All posts by David Kaique
TVA also labels the prime MCU reality as "616".
Both.
For Marvel Comics, it's 199999. They gave this designation back in 2008 in the early days of the MCU.
Once the MCU started exploring the Multiverse +10 years later, I think Marvel Studios chose not to follow the idea that "comics and movies co-exist in the same multiverse", making the MCU a separate multiverse (?). In one way or another, 616 is the only designation mentioned in MCU movies/shows.
"Antonia" is literally the female version of the name "Anthony "Tony"".
She is just a gender swapped version of Tony/Taskmaster, not a completely separate character. She is the real Taskmaster in the MCU. I don't think the MCU will have two Taskmasters with similar real names. It would be a curious coincidence.
She is confirmed to appear in Thunderbolts, there is no more mind control like in Black Widow, and 8-9 years later in-universe. There are chances for the character to become more interesting.
"Antonia" is the female version of the name "Anthony/"Tony". She is the MCU version of that character. I don't think there will be two Taskmasters with similar real names. They'll probably give Antonia a personality more similar to Tony in "Thunderbolts" since she's free of Dreykov.
@X9 The Android It was said that Gunn's Superman movie will focus on a young Clark Kent during his early days as a reporter in Metropolis. It's impossible for it to be a prequel to Man of Steel, an origin story that sees Clark Kent (33yo) wearing the suit for the first time. Plus, he is not a reporter and resident of Metropolis until the very last scene of the movie.
@Superbattleshipyamato I don't think there's anything to be "fixed", but sorry for reminding you about TDK.
I think you misunderstood the Stark/RDJ thing. I was referring to comics tied to the MCU. Yep, those are in the same universe as the movies. Anyway, comics in general add something to this discussion. When a comic book changes the artist, the characters look different. Different styles and interpretations of characters. It is similar to ''recast'' and both do not affect continuity or story.
I understand it’s your point of view. Just because I disagree with you (and expressed my point of view with details) doesn't mean I don't understand it. That's okay. Maybe I overdid it with such long replies.
@Superbattleshipyamato Dumbledore? Except for the character's beard, the two actors are different. Different acting too. A recast is a recast, and if you think an explanation is needed, it's just inconsistent for you to be selective. Your theories could apply to everyone.
If I followed your logic, I would have to question about younger versions of MCU characters. Why doesn't Young Wanda Maximoff look like Young Elizabeth Olsen? It's just boring.
Even Christopher Nolan, "realism into superhero movies", didn't bother to explain why Rachel was played by another actress in TDK. Says a lot about the unimportant it is.
Casting changes are not plot holes because they are not part of the script, they are not on paper. We, the audience, see that it's being portrayed by a different person, but in the ficional reality nothing changed; they look the same to the characters. It is not difficult to use your imagination and understand that there was no in-universe change of face. To me it makes more sense than "characters randomly changing their DNA or something for unknown reasons". In some MCU tie-in comics, Tony Stark doesn't even look like RDJ and it doesn't matter; it's just a representation.
What's the difference? Any actor change is unrealistic, even with timeskip. Child actors don't resemble the adult versions of their characters at all.
In real life, Abby Ryder Fortson (Cassie 1) will obviously not look like Emma Fuhrmann (Cassie 2) or Kathryn Newton (Cassie 3) when she is older. Different people.
The literal physical appearance of the characters isn't really relevant to canon. What we, the audience, are seeing is just a representation. In universe or canon, things can be different. That's why a recast or redesign doesn't matter.
The villain of DAD had a reason for changing his appearance: to infiltrate the society he wanted to destroy. It's just part of the story. There is no in-universe explanation for multiple actual recasts for characters (including Bond himself) in the pre-reboot Bond movies.
Why take a plot from a villain from another movie and apply it to any MCU character that was recast? It would be bizarre so many characters doing that.
That's exactly what I said in my previous reply. It's canon that they exist within the MCU as fictional characters because it's mentioned in Eternals/TGotGHS, It is not really invalid to use the term "canon" here. Anyway, I meant that this is a different situation than GoBots since James Gunn says they are a real race in the MCU.
@Optimusprimebumblebee "Neo Astral-X" 123
It is canon that Batman and Superman exists as fictional characters in the MCU, just as there are Star Wars movies and other real-world stuff.
First quote from Rhodes in Iron Man 2 is the perfect explanation for recasts.
Following that logic, Avengers: Endgame is set in an alternate universe because Cassie Lang will be played by a different actress in the upcoming Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania
For Marvel Comics, the MCU is Earth-199999
For Marvel Studios, the MCU is Earth-616.
The movie itself says it's Virginia
Marvel created a short film called "The Consultant" focused on the final scene of TIH. Scenes from The Incredible Hulk can be seen on computer screens in Iron Man 2 and The Avengers, WHiH World News has appeared in several movies and TV shows after TIH, Culver University is mentioned in Thor, Bruce Banner mentions the fight [with Abomination] in Harlem in The Avengers, a poster for "Pingo Doce" [the fictional soda from TIH] appears in Ant-Man, William Hurt returned as Thaddeus Ross in 4 movies, Tim Roth is returning as Abomination in a TV show that will likely include more references to TIH.
I really don’t understand why people still have this notion that TIH is not "fully integrated" to the MCU.
Marvel Database treats them as the same character:
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Tina_Minoru_(Earth-199999)
But I think Tina (Runaways) was too busy being a mother, member of an organization tied to a cult and alien, and CEO of a large company in Los Angeles to be Master of the Hong Kong Sanctum at the same time..
@MJLogan95 There are other pages listing the one-shot as occuring after the TV show (Howard Stark, Dum Dum Dugan, Strategic Scientific Reserve, New York City). I remember Shabook agreed that the one-shot should be listed as "after the show" in the articles because of the showrunners' comments. Timeline pages have always been an exception though. It's confuse.
I think "Inhumans" would have had the Kree as villains and more connections to AoS.
@TheOgreS In the book "Marvel Studios: Visual Dictionary", it is explicitly said that Ego is one of the Celestials like Eson the Searcher.
The theory that Ego is mistaken about his own origin doesn't work for me. Uatu/The Watcher also called Ego a Celestial in What If...? 1x02.