Iron Man Sequels or Avengers?

[Infinity9999x]

Most of you know the spoiler at the end of the Iron Man credits, with Sam Jackson appearing as Fury, it got me thinking about the Avengers movie and future Iron Man projects.

It looks like Iron Man is going to be a smash hit, and if it makes a ton of money, then will Marvel plan on doing a sequel, and if it does how does this effect the Avengers movie? We already know they're planning on making a solo Thor and Captain America. And even if they got started on both of those movies right now, we'd still have at least a two year wait until both were released. Add the Iron Man movie on to that, then we could be waiting 3 to four years until they start an Avengers movie, unless they decide to make some of the movies at the same time.

It poses a bit of a problem. If Marvel chooses to wait on the Avengers movie, then we'll probably get at least one IM sequel, but then we run the risk of RDJ being tired of the character once Avengers rolls around. On the other hand, Marvel could try to get the Avengers movie out quick, but that could have bad results too. If Hulk tanks and Iron Man ends up being the most popular Avengers character, then the fans could get annoyed that Iron Man is reduced to a supporting character in the Avengers, and that wouldn't be good either.

Then there is the option of filming an Iron Man sequel and Avengers movie at roughly the same time and have the Iron Man movie be set before or after the Avengers, but then Marvel would risk overexposure on the character, especially if the movies are released within a few months of each other.

It seems like it's a tricky thing to decide. What would you guys do?

[CaptainStacy]

Iron Man sequel in 2010...Avengers in 2012.

That's plenty of time for Marvel to get Thor and Ant-Man out....and Cap can be the focus of an Avengers movie, like in the first Ultimate Avengers DVD...

[Gamma Ra]

Both

[Infinity9999x]

Iron Man sequel in 2010...Avengers in 2012.

That's plenty of time for Marvel to get Thor and Ant-Man out....and Cap can be the focus of an Avengers movie, like in the first Ultimate Avengers DVD...

That would work, but with a four year wait we run the risk of some actors not wanting to reprise their roles. And also, how will marvel feel if some of the solo movies tank? Hulk could easily be a bust, especially with the non-existent marketing they've been doing, and I really don't know why Marvel wants to make an Ant-Man movie. He's just never been a very interesting character to me personally. If both of those fail, then will Marvel still want to green light Avengers?

[Kal-El 8]

Both

[RickO'Connell]

Hulk & Iron Man cross over movie & then Avengers

[samsnee]

If I had to choose, just Iron Man 2.

[CaptainStacy]

That would work, but with a four year wait we run the risk of some actors not wanting to reprise their roles. And also, how will marvel feel if some of the solo movies tank? Hulk could easily be a bust, especially with the non-existent marketing they've been doing, and I really don't know why Marvel wants to make an Ant-Man movie. He's just never been a very interesting character to me personally. If both of those fail, then will Marvel still want to green light Avengers?

I believe RDJ signed a contract to appear in two more films...not sure about Norton.

Sure, there's a possibility one of the other character's movies might tank. Does that mean Marvel shouldnt even bother to try?

Marvel wants to make an Ant-Man movie because they have a very talented writer/director interested in the character, and because the character is one of Marvel's oldest. Blade wasnt a very well-known character either, but the right people got involved and turned that into a three film franchise...

[Devon_Farmer]

Robert Downey Jr. has said many times that he is a huge fan of Iron Man, and would do 20 or more films about the character, I don't think you have to worry about him growing tired.

[Infinity9999x]

I believe RDJ signed a contract to appear in two more films...not sure about Norton.

Yeah, I had heard that, and I was wondering if that meant that he was signed on for only Iron Man sequels, or if an Avengers movie would count as part of his contract.


Sure, there's a possibility one of the other character's movies might tank. Does that mean Marvel shouldnt even bother to try?

Marvel wants to make an Ant-Man movie because they have a very talented writer/director interested in the character, and because the character is one of Marvel's oldest. Blade wasnt a very well-known character either, but the right people got involved and turned that into a three film franchise...

Oh, I'm not saying Marvel shouldn't do an Avengers movie if one of the movies tank, but I'm only wondering that Marvel, being a company, might decide to scrap Avengers if two movies about two characters in the Avengers fail. They might get cold feet.

And I agree, Ant Man could turn out to be great, but I just don't see a huge market for him. Blade was an unknown yes, but Blade already had a few things going for him. People have always been interested in Vampires, and Blade had a bit of the theme of using a more scientific approach to explain and kill them, not just crosses and stakes, and that's been popular since I am Legend was written. And I know (for me personally) Blade is a more interesting character. A half man/half Vampire who hunts Vampires because he hates what they do to people.

Ant Man on the other hand, is a superhero who can be a real prick and beat his wife, and whose superpower really isn't that interesting. He can get big or really small. Now, I know a good writer can change everything, and I certainly hope I'm wrong, because I'd love to be surprised by Ant Man, but I just think Marvel's taking a risk in making him into a movie.

[DACrowe]

Iron Man 2 for 2011 and then wrap up that story against maybe Mandarin as the third installment with The Avengers in 2013, with Hulk (and no sequels), Cap and Thor (each with a solo movie) in there. Then add Scarlet Witch and maybe one other without origin movies and run with it.

Of course I could just settle for an Iron Man trilogy first (which Favreau wants) and it's not our call so....

[TheVileOne]

There are a couple good points to be made that Blade had a few things going for it that made it a sleeper hit. However look where Blade ended up. The disappointing third movie before a BOMB of a crappy TV series. The franchise ended on a sour note and died.

But we'll see with Ant Man.

I mean with the end of Iron Man you have a heavy expectation that The Avengers is on the horizon. But how will that work? What comes first? Do they launch Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, etc. and make sequels first? Or do they make 1 Iron Man, 1 Hulk, 1 Thor, and 1 Cap movie where they all tie into 1 Avengers movie? It'd be nice if we didn't have to wait 5-6 years to see Avengers.

I think it would be cool if they basically started writing outlines out and maybe film early stuff for the Avengers to use for the movie later on. So when Avengers comes out, its basically like all the movies converging together into Avengers.

[smooth3006]

Hulk could easily be a bust


why does everyone say that ? hulk will not be a bust, ang lee's was. i feel it will do numbers close to iron mans. :grin::bh:

[Infinity9999x]

There are a couple good points to be made that Blade had a few things going for it that made it a sleeper hit. However look where Blade ended up. The disappointing third movie before a BOMB of a crappy TV series. The franchise ended on a sour note and died.

But we'll see with Ant Man.

I mean with the end of Iron Man you have a heavy expectation that The Avengers is on the horizon. But how will that work? What comes first? Do they launch Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, etc. and make sequels first? Or do they make 1 Iron Man, 1 Hulk, 1 Thor, and 1 Cap movie where they all tie into 1 Avengers movie? It'd be nice if we didn't have to wait 5-6 years to see Avengers.

I think it would be cool if they basically started writing outlines out and maybe film early stuff for the Avengers to use for the movie later on. So when Avengers comes out, its basically like all the movies converging together into Avengers.

That's what I was thinking. Iron Man leaves you expecting to see Avengers soon, but it would be kind of a let down if it takes 5 years to come out, and it will have pretty much faded from public consciousness if the other solo movies do bad.

I like the idea of all the movies converging in the Avengers, and it does seem that Marvel wants to take this route.

[SBrooks1]

I think it's real simple....

Iron Man 2 - Tony's alcoholism is explored in depth. Rhodes takes over for Stark in the Mark II suit. Rhodes experiences issues with the suit making him overly aggressive. Tony beats the alcoholism. Rhodes and Tony fight and then become friends in the end. Add in a appearance or a mention of Mandarin leading to....

Iron Man 3 - Full on battle with Mandarin with Tony defeating him at the end. Fury shows up at the end (with possibly other Marvel superheros who would be Avengers) and Stark agrees to join them. Which leads to....

The Avengers - quite possibly the biggest and most expensive Marvel (or overall) movie ever made for that matter

[TheVileOne]

It's not that simple because you have to take the other movies into account. AND these movies take a while to do. AND there's the looming threat of the SAG strike which is currently affecting how studios are doing business right now.

[Infinity9999x]

why does everyone say that ? hulk will not be a bust, ang lee's was. i feel it will do numbers close to iron mans. :grin::bh:

That's exactly why everyone is saying it's going to be a bust. Hulk has lots of strikes against it.

1) Ang Lee's Hulk is still fairly fresh in the minds of the general public. We haven't had 8 years to forget it like we did with Batman and Robin to Batman Begins. When people hear a new Hulk movie is being made, their first reaction may be negative because of the last movie.

2) The advertising has been horrible for Hulk. I haven't seen a trailer on tv yet, and the general public is largely unaware that it's even coming out.

3) Because of the poor advertising people also don't know that Hulk is a reboot, not a sequel of Ang's film, and not connected to the old film in any way. They really need to emphasize that. Batman Begins did a better job advertising then Hulk has, and even then news stations were reporting it as a prequel and not a reboot.

Hulk could be in a lot of troubble unless Marvel gets their stuff together and starts marketing this thing better. Word of mouth is not going to work, especially this summer, there's too many other big name movies coming out that fans are talking about. The Dark Knight, Indiana Jones, and Narnia to name a few.

Hulk's getting overshadowed, and if Marvel doesn't do something, it could flop.

[TheVileOne]

Also Downey Jr. is already 43 years old. I mean that did add a lot to his performance because he wasn't some young stud. But it will be harder for him to keep playing this character for the next X amount of years.

[SBrooks1]

Also Downey Jr. is already 43 years old. I mean that did add a lot to his performance because he wasn't some young stud. But it will be harder for him to keep playing this character for the next X amount of years.

If Harrison Ford can do it, Robert Downey Jr. can too :cwink:

[FaT_tONle]

IM 2 2010, IM3/Avengers 2013/2014... like POTC. Hulk will get a sequel hopfully. Thor and Ant Man And Captain for 2010/2011. It would be a four year gap max between Avengers and major characters.

[TheVileOne]

This is not one franchise guys. These are technically supposed to be multiple franchises converging together, plus trying to get all the actors together. So you can't just put a couple years on them and say get it done by then.

POTC, I mean the writers even said on the DVD that this was movie 101 on how not to do a movie. A lot of people were disappointed with how the sequels turned out.

Plus the SAG issue hasn't been resolved yet, that could keep things from happening right now.

[FaT_tONle]

That's beside the point... actors are going to have to be willing to go back to back with Avengers and their own movies if they go trhough with this. Maybe a two year gap max. That's what I meant. If Downey Jr need a year off and they decide to finish the IM trilogy first then Avengers moves to 2015... simple as that.

[DoomRulz]

Avengers won't happen for another three years at least. We need Captain America and Thor first. And we need some sort of introduction for Hawkeye, Quicksilver, the Black Panther (who probably won't get his own movie), Wasp, and Hank Pym.

[ThatDamnNinja]

Iron Man will probably have two sequels; The Incredible Hulk really should only have one; Thor, Ant-Man and Captain America don't need any sequels, I don't think, prior to the Avengers coming out.

I think it's reasonable to think that they could get out Iron Man 2 out in 2010, Iron Man 3 in 2012, Hulk 2 in 2010 or 2011, and get Thor, Captain America, and Ant-Man out sometime between now and 2012, so we can get The Avengers in, say, 2014.

[FaT_tONle]

Iron Man will probably have two sequels; The Incredible Hulk really should only have one; Thor, Ant-Man and Captain America don't need any sequels, I don't think, prior to the Avengers coming out.

I think it's reasonable to think that they could get out Iron Man 2 out in 2010, Iron Man 3 in 2012, Hulk 2 in 2010 or 2011, and get Thor, Captain America, and Ant-Man out sometime between now and 2012, so we can get The Avengers in, say, 2014.

Or that... same thing.

[BobJM]

2009:
Thor

2010:
Captain America
Iron Man II

2011:
Hulk 2
Ant-Man (if Marvel actually goes for it)

2013:
Avengers

[BatJeff7786]

I don't see an Ant-Man movie being successful.

[Chris B]

I want Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America to all get 2-3 solo movies before Avengers.

[Chris B]

Double post.

[DoomRulz]

I want Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America to all get 2-3 solo movies before Avengers.

2-3 is a bit much. Go for 2 for IM and Cap, then move on to Avengers I say.

[Leenie]

I'd like to see both, but if I had to choose one, I'd choose an Iron Man sequel. Definitely.

[BobJM]

Ant-Man will not be made. Marvel can talk about it all they want, but its just too risky a move, especially with a new studio.

[FaT_tONle]

I am just wondering how Marvel plans to fund Avengers... will they do it completely independently or will they ask some other studios to contribute to the budget? We'll have to wait and see.

[StanLee Wannabe]

Ant-Man will not be made. Marvel can talk about it all they want, but its just too risky a move, especially with a new studio.

I don't see an Ant-Man movie being successful.

Based on....? I love it when people throw this kind of bad mojo out there with nothing to back it up. Those are the same comments people made about Iron Man, remember? "He's a second or third tier hero" "It's too much of a risk because Marvel is a new studio"

I call shenanigans. There's nothing about the story and powers of Ant Man that indicate it would suck. Get older/better actors, do a decent job writing it, make sure the powers / environment are taken seriously - and ANY superhero can do well.

That's not saying there's NO risk. Yes, Ant Man is a third-tier hero who should get a smaller budget. When you've got a smaller budget it's even more critical to get things right...but I just don't get people who jump to negativity - especially after IM did so well.

I doubt Ant Man will even be chosen to be in the Avengers movie, tbh, but if they do the movie I'm betting it works.

[DoomRulz]

I question your comparing AM to IM. IM has always been the more popular character and he ranks right up there with Cap and Spidey.

[Infinity9999x]

I question your comparing AM to IM. IM has always been the more popular character and he ranks right up there with Cap and Spidey.
In terms of the general public, not really. Iron Man has never been as popular as Cap or Spider-man until now. I do agree though that IM isn't quite comparable to Ant Man.

Now yes, I will admit, when I first saw the Iron Man commercials, I thought "hmm it could be a Fantastic Four, or it could be very good." I didn't know if Iron man would be too goofy or not, but I knew that Iron Man had loads of potential for a few reasons.

*For one, a superhero like Iron Man has never really been done before. Robocop is the closest you can compare it to, and even then it's still pretty different. It's new, and it's not the traditional kind of Superhero.

*Let's face it, the general audience love big explosions and guns, which is why they love movies like Transformers and Die Hard. Iron Man has both of these, and it's a Superhero movie, and superhero movies are a popular trend at the moment.

*And finally, Iron Man had a lot of talented actors to back it up.

Ant man has a few things against it right off the bat.

*He's basically unknown to the general public. The average movie-goer has no idea who Ant man is.

*His powers aren't as flashy as Iron Man's. He doesn't have a lot of cool guns or a cool looking techy suit. And their not as unique as a Spider-man character who flips around the city like a gymnast.

Now, Ant Man could turn out to be very good if written well. A good writer can change everything. The Flash is boring as heck when all they have him do is run fast, but when you start exploring ideas like having him vibrate so fast he can phase through a wall, or gain enough momentum that can level a building in a punch, then he becomes more interesting. If the Ant Man writer gets creative with Ant Man's powers then it could end up being very good. But it'll be very tricky.

[Chris B]

2-3 is a bit much. Go for 2 for IM and Cap, then move on to Avengers I say.

Well, I think they probably could get away with Cap only having one solo film before the Avengers. Hulk could go either way, but I would prefer that atleast getting one sequel. Thor would need a sequel bringing him to modern day Earth simply because the film Vaughn wants to make is set in Asgard and medieval Scandanavia. And I would like to see Favreau make his two sequels to Iron Man first.

[Infinity9999x]

Well, I think they probably could get away with Cap only having one solo film before the Avengers. Hulk could go either way, but I would prefer that atleast getting one sequel. Thor would need a sequel bringing him to modern day Earth simply because the film Vaughn wants to make is set in Asgard and medieval Scandanavia. And I would like to see Favreau make his two sequels to Iron Man first.

I agree, Cap doesn't really need more then one movie before Avengers because (especially if they follow the way the first Ultimates book went) a big part of the Avengers plot will be dealing with Cap and how he's adjusting to being unfrozen.

[BobJM]

Ant-Man doesn't have star-quality abilities to be made into a successful blockbuster.

Oh, he can shrink? Cool...
Basically, what a general audience would think.

Honestly, comparing Iron Man and Ant-Man is pretty ludicrous. Iron Man is one of Marvel's heavy hitters whereas Ant-Man has only been truly successful in his affiliation with Avengers. If Pym wasn't part of the Avengers, do you honestly think he would have lasted this long in the comics?

I'm not saying he's a worthless character. He would be perfect in an Avengers film, but his character doesn't require a backstory in its own film.

[bethehero7404]

I, for one, think that THOR would be awesome as a cameo in Iron Man II BUT I think it should be after he has his solo film. If a movie patron goes and sees it who is not familiar with him, they wouldn't get it. If he has his set up film, then his cameo would make more sense. My problem is the casting of THOR. The other problem with THOR is the main villain is Loki. Most people would think he is fighting THE MASK (Jim Carrey film. The Norse God was imprisoned in the mask OR they will think of Kevin Smith's DOGMA, Matt Damon played Loki). Not sure how they would go for that. Touchy subjects all around with THOR.

Ant-Man, I see as a bomb and comparison to "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids," if they don't do it right.

It would be cool if they had the New Avengers in there with Iron Man, Thor and Hulk with Wolverine, Spider-man and Captain America. All original actors as well would rock. Doubtful, but wishful thinking.