Eternals Trailer

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WVDKZJkGlY)

It doesn’t look like it’s addressing any of my major concerns for the film...though to be fair, most of those couldn’t be addressed in a trailer.

[The Glyphstone]

Feels very generically Marvel, yes.

I notice the video comments are being outright savage as far as 'where were these people during all the other Avenger-level crisises' too, so they really need to answer that somehow in the movie.

[Dire_Flumph]

I feel that I might be more excited if this wasn't tied into the MCU. That last bit about the Avengers just seemed jarring.

Looks very nice though, solid cast. And I am likely so going to be ready to ready for watching some huge spectacle on the big screen by then.


I notice the video comments are being outright savage as far as 'where were these people during all the other Avenger-level crisises' too, so they really need to answer that somehow in the movie.

I'm just planning on letting that stuff go for the most part. There wasn't a good reason Nick Fury didn't use the Carol Danvers beeper until he did and Far From Home couldn't even come up with a good answer why more heroes didn't get involved in the Elemental attacks

And it's only going to get worse the more new characters get added.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

I'm just planning on letting that stuff go for the most part.

I’m not, because if they want all the perks of the interconnected universe then they need to actually be interconnected, not just jamming in advertising for other films. (Needless to say the Thanos thing is on my list of concerns the trailer did not address.)

[The Glyphstone]

I do feel like an ensemble cast of 10 new people to keep track of is going to overwhelm me very fast. At least I didn't watch GoT, so having two of the lead actors from that show in this group won't sidetrack my brain any worse.

[Clertar]

Really nice. My hype for this film is the highest for a superhero movie so far, afaict.

[Dire_Flumph]

I’m not, because if they want all the perks of the interconnected universe then they need to actually be interconnected, not just jamming in advertising for other films. (Needless to say the Thanos thing is on my list of concerns the trailer did not address.)

Then in all sincerity, if it bothers you I wonder if it's best to call Endgame the finale for the MCU and walk away, because it is only going to get worse from here.

There are so many powerful heroes and groups in the MCU at this point, you are not going to come up with a good reason for none of them to show up when the new Super-Dude movie needs a city level threat to establish his hero cred. And it would be tiring doing so.

I mentioned Far From Home, but I do not think the movie would have been any better for a scene that established why Doctor Strange wasn't showing up to help with a supposed Dimensional Invasion that could end the world. And another for Wakanda. And another for Sam and Rhodey. And another for Wanda. Or the Hulk. Or the Asgard refugees. Is there a reason, individually, that any one of those couldn't have made it? Sure. All of them? Yeah, that's too much of a stretch considering this was a planet-level threat unfolding over several days.

That's why I said I'd be more excited if this wasn't the MCU, because they are going to have to come up with a reason for why they weren't around for the New York Invasion, Thanos, or anything else. And it's probably not going to be a satisfying answer. I'm honestly expecting nothing better than Far From Home, where there's a quick nod to continuity, then moving on.

[understatement]

Not sure where it's going, but the cinematography looks gorgeous. If nothing else, I'm here for the visual landscape shots.

[Khedrac]

I notice the video comments are being outright savage as far as 'where were these people during all the other Avenger-level crisises' too, so they really need to answer that somehow in the movie.

I am surprised at that - it's about the first thing the voice-over says - "we never interfered".

Could be interesting though, the trailer is certainly not a turn-off for me.

[Cikomyr2]

I’m not, because if they want all the perks of the interconnected universe then they need to actually be interconnected, not just jamming in advertising for other films. (Needless to say the Thanos thing is on my list of concerns the trailer did not address.)

No. They do not need to actually be interconnected. Because it doesn't actually matter. It's not one big yuge interconnected universe that actually has consequences and overflow in one another.

It's a series of disparate action flicks that gives itself a yuge party/pat on the back every 2-3 years, winks at the camera a few times, and moves on.

And it doesn't need to be anything more.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

From the merits of the trailer alone this seems like another generic superhero movie which has been most of what marvel is putting out since End Game. I can agree with most of the comments of the trailer but it is apparent that Marvel is trying to recapture the magic of the prior movies yet wants to move away from the connected stories of it save only for Disney Plus shows.

In all this does nothing for me, though I am of the opinion as well superhero movies have already hit the high mark and are on the downward spiral.

[Psyren]

Feels very generically Marvel, yes.

I notice the video comments are being outright savage as far as 'where were these people during all the other Avenger-level crisises' too, so they really need to answer that somehow in the movie.

Given Robb Stark's glib remark towards the end, they're definitely going to address this. Whether it's a satisfying explanation for the majority of the audience (it definitely won't be for everyone, regardless of what it is) is another matter entirely.



That's why I said I'd be more excited if this wasn't the MCU, because they are going to have to come up with a reason for why they weren't around for the New York Invasion, Thanos, or anything else. And it's probably not going to be a satisfying answer. I'm honestly expecting nothing better than Far From Home, where there's a quick nod to continuity, then moving on.

The curse of continuity - we all want our favorite characters (and actors) to bounce off each other, but doing so while maintaining tension gets more difficult the more heroes you introduce.

But I'm willing to forgive quite a lot of contrivance for a star-studded cast personally.

[Palanan]

Eh.

The narrator claims “we have never interfered…until now,” but doesn’t helping with agriculture, irrigation and metallurgy count as interference?

I assume the ancient city is meant to be Babylon, but is it the historical Babylon with some Eternals style, or is it supposed to be a city built by the Eternals, which was later echoed in the design of Babylon?

[Cikomyr2]

Eh.

The narrator claims “we have never interfered…until now,” but doesn’t helping with agriculture, irrigation and metallurgy count as interference?

I assume the ancient city is meant to be Babylon, but is it the historical Babylon with some Eternals style, or is it supposed to be a city built by the Eternals, which was later echoed in the design of Babylon?

Maybe what they mean by interference is actually puting their finger on the scale of mankind's internal history. Just helping them out universally by teaching them doens't count.


like... they don't pick winners

[JadedDM]

It doesn’t look like it’s addressing any of my major concerns for the film...though to be fair, most of those couldn’t be addressed in a trailer.

Also to be fair, this isn't a trailer, it's a teaser. I assume the actual trailer will give a bit more plot info.

[Trafalgar]

I know very little about "The Eternals". I can't remember ever reading one of their comic books. But I also knew very little about the "Guardians of the Galaxy" when that movie came out in 2014. And that is one of my favorite MCU movies.

When I watched the original "Guardian of the Galaxy" Trailers 8 or 9 years ago, I thought it was going to be a funny but interesting movie The trailer gave me a good impression of what the movie would be. But this trailer for "The Eternals" is boring. It feels like the trailer for a Civilization VI mod not a major motion picture.

The main thing I got out of it was "Hey - There's Rob Stark. And Jon Snow! I am glad those actors are still getting work." But this trailer didn't grab me as someone not particularly interested in the characters.

[theNater]

I know very little about "The Eternals". I can't remember ever reading one of their comic books. But I also knew very little about the "Guardians of the Galaxy" when that movie came out in 2014. And that is one of my favorite MCU movies.

When I watched the original "Guardian of the Galaxy" Trailers 8 or 9 years ago, I thought it was going to be a funny but interesting movie The trailer gave me a good impression of what the movie would be. But this trailer for "The Eternals" is boring. It feels like the trailer for a Civilization VI mod not a major motion picture.

The main thing I got out of it was "Hey - There's Rob Stark. And Jon Snow! I am glad those actors are still getting work." But this trailer didn't grab me as someone not particularly interested in the characters.
A few people have mentioned the difference between a teaser and a trailer, and Guardians is a great example of that.

Compare this teaser (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbFPyMOHcHQ&list=PLK5HARgNfgj9Nzu9sVTzFzn1aPMm7aGlu&index=73), which I suspect you have completely forgotten, to the full trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d96cjJhvlMA&list=PLK5HARgNfgj9Nzu9sVTzFzn1aPMm7aGlu&index=77), which is what you're probably remembering.

[Mechalich]

A few people have mentioned the difference between a teaser and a trailer, and Guardians is a great example of that.

Compare this teaser (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbFPyMOHcHQ&list=PLK5HARgNfgj9Nzu9sVTzFzn1aPMm7aGlu&index=73), which I suspect you have completely forgotten, to the full trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d96cjJhvlMA&list=PLK5HARgNfgj9Nzu9sVTzFzn1aPMm7aGlu&index=77), which is what you're probably remembering.

That was 15 sec teaser. This one was two minutes. It has an awful lot of footage laid out that manages to reveal almost nothing of what happens in the movie. Truthfully it looks like the overwhelming majority of the clips are taken from the first 20-30 minutes, probably in a big 'the Eternal through history' montage that opens the film.

All I really get from the trailer is that while their are apparently 8 Eternals in the core group, the movie appears to be mostly focusing on Ikaris (played by Richard Madden aka Rob Stark) and Sersi (played by Gemma Chan in her second significant Marvel role). Which is fine, but it doesn't explain what the movie is actually about.

[Trafalgar]

A few people have mentioned the difference between a teaser and a trailer, and Guardians is a great example of that.

Compare this teaser (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbFPyMOHcHQ&list=PLK5HARgNfgj9Nzu9sVTzFzn1aPMm7aGlu&index=73), which I suspect you have completely forgotten, to the full trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d96cjJhvlMA&list=PLK5HARgNfgj9Nzu9sVTzFzn1aPMm7aGlu&index=77), which is what you're probably remembering.

Both of these are way better than the Eternals teaser or trailer or whatever that just dropped. It's too long, it's boring, and doesn't make me want to see the movie.

Compare it with this teaser/trailer (https://youtu.be/yM9BWtppzko). After seeing this for the first time, I would have happily dropped $50 to see the movie.

[theNater]

It's too long, it's boring, and doesn't make me want to see the movie.
Okay?

I'm not saying you have to like the teaser. Just pointing out that if the later trailers are more to your liking, and you enjoy the movie, there's a decent chance that in 5-10 years' time, you'll have entirely forgotten this one.

[Ramza00]

Both of these are way better than the Eternals teaser or trailer or whatever that just dropped. It's too long, it's boring, and doesn't make me want to see the movie.

Compare it with this teaser/trailer (https://youtu.be/yM9BWtppzko). After seeing this for the first time, I would have happily dropped $50 to see the movie.

Okay. Disney will have something else in their stable or vault to make you happy. Not everything is for all people and we need to remember individuals with their own subjective taste will not always be catered too for what works for one person may not work for another person.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Trafalgar
After seeing this for the first time, I would have happily dropped $50 to see the movie.

The music makes all the difference there. I still need to see this movie.

I won't be paying $50 for it, but 10% of that seems fair for a rental.


Originally Posted by Ramza00
Disney will have something else in their stable or vault to make you happy.

Funny you mention this, because I was just actively looking forward to watching Cruella.

I had zero interest in the Maleficent movies, and I didn’t think we needed an origin story for Ms. De Vil—and I still don’t. But need it or not, it looks fun.

Which, I’m sorry to say, Eternals does not. It just looks like generic Marvel stuff, and the thought of yet another super-team just makes me sleepy.

[Ramza00]

Funny you mention this, because I was just actively looking forward to watching Cruella.

I had zero interest in the Maleficent movies, and I didn’t think we needed an origin story for Ms. De Vil—and I still don’t. But need it or not, it looks fun.

I am so looking forward to Cruella, it is going to be so bad-bad, or bad-good, or bad-meh. But at least it is trying something.

Some people think it is a Joker knock off, but actually it has been in developmental hell since 2013 where they had a complete screenplay rewrite and got a different director for the 2016 filming and director had a scheduling conflict. Thus more rewriting and they actually started and finished filming in 2019. (Still had editing, soundtrack, etc to do) ...then the 2020 shutdown happen and thus there was no hurry to get this movie out then so it became a 2021 movie that is coming out in a few days. 8 years later!

[Squire Doodad]

Maybe what they mean by interference is actually puting their finger on the scale of mankind's internal history. Just helping them out universally by teaching them doens't count.


like... they don't pick winners

Yeah, there's a difference between "we're going to go tell a bunch of major civilizations how to make [blatantly fundamental tool they haven't noticed]" and "we're going to make these dudes have machine guns and if anyone actually manages to get close to beating them, we'll go blast them"

[Ramza00]

Yeah, there's a difference between "we're going to go tell a bunch of major civilizations how to make [blatantly fundamental tool they haven't noticed]" and "we're going to make these dudes have machine guns and if anyone actually manages to get close to beating them, we'll go blast them"

Is there a difference?

Founder effects on a population
where there is an asymmetric uplift in regards to time (it does not happen at the exact same time
causes one populace to oppress / kill another populace.

We have evidence from human history that this occurs. For example now the round concept of a wheel, but the concept of interlocking wheel and axle where the outer wheel is the right amount of space with the inner axel that it helps speed things up instead of causing problems...

Well that advancement fundamentally changed the world , spread a specific dialect of language , and for several hundreds years was a force advantage in regards to war.

[Tyndmyr]

Maybe what they mean by interference is actually puting their finger on the scale of mankind's internal history. Just helping them out universally by teaching them doens't count.


like... they don't pick winners

I dunno. Non-interference would seem to mean at least...interfering covertly. Not showing up to visit the cavemen in your giant space triangle. I have a hard time calling that anything other than interference.

[Cikomyr2]

Is there a difference?

Founder effects on a population
where there is an asymmetric uplift in regards to time (it does not happen at the exact same time
causes one populace to oppress / kill another populace.

We have evidence from human history that this occurs. For example now the round concept of a wheel, but the concept of interlocking wheel and axle where the outer wheel is the right amount of space with the inner axel that it helps speed things up instead of causing problems...

Well that advancement fundamentally changed the world , spread a specific dialect of language , and for several hundreds years was a force advantage in regards to war.

I suppose. But that's overthinking it I'd say. It's ancient alien showing primitive humans some primitive civilisation principles.

They could argue they deliberately do not pay attention to borders and nations and whatnot, so if they do give an advantage to a people they do it blindly without actual regard on whose the winner and whose the loser.


I dunno. Non-interference would seem to mean at least...interfering covertly. Not showing up to visit the cavemen in your giant space triangle. I have a hard time calling that anything other than interference.

Nah. That's Star Trek definition of interference. These people can have their own definition if they want to that's not beholden to the Prime Directive.

[Ramza00]

I suppose. But that's overthinking it I'd say. It's ancient alien showing primitive humans some primitive civilisation principles.

They could argue they deliberately do not pay attention to borders and nations and whatnot, so if they do give an advantage to a people they do it blindly without actual regard on whose the winner and whose the loser.


Yeah and that is "Alien Morality" , it is literally immoral by human sentiments , though if a human (or culture) feels trapped we will do monstrous things even with our human sentiments.

But hey Alien Morality is how the current Eternal writer is writing them. They may or may not have free will and the ability to change their essence. They may be cursed to follow the directions of their masters even if they do not like it.

[Tyndmyr]

I can easily rationalize them not caring about borders, but extinction level events are a higher bar, and the MCU has a fair number of these. If they care about humanity in some broad "raising them up" sense, then sure, the events of Black Panther probably don't matter to them. But the Chitauri invasion?

The events of Age of Ultron, which included a fiery apocalpyse to reset the world back to the stone age? That would literally be acting in direct opposition to what they have done.

What about Ego's plan? They didn't care about a literal universe absorbing threat?

Or Thanos? Surely half of all life vanishing would merit notice from them.

[Cikomyr2]

I can easily rationalize them not caring about borders, but extinction level events are a higher bar, and the MCU has a fair number of these. If they care about humanity in some broad "raising them up" sense, then sure, the events of Black Panther probably don't matter to them. But the Chitauri invasion?

The events of Age of Ultron, which included a fiery apocalpyse to reset the world back to the stone age? That would literally be acting in direct opposition to what they have done.

What about Ego's plan? They didn't care about a literal universe absorbing threat?

Or Thanos? Surely half of all life vanishing would merit notice from them.

Y'all seriously overthinking this before we are even given any argument.

{scrubbed}

[Seerow]

I can easily rationalize them not caring about borders, but extinction level events are a higher bar, and the MCU has a fair number of these. If they care about humanity in some broad "raising them up" sense, then sure, the events of Black Panther probably don't matter to them. But the Chitauri invasion?

The events of Age of Ultron, which included a fiery apocalpyse to reset the world back to the stone age? That would literally be acting in direct opposition to what they have done.

What about Ego's plan? They didn't care about a literal universe absorbing threat?

Or Thanos? Surely half of all life vanishing would merit notice from them.

Ego was a bit out of their jurisdiction of they're keeping an eye on Earth. Who knows what they were doing or thinking when it started impacting Earth, but it was done and over with within minutes or hours of starting.

Thanos was not an extinction event. While we've had long discussions about what a realistic effect of losing that many people would do to infrastructure in the world, but practically half of humanity survives, and by all accounts was thriving by the time everyone came back to cause mayhem again. Either way I don't have a problem with them thinking Thanos isn't an issue.

[Mechalich]

Ego was a bit out of their jurisdiction of they're keeping an eye on Earth. Who knows what they were doing or thinking when it started impacting Earth, but it was done and over with within minutes or hours of starting.

Thanos was not an extinction event. While we've had long discussions about what a realistic effect of losing that many people would do to infrastructure in the world, but practically half of humanity survives, and by all accounts was thriving by the time everyone came back to cause mayhem again. Either way I don't have a problem with them thinking Thanos isn't an issue.

Even if they did care about Thanos as an issue, it was kind of decided without them. The battle to prevent the Snap is lost on Titan, not on Earth. The defense of Wakanda actually succeeds, and Wanda does destroy the Mind Stone, but by that point it's too late because with the Time Stone Thanos has the power to reverse events.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

I can easily rationalize them not caring about borders, but extinction level events are a higher bar, and the MCU has a fair number of these. If they care about humanity in some broad "raising them up" sense, then sure, the events of Black Panther probably don't matter to them. But the Chitauri invasion?

The events of Age of Ultron, which included a fiery apocalpyse to reset the world back to the stone age? That would literally be acting in direct opposition to what they have done.

What about Ego's plan? They didn't care about a literal universe absorbing threat?

Or Thanos? Surely half of all life vanishing would merit notice from them.

Most of these I agree with, but Ego claimed to be a Celestial so it’s possible they answer to him. (I admit I believe that to be a stretch, I suspect they’ll either retcon and say he was lying or he’ll have been exiled from mainstream Celestial society, have been part of a different faction or whatever.)

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
Not showing up to visit the cavemen in your giant space triangle. I have a hard time calling that anything other than interference.

Very much agreed. I’m not sure how they get away with claiming they’ve “never interfered” when they’re decloaking in the most dramatic, mythology-creating fashion possible.

Also, I’m really tired of pop-culture music overlaid on Marvel movies, especially when it clashes so badly with the dawn-of-agriculture-and-civilization vibe.


Originally Posted by Seerow
…and by all accounts was thriving by the time everyone came back to cause mayhem again.

Not sure what you’re basing this on. New York City was still dark five years after the Snap, which is hardly “thriving.”

[Psyren]

I think, as we're wont to do, we're reading way too much into one word in a throwaway line during a teaser. Without far more specifics on what specifically the Eternals did whenever they got involved in history and what rules they were operating under, we have no possible way to define what they consider to be "interference" or not.


I can easily rationalize them not caring about borders, but extinction level events are a higher bar, and the MCU has a fair number of these. If they care about humanity in some broad "raising them up" sense, then sure, the events of Black Panther probably don't matter to them. But the Chitauri invasion?

The events of Age of Ultron, which included a fiery apocalpyse to reset the world back to the stone age? That would literally be acting in direct opposition to what they have done.

What about Ego's plan? They didn't care about a literal universe absorbing threat?

Or Thanos? Surely half of all life vanishing would merit notice from them.

In the comics (very mild spoiler)
they lose all their memories thanks to Sprite, who is in this movie.
So it's entirely possible that during all the events you listed, they didn't know who they were, never mind that they had powers at one point and maybe could have helped.


Most of these I agree with, but Ego claimed to be a Celestial so it’s possible they answer to him. (I admit I believe that to be a stretch, I suspect they’ll either retcon and say he was lying or he’ll have been exiled from mainstream Celestial society, have been part of a different faction or whatever.)

By Celestial standards Ego is/was a baby too. He might have simply thought he was alone; he might even be correct about that, we just don't know.

One thing is certain - Ego tried to procreate with countless other alien races (the skeletons we see in his cave in G2), but only humanity possessed the necessary juice to make a celestial. This suggests that the Celestials monkeying around with our DNA in the MCU's distant past is canon.

[Clertar]

My guess is that Makkari is the only one that ended up taking a special interest and helping humans. The rest of the Eternals are there to wait and perform the function for which they were created, peotecting Earth from specific threats.

in that last sense, bear in mind that the Eternals are not just like Kree, or Inhumans, or mutants... They are more like eldritch organic androids. They have a basic programming, and if that kicks in they must obey it regardless of whether individually they want to or not. The reason why they are eternal is that when they are killed (and they are quite tough) they are recreated again, with their most recent memories, by a Celestial machine hidden in Earth.

The MCU Eternals will no doubt be different from the comic version, so who knows what will happen. But maybe it’s not about why they didn’t want to intervene to fight Thanos—maybe they just really couldn’t.

[understatement]

Maybe the Eternals got some hardwired code that they can't ever harm or intend to harm humans, no matter how evil the latter are?

I think the "constantly reincarnated" concept could be cool, though.

[Psyren]

My guess is that Makkari is the only one that ended up taking a special interest and helping humans. The rest of the Eternals are there to wait and perform the function for which they were created, peotecting Earth from specific threats.

Based on the teaser I'm not so sure. Given that Circe is:

a) the one marveling at the humans on the shore
b) the one irrigating the land in that brief shot we see
c) the one macking on Icarus (their leader in the comics)
d) has been confirmed by Feige to be the closest one we'll get to a POV character

I'm willing to bet that she will be doing quite a bit of "interfering" :smalltongue:



in that last sense, bear in mind that the Eternals are not just like Kree, or Inhumans, or mutants... They are more like eldritch organic androids. They have a basic programming, and if that kicks in they must obey it regardless of whether individually they want to or not. The reason why they are eternal is that when they are killed (and they are quite tough) they are recreated again, with their most recent memories, by a Celestial machine hidden in Earth.

The MCU Eternals will no doubt be different from the comic version, so who knows what will happen. But maybe it’s not about why they didn’t want to intervene to fight Thanos—maybe they just really couldn’t.

I do think this is a valid take as well. We're assuming they have as much free will and agency as, say, the Asgardians do when that might not be the case at all.

[Cikomyr2]

The one thing I have to wonder is actually how they reacted to Wakanda getting Vibranium.

That's some high tech **** even they probably raised an eyebrow at.

[Dragonus45]

The one thing I have to wonder is actually how they reacted to Wakanda getting Vibranium.

That's some high tech **** even they probably raised an eyebrow at.

Access to vibranium alone does not a sci fi advanced society make, at the end of the day Wakanda probably had to work it's ass off to get as far as they have even with that leg up. That said, I could also believe that they had a hand in Wakanda's development as well, perhaps even one of them encouraging Wakanda towards isolationism as opposed to using their muscle to push other nations around.

[DaOldeWolf]

What are the Eternals? Why do they prefer to not get involved? Who are they? Watching how little we have received, has left me confused. :smallredface:

I am not even sure if Disney is even trying to create hype.

[Starbuck_II]

My guess is that Makkari is the only one that ended up taking a special interest and helping humans. The rest of the Eternals are there to wait and perform the function for which they were created, peotecting Earth from specific threats.

in that last sense, bear in mind that the Eternals are not just like Kree, or Inhumans, or mutants... They are more like eldritch organic androids. They have a basic programming, and if that kicks in they must obey it regardless of whether individually they want to or not. The reason why they are eternal is that when they are killed (and they are quite tough) they are recreated again, with their most recent memories, by a Celestial machine hidden in Earth.

The MCU Eternals will no doubt be different from the comic version, so who knows what will happen. But maybe it’s not about why they didn’t want to intervene to fight Thanos—maybe they just really couldn’t.

I disagree because Gilgamesh is same guy in stories.
So, he must have taken an interest in humans. Granted, he was exiled.

Also, Kingo apparently is a Bollywood star so he kind of does take interest in them.

[Psyren]

I am not even sure if Disney is even trying to create hype.

Yeah, announcing the movie in Hall H at Comic-Con of all places was definitely an anti-hype move :smallamused:


The one thing I have to wonder is actually how they reacted to Wakanda getting Vibranium.

That's some high tech **** even they probably raised an eyebrow at.

The library scene in the teaser has a statue of Bast, who Wakandan myth says led a warrior to the vibranium. Maybe she was one of them?



Also, Kingo apparently is a Bollywood star so he kind of does take interest in them.

I'm assuming the moviestar part comes during their memory-wipe, if they're going with that story. (Given how much the teaser oscillates between their mythological garb and civilian clothing in modern settings, I'm guessing they are.)

[theNater]

What are the Eternals? Why do they prefer to not get involved? Who are they? Watching how little we have received, has left me confused. :smallredface:

I am not even sure if Disney is even trying to create hype.
When analyzing Disney's marketing strategy, make sure you factor in that Black Widow and Shang-Chi are both coming out before Eternals. They probably don't want hype for this to eclipse hype for those, and they may be holding something back for a post-credits scene.

[Tyndmyr]

Ego was a bit out of their jurisdiction of they're keeping an eye on Earth. Who knows what they were doing or thinking when it started impacting Earth, but it was done and over with within minutes or hours of starting.

Thanos was not an extinction event. While we've had long discussions about what a realistic effect of losing that many people would do to infrastructure in the world, but practically half of humanity survives, and by all accounts was thriving by the time everyone came back to cause mayhem again. Either way I don't have a problem with them thinking Thanos isn't an issue.

Ego did visit earth, and Earth is shown on screen to be one of the planets being taken over by him. If they are keeping an eye on Earth, they are clearly doing a terrible job.

Thanos seems like kind of a big issue. Half dead, plus whatever got killed in the actual conflicts themselves. And five years of massive change. Plus the stones getting used repeatedly. I feel like if that doesn't rise to drawing their attention, then...they ain't watching.

I'm not sure what the hierarchy will be of cosmic beings in the MCU, assuming they ever define it explicitly, but Deviants, Eternals and Celestials are all pretty clearly laid out to be super powerful, pretty rare beings.


I think, as we're wont to do, we're reading way too much into one word in a throwaway line during a teaser. Without far more specifics on what specifically the Eternals did whenever they got involved in history and what rules they were operating under, we have no possible way to define what they consider to be "interference" or not.

Sure. We have fairly little information yet, but of the nuggets of information they chose to give us, they gave us an obvious contradiction. And honestly, there's not much else in the trailer to talk about, the rest of it looked pretty generic.

[Psyren]

Ego did visit earth, and Earth is shown on screen to be one of the planets being taken over by him. If they are keeping an eye on Earth, they are clearly doing a terrible job.

Ego's visits to Earth occurred exclusively during the lifetime of Peter Quill's mother - i.e. the 1960s-80s specifically. If they're going with some form of lost memories explanation, this is a highly likely window for the Eternals to not have been "active."



Thanos seems like kind of a big issue. Half dead, plus whatever got killed in the actual conflicts themselves. And five years of massive change. Plus the stones getting used repeatedly. I feel like if that doesn't rise to drawing their attention, then...they ain't watching.

I'm not sure what the hierarchy will be of cosmic beings in the MCU, assuming they ever define it explicitly, but Deviants, Eternals and Celestials are all pretty clearly laid out to be super powerful, pretty rare beings.

They almost certainly weren't watching. The only question now is whether there was a good reason for them to not be watching. Forgetting who they were qualifies for me, it may not for others.

I believe Thanos counts as a Deviant (from Titan) but such things are fluid. We don't even yet know if they're going with the trichotomy in this version.



Sure. We have fairly little information yet, but of the nuggets of information they chose to give us, they gave us an obvious contradiction. And honestly, there's not much else in the trailer to talk about, the rest of it looked pretty generic.

I don't deny that there's a contradiction - but it's one that's easy to handwave away with the right assumptions, such as that our definition of "non-interference" and theirs may not match up, and that "where were they during Thanos" is going to be a question most folks ask. In other words, I'm not saying "don't discuss it", I'm merely cautioning against going off to the races with the idea that Marvel simply hasn't thought about these basic things.

Or to put it more succinctly: *points at sig*

[Dire_Flumph]

They almost certainly weren't watching. The only question now is whether there was a good reason for them to not be watching. Forgetting who they were qualifies for me, it may not for others.

I think that's why the whole "discussing what's up with the Avengers over breakfast" bit at the end seems so jarring. It makes it seem like they have been keeping up with recent events with interest, it just wasn't enough for them to get involved.

I won't judge until the movie's out, I'm just keeping my expectations low as to how much sense this is going to make integrating them.

[Psyren]

I think that's why the whole "discussing what's up with the Avengers over breakfast" bit at the end seems so jarring. It makes it seem like they have been keeping up with recent events with interest, it just wasn't enough for them to get involved.

Well of course they were keeping up with who the Avengers are. Just like Jimmy Woo and everyone else on the planet :smalltongue:

That doesn't mean they had their powers/memories while those events were occurring.

[Tyndmyr]

I don't deny that there's a contradiction - but it's one that's easy to handwave away with the right assumptions, such as that our definition of "non-interference" and theirs may not match up, and that "where were they during Thanos" is going to be a question most folks ask. In other words, I'm not saying "don't discuss it", I'm merely cautioning against going off to the races with the idea that Marvel simply hasn't thought about these basic things.

Or to put it more succinctly: *points at sig*

The source is the source, and assumptions are not the source. The making of an elaborate headcanon to make something sensible is fine if that's what your into, but is a separate thing from the source itself.

It is like advocating that we consider fix-it fanfics when reviewing a work. I firmly disagree with the concept and find it ludicrous. I suspect that the Giant's comments at the time were discussing some pretty far out interpretations(probably surrounding a certain paladin, if I had to bet), not the mere text of the comic itself.

[Psyren]

The source is the source, and assumptions are not the source. The making of an elaborate headcanon to make something sensible is fine if that's what your into, but is a separate thing from the source itself.

It is like advocating that we consider fix-it fanfics when reviewing a work. I firmly disagree with the concept and find it ludicrous. I suspect that the Giant's comments at the time were discussing some pretty far out interpretations(probably surrounding a certain paladin, if I had to bet), not the mere text of the comic itself.

Except the source in this case is a teaser (not even a trailer), both of which are inherently incomplete by their very nature, and teasers even moreso. So yes, some level of assumption is necessary until we have the actual source (the movie.) If the movie is missing key information, that's a different matter - and is usually referred to as a "plothole."

[Cikomyr2]

Amnesic Eternals would discuss the Avengers over breakfast tho

[Tyndmyr]

Except the source in this case is a teaser (not even a trailer), both of which are inherently incomplete by their very nature, and teasers even moreso. So yes, some level of assumption is necessary until we have the actual source (the movie.) If the movie is missing key information, that's a different matter - and is usually referred to as a "plothole."

Of course a teaser or a trailer is incomplete compared to the film. But the purpose of it is to entice us to watch the film. To showcase the most interesting elements.

If all it does is raise apparent contradictions, I would argue that it is a very poor teaser indeed. And a poor teaser or trailer is at least some evidence against the film being good. Exceptions do exist, but a great many of films that look rough in the promotional material are also rough on the big screen. Right now, the movie is largely relying on the fairly good track record of the MCU. If it didn't have that behind it, it'd be extremely concerning.

[Psyren]

Amnesic Eternals would discuss the Avengers over breakfast tho

Indeed. Or even Eternals that very recently overcame their amnesia. (Icarus suggesting he could lead them suggests they know at that point they're more than human, though the guffawing reaction could go either way.)



If all it does is raise apparent contradictions, I would argue that it is a very poor teaser indeed.

I fundamentally disagree that that is "all it did."
Moreover, by getting us and the meme-sphere to spend all this energy talking about it, I would argue that it definitely is serving its primary function.

[Tyndmyr]

What else did it do?

Do many folks here feel substantially more likely to watch it than they did prior to the teaser? Or about the same?

As for the being talked about, eh...they probably don't mind talk, but what they want is sales.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Of course a teaser or a trailer is incomplete compared to the film. But the purpose of it is to entice us to watch the film. To showcase the most interesting elements.

If all it does is raise apparent contradictions, I would argue that it is a very poor teaser indeed. And a poor teaser or trailer is at least some evidence against the film being good. Exceptions do exist, but a great many of films that look rough in the promotional material are also rough on the big screen. Right now, the movie is largely relying on the fairly good track record of the MCU. If it didn't have that behind it, it'd be extremely concerning.

Second this. Right now I don’t know anything more about these people than I did before I saw the trailer. They’re not Spider-man or Daredevil where just seeing them on screen is enough reason to get excited; I do not know who these people are. I need a reason to care about them, to care about what they’re doing or trying to do. I’m not getting that from this trailer; without the subtitles on we don’t even get their names.



Do many folks here feel substantially more likely to watch it than they did prior to the teaser? Or about the same?

Not here; if anything my desire to see it went down. It’s going to be coming out after I’ve had the chance to take the edge off my theater withdrawal and during the holiday season when I will probably have better things to do.

[Yora]

As someone who's never really been into these movies, but who had at least heard of most of the Avengers characters, I am getting a strong feeling like we've now reached the reached the morning after Superhero movies. I at least was aware that there was something going on about that Thanos Guy needing the rainbow stones to destroy the world.
People still find a few beer glasses that are still a quarter filled after last night and empty them before stumbling out the door on their way home.

[Psyren]

What else did it do?

It teased. You know, like a teaser.
Specifically it teased the worldbuilding (length of time the Eternals have been around, that they have been embedded into multiple cultures, their powers - including what looks to be the Unimind, and the connection to the rest of the MCU at the end.) It also teased that they may be changing some of the details from the comics, e.g. Circe appears to be flirting with Icarus (Robb Stark) in this version, rather than the Black Knight (Jon Snow) as she does in the comics.


Do many folks here feel substantially more likely to watch it than they did prior to the teaser? Or about the same?

As for the being talked about, eh...they probably don't mind talk, but what they want is sales.

Your operative word is "here." The usual suspects in this subforum have drawn the usual battle lines that we've been seeing since WandaVision and before. Thankfully Feige doesn't need to impress the denizens of GiantitP 24 for the movie to be a critical or commercial success.

[Hopeless]

I actually thought this would be more an origin movie about Thanos.
So we'd see what actually happened to his home world with the eternals scattered with some killed by the Snap.
That group is resurrected on Earth suffering amnesia until their memories begin to return when the Hulk reversed the Snap.
Thus explaining they wasn't on or anywhere near the earth until the snap and didn't begin remembering until after Endgame.
This teaser comes across as very poorly thought out, hope I'm wrong.

[Cikomyr2]

What else did it do?

Do many folks here feel substantially more likely to watch it than they did prior to the teaser? Or about the same?

As for the being talked about, eh...they probably don't mind talk, but what they want is sales.

I feel intrigued and just hungry for more details that will surely drop later, which I trust will make me hungry for the movie.

I mean, it's a teaser. It's better than the Dune teaser there was a few years back

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
If all it does is raise apparent contradictions, I would argue that it is a very poor teaser indeed.

This in spades. I’m not remotely interested; I’m just confused. All I feel now is a mild irritation when I think of the title. Pretty sure that’s not the reaction a good teaser would get.


Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
Do many folks here feel substantially more likely to watch it than they did prior to the teaser? Or about the same?

After watching the teaser, I’m not going to bother with seeing this in the theater, and more than likely I’ll just wait until they throw it up on TNT.

I’m thoroughly sick of superhero movies, I couldn’t care less about the “star-studded cast,” and I’d never even heard of these characters before the movie was announced. I still don’t know a thing about them.

There’s nothing here to really draw my interest, so I’m in no hurry to see it.

[Ramza00]

What else did it do?

Do many folks here feel substantially more likely to watch it than they did prior to the teaser? Or about the same?

As for the being talked about, eh...they probably don't mind talk, but what they want is sales.

The movie is 5 months and 1 week away from today.

This is like getting a 30 second spot or a 1 minute spot during the Superbowl and the movie is coming out July 4th during Independence Day.

A teaser that far away merely makes you aware the movie exist. It is not designed to create long lasting impression for the next 150+ days is going to make you forget the details for the vast majority of people.

The word / idea is meant to remain in your brain, and over time they add layers to it when the movie release date is imminent so they are not starting from a zero foundation.

[Foeofthelance]

I think that's why the whole "discussing what's up with the Avengers over breakfast" bit at the end seems so jarring. It makes it seem like they have been keeping up with recent events with interest, it just wasn't enough for them to get involved.

I won't judge until the movie's out, I'm just keeping my expectations low as to how much sense this is going to make integrating them.

I think one of the major things to keep in mind is the amount of time involved with some of the scenarios as well. If we look at the "world threatening" category of plots:

1) The Chitauri invasion lasted for only a few hours and was located entirely in NYC.
2) Ego's blob thing was active for all of the thirty minutes or so it took for the Guardians to knock him out, located in some out of the way midwest town.
3) The Black Order shows up in NYC just long enough to kidnap Dr. Strange, Thanos attacks Wakanda just long enough to ax Vision, then shows up five years later via time travel just long for End Game to have a climactic battle scene.

All it takes is three simple assumptions to justify why they haven't shown up in other movies: They don't sleep in their gear, they don't have an omniscient observation system, and they don't have the ability to teleport instantly into the middle of the action. The entirely Earth-based plots that have taken longer than a couple days to resolve have all been either personal conflicts, such Thor and Iron Man or were being heavily covered up, such as Winter Soldier and Ultron. So its a combination of the fact that none of the plots have lasted more than a week and the more threatening the plot, the faster it gets resolved. Whereas talking about the Avengers just requires having access to any form of global news programming.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

3) The Black Order shows up in NYC just long enough to kidnap Dr. Strange, Thanos attacks Wakanda just long enough to ax Vision, then shows up five years later via time travel just long for End Game to have a climactic battle scene.

Don’t forget the initial attack on Vision and Wanda. And Shield (or whatever Fury and Maria Hill were working with in Endgame) had time to notice the Wakanda invasion, the Eternals should be able to at least reach the same level if not better.

Also Dormammu was world threatening (admittedly might be out of their sphere). The Kree invasion in Captain Marvel was probably thwarted too fast to matter. But the events of Thor: Dark World should have pinged their radar given that Selvig figured out the convergence was coming ahead of time, without the benefit of thousands of years’ experience.



and they don't have the ability to teleport instantly into the middle of the action.

Teleport, maybe not, but we’ve seen Makkari(?) move super fast.

[Ramza00]

All it takes is three simple assumptions to justify why they haven't shown up in other movies: They don't sleep in their gear, they don't have an omniscient observation system, and they don't have the ability to teleport instantly into the middle of the action.

It does not matter for it is a comic book movie with its own rules.

But in the mainstream marvel comics the Eternals including one of the likely main characters, Ikaris (Robb Stark / Richard Madden is the actor's name) they can teleport. Teleport not just themselves but normal humans and things such as airplanes all at once.

Ikaris does not like to teleport. It is physically painful, he rather do superman like stuff with flight and energy beams from his eyes or arms. All of these powers for all the eternals are psionic / cosmic / other forms of energy particle manipulations. Pretty much the eternals are D&D psionic classes with each character have a different psionic power choices.

Who knows what they will do with the MCU movies since this is a story and they get to choose the rules they follow.

[DaOldeWolf]

Yeah, announcing the movie in Hall H at Comic-Con of all places was definitely an anti-hype move :smallamused:

I wish I knew whether this is sarcasm or genuine commentary. :smallfrown:


When analyzing Disney's marketing strategy, make sure you factor in that Black Widow and Shang-Chi are both coming out before Eternals. They probably don't want hype for this to eclipse hype for those, and they may be holding something back for a post-credits scene.

Its a possibility though I wish they revealed a bit more since I am one of those that arent comic savvy. If I didnt know the context behind the movie (like it being a marvel movie), I would have guessed it was just the average sci-fi "blockbustery" movie of the year. When I watched this teaser, I didnt think superheroes at all. It was overall a strange experience. :smallconfused:

[Clertar]

I think one of the major things to keep in mind is the amount of time involved with some of the scenarios as well. If we look at the "world threatening" category of plots:

1) The Chitauri invasion lasted for only a few hours and was located entirely in NYC.
2) Ego's blob thing was active for all of the thirty minutes or so it took for the Guardians to knock him out, located in some out of the way midwest town.
3) The Black Order shows up in NYC just long enough to kidnap Dr. Strange, Thanos attacks Wakanda just long enough to ax Vision, then shows up five years later via time travel just long for End Game to have a climactic battle scene.

All it takes is three simple assumptions to justify why they haven't shown up in other movies: They don't sleep in their gear, they don't have an omniscient observation system, and they don't have the ability to teleport instantly into the middle of the action. The entirely Earth-based plots that have taken longer than a couple days to resolve have all been either personal conflicts, such Thor and Iron Man or were being heavily covered up, such as Winter Soldier and Ultron. So its a combination of the fact that none of the plots have lasted more than a week and the more threatening the plot, the faster it gets resolved. Whereas talking about the Avengers just requires having access to any form of global news programming.

As has been mentioned in previous posts, the Neil Gaiman run started with the Eternals in a situation in which they have been mentally manipulated to forget who they are, and have been living as normal humans for decades. They have their jobs and their "normal" lives. An incident kick starts the memory recovery in a couple of them (think eldritch organic android Jason Bourne), who then seek out the rest and help them remember.

In the MCU world, if the Eternals have been out of the picture due to collective amnesia, they would have just witnessed all of the MCU world-threatening incidents as any other normal human did. And that's it, an explanation for them not stepping in can be smoothly worked into the MCU worldbuilding. But these are plot details that no proper teaser (or even trailer) should reveal.

[Psyren]

I wish I knew whether this is sarcasm or genuine commentary. :smallfrown:

Definitely sarcasm; the H in Hall H might as well stand for Hype. (I guess I should use blue text more...)


Its a possibility though I wish they revealed a bit more since I am one of those that arent comic savvy. If I didnt know the context behind the movie (like it being a marvel movie), I would have guessed it was just the average sci-fi "blockbustery" movie of the year. When I watched this teaser, I didnt think superheroes at all. It was overall a strange experience. :smallconfused:

Pretty sure that's intentional; they aren't superheroes in the traditional sense.


As has been mentioned in previous posts, the Neil Gaiman run started with the Eternals in a situation in which they have been mentally manipulated to forget who they are, and have been living as normal humans for decades. They have their jobs and their "normal" lives. An incident kick starts the memory recovery in a couple of them (think eldritch organic android Jason Bourne), who then seek out the rest and help them remember.

In the MCU world, if the Eternals have been out of the picture due to collective amnesia, they would have just witnessed all of the MCU world-threatening incidents as any other normal human did. And that's it, an explanation for them not stepping in can be smoothly worked into the MCU worldbuilding. But these are plot details that no proper teaser (or even trailer) should reveal.

And the character responsible is confirmed to be in the movie too.

I view all the "they didn't explain it, bad teaser, I'm not watching!!" posts - from people who no doubt will still be in this thread several pages from now anyway - to be pretty questionable. And some of the people refusing to assume there's a good explanation here are assuming that very thing for Doctor Strange not showing up in WandaVision too.

[Zombimode]

As someone who is completely out of touch with the whole superhero genre I'm confused about what Babylon* has to do with all of that.

What's the deal with that?

*slight disappointment that they didn't went with the less historical but more impressive and iconic Bruegel version of the Tower. It's a fantasy movie anyway, so why not go all in?

[Tyndmyr]

Don’t forget the initial attack on Vision and Wanda. And Shield (or whatever Fury and Maria Hill were working with in Endgame) had time to notice the Wakanda invasion, the Eternals should be able to at least reach the same level if not better.

Also Dormammu was world threatening (admittedly might be out of their sphere). The Kree invasion in Captain Marvel was probably thwarted too fast to matter. But the events of Thor: Dark World should have pinged their radar given that Selvig figured out the convergence was coming ahead of time, without the benefit of thousands of years’ experience.

These are all also great examples.

It appears the MCU has even more apocalypse tier events than I thought


And some of the people refusing to assume there's a good explanation here are assuming that very thing for Doctor Strange not showing up in WandaVision too.

A Dr Strange cameo would have made a lot of sense. It is literally his job, after all. Would have been kind of cool if they had folded him in there some way.

[Cikomyr2]

These are all also great examples.

It appears the MCU has even more apocalypse tier events than I thought



A Dr Strange cameo would have made a lot of sense. It is literally his job, after all. Would have been kind of cool if they had folded him in there some way.

These series still have a budget.. they can't whip out Benedict Cumberbatch on a "would have been nice"

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Zombimode
As someone who is completely out of touch with the whole superhero genre I'm confused about what Babylon* has to do with all of that.

Right? I tried asking about that on the previous page, but didn’t get any clarification from anyone.


Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
A Dr Strange cameo would have made a lot of sense. It is literally his job, after all. Would have been kind of cool if they had folded him in there some way.


Originally Posted by Cikomyr2
These series still have a budget.. they can't whip out Benedict Cumberbatch on a "would have been nice"

Agreed with both sentiments. It would’ve been great for Dr. Strange to show up, since Wanda should have been on his watchlist by the end of the series, if not before.

I could see him showing up on the deck of her little cabin. “Okay…we have to talk. Right now.”

But, Cumberbatch isn’t cheap. And while it’s one thing to show up in a movie’s end credits, it’s something else to pop into a weird little experimental streaming show.

[Yora]

I view all the "they didn't explain it, bad teaser, I'm not watching!!" posts - from people who no doubt will still be in this thread several pages from now anyway - to be pretty questionable. And some of the people refusing to assume there's a good explanation here are assuming that very thing for Doctor Strange not showing up in WandaVision too.

It's still an advertising, and I have no clue what they are trying to sell me.

A movie, obviously. But what does this movie offer that would make me watch it instead of spending my money on something else?

[Psyren]

These series still have a budget.. they can't whip out Benedict Cumberbatch on a "would have been nice"

Too much reality! Shh!


It's still an advertising, and I have no clue what they are trying to sell me.

A movie, obviously. But what does this movie offer that would make me watch it instead of spending my money on something else?

You're looking for a trailer. Teasers are to build hype among the already invested (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7M-XNGT5G0), not to sell a complete newcomer. Ads are not a monolith.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Right? I tried asking about that on the previous page, but didn’t get any clarification from anyone.


I’d give clarification if I had any. :smallfrown:



Agreed with both sentiments. It would’ve been great for Dr. Strange to show up, since Wanda should have been on his watchlist by the end of the series, if not before.

I could see him showing up on the deck of her little cabin. “Okay…we have to talk. Right now.”

But, Cumberbatch isn’t cheap. And while it’s one thing to show up in a movie’s end credits, it’s something else to pop into a weird little experimental streaming show.

From what I’ve been reading he was planned, but got cut. *digs* Here. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/05/04/why-doctor-strange-was-cut-from-wandavision/?sh=3b01198d6977)

[Cikomyr2]

I’d give clarification if I had any. :smallfrown:



From what I’ve been reading he was planned, but got cut. *digs* Here. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/05/04/why-doctor-strange-was-cut-from-wandavision/?sh=3b01198d6977)

Yhea, I think they made the right call. Form a world building point of view, it would make sense, but from a narrative point of view, it would have detracted.

[Foeofthelance]

A Dr Strange cameo would have made a lot of sense. It is literally his job, after all. Would have been kind of cool if they had folded him in there some way.

Interview I read a few weeks back mentioned the early storyboards did have Doctor Strange showing up, with all the weird little commercials actually being Wanda subconsciously reaching out to him. They decided not to use him because they didn't want him to steal any of Wanda's thunder in the climax and let them avoid the question of why he wouldn't at least try to take the Darkhold off of her.

EDIT: Missed the above post, my bad!

[Tyndmyr]

These series still have a budget.. they can't whip out Benedict Cumberbatch on a "would have been nice"

Sure, that's fair. Budget always ends up limiting things at some point. What would be cool from an in-universe perspective may not make financial sense.

I do enjoy when the crossovers fit the larger universe, though. Definitely helps make things feel more real and connected. If they could have folded him into the stinger like that, would have definitely been interesting, even if it were only a few seconds.

I agree that him being the entire finale would kind of steal the show...it's Wanda's show, she ultimately needs to be the critical character in the end. The cameo or an informational role makes more sense. For instance, if you needed information conveyed to the heroes, that's something you could plausibly have Dr Strange do, even if there is some reason why he can't interfere directly, him pulling a string or two to ensure an acceptable outcome fits the way he works. *shrug* No biggie, I suppose.



You're looking for a trailer. Teasers are to build hype among the already invested (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7M-XNGT5G0), not to sell a complete newcomer. Ads are not a monolith.

Eh, teasers usually precede trailers, do they not?

In any case, I can't imagine that large of an audience is already invested in Eternals. It's a first outing for them, featuring what, eight new characters that have a limited comic audience?

[Psyren]

Eh, teasers usually precede trailers, do they not?


...Yes? Precede meaning "come before", right? Like what is happening here? :smallconfused:

[M1982]

I don't think the events of DW should have pinged. The convergence itself iust a natural thing that happens every few thousand years.

That someone would fire something into it that then would blow up everything was unforeseen and then happened and was stopped within minutes.

Took even less time than the invasion of New York

[Tyndmyr]

...Yes? Precede meaning "come before", right? Like what is happening here? :smallconfused:

Yeah, so the postulated strategy of this to fire up interested people, and THEN the trailer to generate interest would seem to be backward, yes? As a strategy, I'm not sure that makes any sense.

[Psyren]

Yeah, so the postulated strategy of this to fire up interested people, and THEN the trailer to generate interest would seem to be backward, yes? As a strategy, I'm not sure that makes any sense.

It's not backwards at all. Google "evangelism marketing" or "advocacy marketing"; the most passionate part of their customer base is exactly who companies should be starting with, because it's the most bang for their buck. There's a reason they announce these things at Comic-Con rather than on the Today Show.

I linked the Spiderman NWH teaser earlier - which was a few seconds of the three stars walking past a whiteboard. That you don't seem to think this was a calculated move by Disney is a bit telling.

[Tyndmyr]

Of course it's calculated, I just don't think it's necessarily the same strategy you're assuming. For Spiderman, they have an existing fanbase. The average moviegoer knows who Spiderman is, the comic-con goer? Obviously.

This isn't the same thing. There's inherently a lot more selling necessary.

[Psyren]

Of course it's calculated, I just don't think it's necessarily the same strategy you're assuming. For Spiderman, they have an existing fanbase. The average moviegoer knows who Spiderman is, the comic-con goer? Obviously.

This isn't the same thing. There's inherently a lot more selling necessary.

On that we agree, which is why I'm expecting a trailer sometime before November. As you yourself stated, they usually get released after teasers.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

In any case, I can't imagine that large of an audience is already invested in Eternals. It's a first outing for them, featuring what, eight new characters that have a limited comic audience?

Ten Eternals that we’ve seen, and there are rumors about Kit Harrington’s non-Eternal character being at least somewhat tied into the plot. @_@ And that’s assuming no meaningful contribution by any Deviants, Celestials, or anyone else.

[Tyndmyr]

That's an ambitious amount of new characters to introduce.

[Starbuck_II]

That's an ambitious amount of new characters to introduce.

True, drawback when you introduce too much is everyone wants too much screen time. Or it get confusing.
This isn't an issue if most characters are minor/side characters like 1st Thor: You get Odin, Frigga, Thor, his team of warriors, Loki, the three scientists that are friends with Thor, and ice giant king. Also, the guy who guards Bifrost.
Mostly side characters except Jane, Loki, Odin, Thor, and ice king. Yes, Odin is there, but for a few select scenes even.


Black Panther had more introductions: Ape King, his sister, Captain of Guards, his bastard brother, etc. All had decent amount of dialogue.
But they had to create a hidden world on earth.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Black Panther had more introductions: Ape King, his sister, Captain of Guards, his bastard brother, etc. All had decent amount of dialogue.
But they had to create a hidden world on earth.

Wasn’t Okoye already introduced in Captain America: Civil War?

[Rodin]

Wasn’t Okoye already introduced in Captain America: Civil War?

Not according to the MCU Wiki. I'm fairly sure the only named Wakandans we see in Civil War are T'Challa and his father.

[Psyren]

Yes, there appear to be 10 total. (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0WVDKZJkGlY/maxresdefault.jpg) I agree that that could be a lot for one movie.

I imagine however that the large cast is there in part so we can heel-turn a couple of them (the most likely candidates for that being Druig and Sprite), and maybe even kill off one or two of them as a result (I'm betting on Gilgamesh and/or Ajak for that, being the Big Guy and the Obi-Wan respectively), or at least explore their atypical death mechanic which will probably put them on a shelf for a little while in order for there to be stakes.) In other words, if you consider that villains and victims could be counted among that initial ensemble, 10 actors doesn't seem so large anymore.

Consider Guardians of the Galaxy for example - the initial crew may have only been 5 (Starlord, Gamora, Drack, Groot, Rocket), but that first movie also introduced Nebula, Yondu, Ronan, and fleshed out Thanos to be more than a post-credits stinger, for a total of 9.


Wasn’t Okoye already introduced in Captain America: Civil War?

No - Okoye (Danai Gurira) wasn't in Civil War. You're thinking of Ayo (Florence Kasumba), the one who later showed up in FatWS.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Starbuck_II
Black Panther had more introductions: Ape King, his sister, Captain of Guards, his bastard brother….

I think you mean his cousin, i.e. his uncle’s son.