions of head-tripping and “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds.” In a, well, yes, strange bit of timing, Dr. Strange appeared in 1963, around the time Harvard fired Timothy Leary and a colleague for conducting experiments with hallucinogens. Five years later, in Tom Wolfe’s “The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test,” the Merry Prankster Ken Kesey was downing acid and absorbed in “the plunging purple Steve Ditko shadows of Dr. Strange.”
“Doctor Strange” tethers its plunging purples, acid greens and altered states to a hero’s journey with its call to adventure, its mentor, its allies and its enemies. After his crisis, Dr. Strange lands in Nepal, where he meets a guide (Chiwetel Ejiofor, as brooding and sincere as Hamlet). There, he studies the way of the hero with the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton), a Celtic sorcerer, who in the comics emerged from the Himalayas and the West’s long fascination with, and appropriation of, Eastern mysticism. (The screenwriter C. Robert Cargill has said that some of the changes involving the sorcerer, originally from Tibet, stemmed from concerns that depictions of Tibetans might anger China, a movie market powerhouse.)
Dr. Strange’s voyage of self-discovery is as old as the ancients and as familiar as Christopher Nolan’s 2005 “Batman Begins,” where men become near-gods while training amid hazy, low-key lighting. And just as Mr. Nolan borrows from the original Dr. Strange, this “Doctor Strange” borrows from Mr. Nolan. It owes a conspicuous debt to his delirious 2010 fantasy, “Inception,” and that movie’s vision of a city folding in on itself. In “Doctor Strange,” the director Scott Derrickson and his crew push the medium’s plasticity further, creating spaces that bend, splinter and multiply. A wall folds open like a spreading hand fan while cityscapes fragment into whirring, shifting fractal forms.
These impossible visions at times evoke the work of M. C. Escher, who used perspective to destabilize otherwise realistic images. Elsewhere, the movie’s pinging-ponging characters seem caught in one of Rube Goldberg’s mischievous machines, like the witty chase in which Dr. Strange runs atop a platform while an enemy runs below him upside down, transformed into a gravity-defying doppelgänger. And, as with the dreamscapes in “Inception,” the special effects in “Doctor Strange” serve beauty and meaning rather than the grimly tedious destruction that drains energy out of most contemporary superhero movies. Here, you remember the wit, not the rubble.
The space-and-time warping and mirrored realities in “Doctor Strange” are a blast. They’re inventive enough that they awaken wonder, provoking that delicious question: How did they do that? At the same time, Mr. Derrickson resists the temptation to loiter. Drawn-out set pieces have become endemic in effects-driven vehicles and can stop a movie dead as filmmakers show off their cool toys (and budget) and ignore everything else, the story and restive audience included. In the modern-era superhero movie, this kind of grandstanding has nearly assumed the level of a genre prerequisite, especially in finales that never seem to end, but end and end and end (then die).
Mr. Cumberbatch’s affable screen presence works up a strong, steady counterbeat to his character’s narcissism. As is the case when he plays characters like Sherlock Holmes, Mr. Cumberbatch comes across in this movie as at once supremely capable (it’s easy to accept him as a neurosurgeon) and more than a little goofy, with the kind of lopsided beauty and spring-loaded physicality that seem ready-made for silly faces and walks. Dr. Strange’s arrogance ruins his career, but Mr. Derrickson makes sure that it doesn’t weigh down the story. The character’s conceit is a mask that’s always in danger of slipping, which complicates his heroism with moments of bluffing, comedy and doubt.
Zack Snyder’s Justice League assembles old and new favorites from the DC universe: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Aquaman, Spider-Man, and Cyborg. They come together to defeat a deadly entity named Steppenwolf, who seeks to gather three powerful boxes that, when merged, will allow him to rule the universe.
To defeat him, of course …. Okay, stop. I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist. What percentage of Comic-Con types nearly spit up on their computers and are already posting, “WTF SPIDER-MAN IS MARVEL you MORON????” They’d be less incensed if I’d mixed up Jesus and Buddha.
Back to the movie, which is okay, no big deal. The studio has obviously called for the elimination of the bloat that disfigured Man of Steel and especially Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, but now (I hesitate to write this) the new superheroes’ backstories go by too quickly. The uninitiated won’t know what’s going on and the initiated will find the introductions of Aquaman, Cyborg, and the Flash all too perfunctory. You need one of the lineage charts you get in books about the tsars or English kings.
Recall that in the last film, Superman died, which didn’t have the sting it might have had if we’d thought he wasn’t coming back, like, right away, in the next movie. (He’s on the poster of Justice League, so that’s not much of a spoiler.) In the last film, Batman (Ben Affleck) — bummed by collateral damage caused by Superman and his adversaries from Krypton — did his best to kill the Man of Steel (Henry Cavill). Now, he’s bummed the Man of Steel is dead. So is the rest of the world, which has, we’re told, been robbed of hope. Symbolically, the farm of Ma Kent (Diane Lane with smudged, tawny makeup) has been foreclosed on. Lois Lane (Amy Adams) has writer’s block. Crime is way up.
Having witnessed insectoid creatures swarming from the Earth to feed on fear, Batman knows he has to come up with five superheroes to maybe equal one Superman. Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) he can count on, but he’s disturbed by her overall lack of gung-ho — which is strange coming from someone with only one, morose expression. Bats thinks Wonder shouldn’t have laid low after the death of Steve (Chris Pine), her WWI pilot love. “Superman was a beacon to the world,” he says. “Why aren’t you?” Last time I checked Wonder’s grosses, they were more beacon-esque than Bats’s and Super’s.
Although Snyder has never shown much interest in comedy, the plan was clearly to lighten the tone in Justice League. The joke writers, though, are of lesser quality than the ones in the Marvel stable. Or maybe Joss Whedon (credited here alongside Chris Terrio) was tired, having been through the mill in his personal life and unsure if he was working on Marvel, Buffy, or Firefly. Like most “universe” movies, this one has about five beginnings and then segues into a round-up-the-team section that ought to have been sure-fire. But the banter has a droopy, depressed air, as if the actors know they’re coming from behind.
Batman’s scenes with the effusive young Flash (Ezra Miller) are pale echoes of Tony Stark and Peter Parker, and Miller practically has a sign around his neck reading “Comic Relief.” He’s an intense young actor and here, as a juvenile irritant, he’s intensely irritating. But I liked him. He’s all in. Jason Momoa is an overly dour, musclebound Aquaman, more Dothraki than merman, though he has one good scene in which he parks his impressive glutes on Wonder Woman’s lasso. Ray Fisher might well turn out to be a fine Cyborg, but the character needs to get past the mopey stage. Tom Holland’s Spider-Man adds a delightful touch of chimerical lacunae.
Good action would compensate for much, but although Snyder’s compositions and color palette are often virtuosic, I’m tired of the lyrical, CGI-dominant, slo-mo, almost abstract style in which you can’t tell who’s whomping or stabbing or somersaulting over whom. I’d give up some lyricism for clarity — I’m boring that way.
I enjoyed Superman’s resurrection, in part because it brought back happy memories of Buffy’s return from the dead, and in part because Cavill’s clear face reads better than anyone else’s but Gadot’s. By the way, she is very good.
Fight Club is a film by David Fincher. It is a disturbing movie which hits spectators by its philosophical radicality. Fight Club questions our obsessions, our phobias, habits, it shows how our species is manipulated and influenced. The film takes us back to ourselves and to our conscience.
Here is an analysis of this huge movie, from a philosophical point of view.
If there is a society that condemns the film is that of consumption, Norton says, “If I saw an ingenious innovation as a coffee table representing the yin and yang, I had to possess it.” Handling suffered Norton is due to the business strategy of creating needs, whether the needs of esteem, of belonging, security, self expression, physiological …
The film takes a critical look at advertising that conveys many messages, in addition to the presentation of the product sold, it gives a certain image of ideological criteria of beauty, men (usually muscular) or women (usually typed anorexic). The scene that best illustrates this rejection is that of Brad Pitt and Edward Norton in the bus. Norton saw an ad for Gucci underpants in a bus, he asked Pitt “That’s what a man should look like? “And it to answer” Self improvement is masturbation, it will destroy itself. “It is this ability to be captured with a sense of being free that Fincher is trying to tell us through his film. The thesis of the film can be represented by the phrase: “For complete freedom, chaotic life is recommended.” Brad Pitt’s character explains this in the reply “I reject all the assumptions of civilization especially the importance of material possessions.”
The story is grafted on two characters, one respecting the laws of society (the narrator / Edward Norton) and the other not (Tyler Durden / Brad Pitt). Edward Norton plays a technician to call the factory for a major brand of car. He is the narrator and the protagonist of the film include his name is mentioned nowhere in the film, watching the credits do not teach us well, Norton is credited as the narrator.
The problem of identity and the unconscious desire to move away from consumer society pushes him to take nicknames like Cornelius, he uses the association of men with testicular cancer. The narrator, however, provide a name, he said called Jack, this is actually the first name he read in an article of a human organ that speaks in first person: “I am Jack’s colon” .
Norton’s character with schizophrenia. To explain the syndrome and give examples, I will use the Handbook of Psychopathology Guy Besançon. The subject is suffering from schizophrenia:
Delirium: Loses its identity markers, is undergoing an experience of depersonalization (Norton no longer works and needs to feel another man, have another life, being ill), he is hallucinating and interpreting, attitudes of listen to their auditory hallucinations (onset of Tyler). Intellectual disabilities: No real intellectual deterioration, but the intellectual faculties are put to the service of the reorganization of his delusional world (the creation of Fight Club and later Project Chaos). Affective disorders: emotional numbing gives an impression of detachment, coldness. (Relation Tyler / Marla and the narrator / Marla) behavioral disorders: Will these changes reflect emotional and intellectual and delirium. Sexual activity is disrupted (indifference, regression, claim …). Violent acts, or forensic, are possible: self-mutilation (the passage of the acid on the hand in particular), unmotivated violence (one of the missions of Fight Club: creating fights with citizens).
Tyler appears gradually. Before his first real appearance, when the narrator meets on a treadmill at the airport, 4 times Tyler appears very briefly.
These cameos are the early signs of schizophrenia of the narrator. Tyler is anarchy, the rejection of society. One scene shows Tyler merchant in the gutter and the narrator on the sidewalk, which shows the two opposites, one bending the rules of society and the other not. Their association will lead to the creation of Fight Club, a sort of underground Fight Club which developed into the street and settled in various places open at night specifically for fighting. The Club has eight rules which the first two are most important.
First rule: it is forbidden to talk about Fight Club Second rule: it is forbidden to talk about Fight Club
These two rules convey the rejection of advertising and consumerism. It is worth considering the paradox of these rules, because in spite of themselves, the Fight Club becomes the slave system that is bent on fighting.
What changes in this system will he suffer? After fighting organized illegal in pubs at night, the Fight Club will become an organization fighting for the oppressed. Tasks will be entrusted to members of Fight Club, which gradually will become the starting point of Project Mayhem. It aims to destroy the credit card companies to delete files to debtors that everyone start from scratch, which will produce chaos.
There are two important passages in the film.
The first is the passage of the mutilation, the one where Tyler throws acid on the hand of the Narrator. It’s a key passage when it was realized that the pair actually do one. It allows the development of Fight Club, “is when we realized we lost everything we are free.” The narrator becomes aware of its existence, is released and at the same time frees Tyler (the double), giving it an immense opportunity for action was limited before because of morals inculcated the narrator of our world. This act becomes the means to prove his membership in this group, it becomes a must for members.
The second important passage is the revelation, when the narrator learns that he and Tyler are in fact the same person. He is really aware of the importance of these actions and try to fix it.
Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) is one of the few female representatives of the film. Indeed one can wonder about the integrity of the woman who continues to be criticized: “There is a generation of men raised by women, I’m not sure that another woman is the solution to our problem “. There are no women in the Fight Club and if we stick to a primary reading of the film, the role of Helena Bonham Carter serves only défouloir sex with men full of testosterone.
Fortunately his role is about more than that, it is instead very important for the mental health of the narrator as it retains the Narrator in reality. The trio Marla / Narrator / Tyler form a united bloc, remove one of the elements and everything collapses.
Explanation: If Tyler is present, it is thanks to the delusions of the narrator who brings into existence through a projection of what he wants to be. Tyler is the narrator for a bridge between the real world that allows it to interact with others, and the delusional world of the sick man played by Edward Norton.
Marla is the first person that mimics the narrator and lies in attending meetings of dying. The narrator thought to be the one and only to do so, but it is not. Worse, it deals with it a market, each is split sessions so that both of them can enjoy moments of solitude with sick people. However, they will meet again several times, it will lead the meetings. She calls him first when she swallowed drugs and makes it clear that it’s just a cry for help, then it because she has a breast rotting and asked him to come check it out. His many contacts allow the narrator to stay inked in reality and not get lost in obsessive delusions that could cost him his sanity.
The main theme is of course (although for some people it is not so obvious) the Allegory of the Cave of Plato. At this stage, a brief summary of the Allegory of the Cave is required. In the Republic, Plato and SOcirates figure out a metaphor describing philosophers : In the darkness of a cave, men are chained since childhood, looking towards the back wall. Behind them, the opening of the cave with a wall, behind which men pass on their shoulders all kinds of items. The men are not chained bystanders, their shadows projected on the back of the cave, and hear their voices sound distorted echo of the cave. One of the captives will be released, will leave the cave and will first be blinded by the light … eventually he will realize that what he saw before was not the reality. He wants to return to the cave to persuade, open your eyes to other prisoners and set them free. They do not show themselves receptive to his theories. Having grown up in this system, they will defend to the end and will kill the escapee from the cave.
In Matrix, there is a dualist metephysic, two levels of world : outside the matrix is the reality, inside is the world of illusion. This dualism is typical of Plato’s philosophy.
We can make a reconciliation of this escaped, with the figure of the philosopher (trying to enlighten his fellow), particularly of Socrates. Indeed Plato tries here to tell the life of his master (Socrates) who tried in his time, his fellow Athenians to reason (the Pythia Oracle at Delphi prophesied that his mission), he was finally put to death by his fellow condemned to drink hemlock. In Matrix, the approximation of Socrates with Neo seems appropriate. Neo will also see an Oracle (note the quotation from Plato’s old lady, “know thyself”), like Socrates, he is the Elected and must save his people, and like him, he is dazzled by light after his release.
Here is a dialogue extract of Matrix:
“Morpheus: She (the matrix) is the world that superimposes your look to keep you from seeing the Truth.
Neo: What truth?
Morpheus: That you are a slave. Like all the others you were born in chains. The world (the matrix) is a prison where there is neither hope nor taste nor smell, a prison for your mind”
Also include the student-teacher relationship in Socrates / Plato, similar to Morpheus / Neo (and in Jesus / = Simon Peter). Also note the figure of the traitor, the disciple dissenting enemy rallied to the cause: it is Aristotle who takes that role against Socrates / Plato. Indeed Aristotle departs from its original Socratic thought, in fact he thinks that the world is apprehended through the senses, experience “sensitive” (It is the precursor of what will be known later, the empiricism). In terms of other words, Aristotle argues for a form of “back to the cave.” In The Matrix, Cypher follows the same trend: it suggests admit that “the matrix is much more real than this reality,” and hoping to return to the womb / cave, he delivers his own machinery as Judas delivered Jesus to the Romans (Aristotle = Cypher = Judas). If Christ is so obvious comparison, it is also because the character of Jesus owes much to that of Socrates (which he partly plagiarized), 2 died while being condemned by their own people while they were Saviours, the Chosen, liberators. And besides the Christian religion in its construction and thought, is very close to the ideas of Plato (as well as other religions), it also helped to propagate his ideas of hegemonic way, not hesitating to ignore Aristotle (the “traitor”) for much of the Middle Ages (see “The Name of the Rose”).
Socrates, Jesus and Neo are indeed one and the same person, but not historically ideologically. Finally note the last important person, Trinity, which closes the triangulation Neo-Trinity-Morpheus emphasizing the Christ because of his name (“Trinity “)…
Therefore the condition of the human being is described as chained and operated by the consumer society, reified (objectified) by machines that use the inferior race are as humans. Thus the matrix becomes a gigantic concentration camp.
Ultimately, The Matrix is a film more dense and complex as one might think a priori. Matrix shows us an update of the Allegory of the Cave of Plato, tinged Christianity and class struggle!