Gap year for the Avenger movies

[psylockolussus]

The Avengers is like a very eventful movie. 5 movies built it up and its not like Spider-Man or X-Men that should get a new movie every 2 to 3 years.

I think the gap should be 4 to 5 years. And Between those 3 to 4 years they should release 6-8 movies that is related to the Avengers movie.

[KangConquers]

The Avengers is like a very eventful movie. 5 movies built it up and its not like Spider-Man or X-Men that should get a new movie every 2 to 3 years.

I think the gap should be 4 to 5 years. And Between those 3 to 4 years they should release 6-8 movies that is related to the Avengers movie.

I completely disagree.

Marvel needs to strike while the Iron is hot. I'd like to see Avengers 2 in 2015 and Avengers 3 in 2018. 3 years is plenty of time to put together an Avengers movie.

The reason it took 5 years to build up is you had to introduce the core characters...Ant-Man etc aren't as important as the big 3 of Cap, Thor and Iron Man. Now that those characters are established, making an Avengers 2 should theoretically be no harder than making a new X-Men movie.

The second you start waiting 4-5 years for a sequel, you lose momentum. I think Cap and Thor trilogies should be put on 5 year plans (5 years between movie 1 and movie 3) and Avengers should be put on a six year plan.

[MessiahDecoy123]

A movie every two years is normal for most successful franchises.

[bakertx]

i used to watch movie everyday i even invite my friend to go to the cinema,until i come to a site and a read is about angry birds i did try to play with it and now i am very much addicted to it.







__________________
Too much addicted angry birds (http://www.angrybirds-game-online.com/angrybird/chrome-angry-birds/)

[Roughneck]

rrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


I think when they make em they make em.....

I really like the idea they have been running with.....well....wanted to run with.....

2 movies a year.....though as we get into more and more marvel titles I would like to see 3-4 movies a year

1 street level (Punisher, cage, moon knight....)
1 Cosmic (Nova, quasar, captain Marvel...)
2 Avengers (Iron Man, Cap, Thor, Panther....)


have whatever crossover as needed or just nods is great. but if it works for the Story why not have Cap hop in a help Cloak and Dagger with something.


And if they can all build towards something then great.

I would love if Marvel had all the liscenses but a Punisher, Daredevil and Spidey movies all dealing with Kingpin as a major threat but fighting his minions then a 4th movie has them teaming up to topple the big guy.

Like with the Avengers.....Same for Cosmic, set em up and bring on the Annihilation wave.

Then if all is right with the universe we can put em all together for the mother of all Infinity Gaunlet silver screen throwdowns

[TomPiltoff]

I completely disagree.

Marvel needs to strike while the Iron is hot.

The second you start waiting 4-5 years for a sequel, you lose momentum.

What does that even mean? Does the word oversaturation mean anything to you?

[psylockolussus]

I completely disagree.

Marvel needs to strike while the Iron is hot. I'd like to see Avengers 2 in 2015 and Avengers 3 in 2018. 3 years is plenty of time to put together an Avengers movie.

The reason it took 5 years to build up is you had to introduce the core characters...Ant-Man etc aren't as important as the big 3 of Cap, Thor and Iron Man. Now that those characters are established, making an Avengers 2 should theoretically be no harder than making a new X-Men movie.

The second you start waiting 4-5 years for a sequel, you lose momentum. I think Cap and Thor trilogies should be put on 5 year plans (5 years between movie 1 and movie 3) and Avengers should be put on a six year plan.

Well the public is gonna have a fatigue with that.

[DACrowe]

The public is going to have fatigue either way. Better to get it all before the fatigue sets in. Besides, I think the single heroes--especially when origins are involved--are going to be the ones that start to fade away. Avengers has enough of a novelty factor to have at least two films be treated with hype and anticipation.

[November Rain]

I'm with psylockolussus (http://forums.superherohype.com/member.php?u=20351) here

The avengers is only as strong as the sum of its parts. and there should be no more than 3 more.

in between they should do their best to build up the reputation of the cast as individuals and get a cohesion going and also keep that marvel universe alight.

no one is going to want to watch iron man on his own when an avengers film has everyone together.

use the other character films to bring a joined threat plot together. The avengers film should be the movie equivalent of an annual special (although a five film build up doesn't seem as necessary anymore, 2-3 films is sufficient).

If marvel fails to deliver on the notion of the avengers, their whole studio premise is screwed over.

as for what they should do with the hulk, he should become a roaming character, heck, all the actors need to start roaming in each other's films now.

[Lord]

As long as they make an Ant-man before Avengers 2, it has to have Pym and the Wasp, it MUST

[November Rain]

. Now that those characters are established, making an Avengers 2 should theoretically be no harder than making a new X-Men movie.

I completely disagree

outside of potentially bringing back a collection of their old enemies to be the main antagonists, it would be incredibly difficult to whip out a feasible entity that can justify being a threat they couldn't all take down individually within a 2 hour slot.

big villains need big build ups.

let#s not discuss the pitfalls of the phoenix, dr doom or sebastian shaw in their respective superhero team movies.

magneto fluked it and striker was never much of a big hitter, even in wolverine origins.

out of the avengers, i can see them rehashing the red skull and maybe the abomination as a cameo and if they want to pull of anything major like the alien invasion in the ultimate comics, they have to flesh it out over the course of the other character's movies.

[DACrowe]

Depends. Them fighting just a supervillain would in itself become generic.

I see it as:

Avengers 1: Loki and possibly someone else (Loki will really need to raise the stakes compared to Thor for this to work).

Avengers 2: Skrulls/Alien invasion (build up in post-credit sequences in between films).

Avengers 3: Civil War. End it with heroes vs. heroes. Of course for this to work they'd have to get everybody back and that may be impossible from a budgetary standpoint. But in theory, it'd make an epic conclusion.

[November Rain]

a two part civil war film would be marvel studio's epitaph before a complete reboot.

i'd happily never watch another superhero film again after that. you cant top it.

[Avenger]

Three years between Avengers movies makes sense to me. Something like this schedule might work:

2012: The Avengers
2013: Iron Man 3/Thor 2
2014: Cap 2/New solo film (maybe a new Hulk?)
2015: Avengers 2
2016: Thor 3/Something else
2017: Cap 3/Something else
2018: Avengers 3

I imagine the audience would probably be getting kind of tired of it all by Avengers 3, so let that be the MCU's big finale, at least for a while.

[VoodooMagic]

Three years between Avengers movies makes sense to me. Something like this schedule might work:

2012: The Avengers
2013: Iron Man 3/Thor 2
2014: Cap 2/New solo film (maybe a new Hulk?)
2015: Avengers 2
2016: Thor 3/Something else
2017: Cap 3/Something else
2018: Avengers 3

I imagine the audience would probably be getting kind of tired of it all by Avengers 3, so let that be the MCU's big finale, at least for a while.

Pirates, Fast and Furious and Transformers all proved you can never kill a franchise that the world has fallen inlove with...even if the movies are less then stellar (Fast Five was amazing though)

[VoodooMagic]

Avengers model works well.

I really would like to start seeing Marvel release movies outside of summer though. You telling me Avengers 2 wouldn't open well Dec 14th 2015? Giving us the summer to do Thor 3, Hulk 3, F4 and have all those movies get us pumped for A2?

[Cheshire1996]

If they did adapt Civil War well, it would be beyond amazing. But I don't know if Marvel would be interested in doing that or not.

[KangConquers]

Three years between Avengers movies makes sense to me. Something like this schedule might work:

2012: The Avengers
2013: Iron Man 3/Thor 2
2014: Cap 2/New solo film (maybe a new Hulk?)
2015: Avengers 2
2016: Thor 3/Something else
2017: Cap 3/Something else
2018: Avengers 3

I imagine the audience would probably be getting kind of tired of it all by Avengers 3, so let that be the MCU's big finale, at least for a while.


This is exactly what I was saying; why wait 5 years between Avengers films? Avengers 3 should end 10 years after Iron Man 1...sort of the culmination of a decade long project...if you take any longer than that, the core audience who got interested in the whole thing after Iron Man will not stick around.

[MarvelKnight]

Everything I have read is that Avengers 1 will start to lay groundwork to a mega event that will be avengers 3 in 2017.There will be subtle things strewn throughout the movies between now and a3 in 2017 with A3 being the culmination of events that were hinted at all the way back in A1 in May. Whether that is subtle in movie references that will come to fruition later, or it will be post credits or a combo of both, 2017 is the mega-event for the Avengers and The MCU unless it gets pushed back

[Neo_3]

I thought it was 2018.

[MarvelKnight]

It's entirely possible that I could be mistaken, I haven't been able to find any recent articles and the last I found have been around October of last year and 2017 is just what I read.

Regardless, I'm sure they'll all kick ***. I heard that Avengers will have a post-credits scene in reference to IM3 and IM3 will serve as IM1 did with the next round of lead ins to A2.

[R_Hythlodeus]

if you take any longer than that, the core audience who got interested in the whole thing after Iron Man will not stick around.
I disagree. if you have to built something up then take your time and don't rush it.
I think, what can be said now, that TA is the biggest commercially successful movie of all time (not counting anything Cameron did), is, that the audience for TA was bigger than the audience for IM. ittook 5 years and not only didn't MS lose audience in that periode, but instead they gave it time to built up hype.
A TA sequel in 2016/2017 could work exactly like that. new fans will be found on the road to TA2. look at all those crazy Loki fangirls who joined the party last year. if you have a charismatic character in the movies inbetween it will attract new crowd. again, a longer period between TA and TA2 gives more characters the chance to become the new Loki or Coulson in terms of fan appreciation and the hype will be bigger.

[cherokeesam]

I disagree. if you have to built something up then take your time and don't rush it.
I think, what can be said now, that TA is the biggest commercially successful movie of all time (not counting anything Cameron did), is, that the audience for TA was bigger than the audience for IM. ittook 5 years and not only didn't MS lose audience in that periode, but instead they gave it time to built up hype.
A TA sequel in 2016/2017 could work exactly like that. new fans will be found on the road to TA2. look at all those crazy Loki fangirls who joined the party last year. if you have a charismatic character in the movies inbetween it will attract new crowd. again, a longer period between TA and TA2 gives more characters the chance to become the new Loki or Coulson in terms of fan appreciation and the hype will be bigger.


1) That's unfair of you to single out KangConquers' post, since it was made a year ago and long before he, you, I or anyone else expected Avengers to turn into the historical blockbuster it became.

2) It did *not* take 5 years for The Avengers to develop. Iron Man was released in 2008, and Marvel announced plans for Avengers to release in 2011 --- THREE years later. Writers strikes and Joss Whedon's schedule pushed the release back until 2012, but that's still *four* years, not five.

3) The first film in the Avengers franchise should naturally take longer to develop than its sequels, because you have to give the solo films time to introduce the characters, and time to develop the team. But now that the first one is out of the way, there is no conceivable reason to wait through Iron Man, Thor, Cap and Hulk sequels as steppingstones to Avengers 2 --- it's unnecessary, because the characters are already introduced, already well-known.

At best, the only thing you need to do is have a couple of solo projects for *new* characters to add to the team --- say, Ant-Man (which could conceivably introduce no less than THREE new Avengers, and possibly four --- Hank Pym, Janet Van Dyne, Scott Lang, and Vision), Black Panther, Ms. Marvel (again, multiple Avengers potentially), and Dr. Strange....or any combination thereof.

Avengers 2 should be due by no later than 2015. Any stalling beyond that will kill interest and hype, as KangConquers said.

[mbnasir6]

Some of you are acting like Solo films are nothing and only thr Avengers will bring in audiences, which is not true. Having a solo film every year will keep hype going and will mean that the Avengers sequels won't be rushed and the GA won't feel like its been oversaturated.
Even 2 solo films each year is too much imo, maybe 2 then 1 and 1, one of those being a new character, then A2, then repeat, then end with A3 because then you will really feel like these characters have been around for a long time because they have and Civil War will be bitter sweet because now Marvel movies are something a new generation will have grown up with, or thr current has matured with and will be appreciated for decades to come.

[cherokeesam]

Some of you are acting like Solo films are nothing and only thr Avengers will bring in audiences, which is not true. Having a solo film every year will keep hype going and will mean that the Avengers sequels won't be rushed and the GA won't feel like its been oversaturated.
Even 2 solo films each year is too much imo, maybe 2 then 1 and 1, one of those being a new character, then A2, then repeat, then end with A3 because then you will really feel like these characters have been around for a long time because they have and Civil War will be bitter sweet because now Marvel movies are something a new generation will have grown up with, or thr current has matured with and will be appreciated for decades to come.


Why would there be a Civil War in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? The Civil War hinges on registration of superpowers to prevent vigilantism. The movie Avengers are *not* vigilantes, and are already duly authorized by the government.

There will be no Civil War in the MCU. Thank god.

[Radioactive1980]

2015 is the ideal date for A2, if for no other reason that RDJ and Ruffalo will be getting too old if you leave it much longer. I say new Avengers film every three years with A3 in 2018.

[TacomaTruck90]

I'm kinda hoping 2014 but I just honestly can't wait see what happens next and what phase II will bring ..I made a thread about avengers 2014 lol but im sure what ever they will do will be very smart choice they have been good with mcu

[Radioactive1980]

I'm kinda hoping 2014 but I just honestly can't wait see what happens next and what phase II will bring ..I made a thread about avengers 2014 lol but im sure what ever they will do will be very smart choice they have been good with mcu

Not if they brought the film out in 2014, that would be dumb.
As it would mean hardly any phase II films before A2.

[Dr Tactics]

The public is going to have fatigue either way. Better to get it all before the fatigue sets in. Besides, I think the single heroes--especially when origins are involved--are going to be the ones that start to fade away. Avengers has enough of a novelty factor to have at least two films be treated with hype and anticipation.

The you have to take in consideration of all the Non Marvel Studios Marvel Characters from the other Greedy Studios (Fox & Sony) who'll try to cram their characters in between the MCU Movies and quite possibly killing momentum by confusing the general audience (except for Fox & the X-Men franchise) who are even now questioning crossover question on why the FF & Spiderman aren't around in this universe. And, even maybe making a Bad Movie (FF4, Daredevil and possibly Reboot Spiderman 2) Cause nobody wants to work together and put it in Marvels hands. Even DC's plans may further saturate the Superhero Schtick. We could get like 5 or six different superhero movies a year from different studios. Sheesh!!!! I'm fatigued right now!! People will have to decide if they'll even support all the superhero movies all in one year.

[Lord]

a gap of 4-6 years is the best way to go, 2016 would be for me the best date for Avengers 2.

The gap between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, the alien movies, and many others was as big if not bigger, and they didn't even have movies with characters of their respective franchises during that time.

[R_Hythlodeus]

a gap of 4-6 years is the best way to go, 2016 would be for me the best date for Avengers 2.

The gap between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, the alien movies, and many others was as big if not bigger, and they didn't even have movies with characters of their respective franchises during that time.

This ^^^

[cherokeesam]

a gap of 4-6 years is the best way to go, 2016 would be for me the best date for Avengers 2.

The gap between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, the alien movies, and many others was as big if not bigger, and they didn't even have movies with characters of their respective franchises during that time.

Good god, no. That's *twice* as long as the gap needs to be.

The Spidey and X-Men franchises released every 2-3 years; the Star Wars saga had a gap interval of 3 years (plus the huge intermission between NT and OT); and more recent hit franchises like Harry Potter, Twilight and LOTR released quite literally *every* year.

Modern audiences are *not* waiting 6 freakin' years for the next Avengers flick. *Never* gonna happen.

[DrCosmic]

I think there's merit to the idea of releasing every two years, running off the momentum from Phase I to carry the franchise. I think there's more merit in continuing to build up the Avengers into event movies. Not only do you get to create bad guys that make Avengers 2/3/whatever independently compelling, but if your build up is just as good or better than the previous phase, then you keep all the momentum you had, and add more. Now it's not just about what will Cap do next, but what will Cap do with Black Panther, and how will they stand a chance against Ultron?

I think 3 years is ideal, at 2 years, you're just maintaining, and will lose some people since you don't have enough time to make the concept of Avengers 2 seem bigger than the concept of Avengers 1. At four years, unless your buildup is pretty frikkin epic, you'll lose people's attention. At three years, you not only have a normal amount of time between sequels, but you also have time to build it up so it'll still be an event movie and get event movie money and excitement.

You also have time to let it breathe, which you need so you don't rush out something crap, since you don't have a prewritten story like TwiPotter Games. Two years simply isn't enough for the Avengers franchise to continue to grow.

[cherokeesam]

I think there's merit to the idea of releasing every two years, running off the momentum from Phase I to carry the franchise. I think there's more merit in continuing to build up the Avengers into event movies. Not only do you get to create bad guys that make Avengers 2/3/whatever independently compelling, but if your build up is just as good or better than the previous phase, then you keep all the momentum you had, and add more. Now it's not just about what will Cap do next, but what will Cap do with Black Panther, and how will they stand a chance against Ultron?

I think 3 years is ideal, at 2 years, you're just maintaining, and will lose some people since you don't have enough time to make the concept of Avengers 2 seem bigger than the concept of Avengers 1. At four years, unless your buildup is pretty frikkin epic, you'll lose people's attention. At three years, you not only have a normal amount of time between sequels, but you also have time to build it up so it'll still be an event movie and get event movie money and excitement.

You also have time to let it breathe, which you need so you don't rush out something crap, since you don't have a prewritten story like TwiPotter Games. Two years simply isn't enough for the Avengers franchise to continue to grow.

I agree with you on this. Three years is an ideal interval between Avengers installments.

[KangConquers]

2 years is too short, 4 years is too long. 3 is perfect. Avengers 2 in 2015, Avengers 3 in 2018, Avengers recast trilogy 2022, 2025, 2028, Recast again, 2032, 2035, 2038, recast again...

[Lord]

3 years is too short. 4-5 years is perfect, let this Trilogy last please

[KangConquers]

3 years is too short. 4-5 years is perfect, let this Trilogy last please

4-5 is ridiculous and momentum killing.

[Angamb]

the more years they wait between sequels, the less sequels we'll get with the original cast.

so its better to go with the 3 years gap, this way maybe after Avengers 3, Marvel decides to do another one with the whole cast.

And after that, to start the recast, but 4 years is too much time, in my opinion too.

[spideymouse]

You might look at 4 years as being momentum killing, but remember that we will be getting two MCU movies each year in between, helping to maintain and build on the anticipation (for Batman or Spider-Man, you really have nothing to get you excited for their sequels in between).

I also just feel that only four movies preceding Avengers 2 (three of them being sequels) in Phase II seems a bit light, especially given that there is still a good amount of new and unique characters that Marvel will want to introduce as they expand the MCU even further (Ant-Man/Wasp, Black Panther, Dr. Strange, Iron Fist, Luke Cage, Ms. Marvel, Namor, GotG...). Most of these characters deserve/require their own movies, but when you're juggling solo sequels/franchises for the Big Three, do you have enough time to fit them in when you only have two summers in between Avengers movies?

[KangConquers]

the more years they wait between sequels, the less sequels we'll get with the original cast.

so its better to go with the 3 years gap, this way maybe after Avengers 3, Marvel decides to do another one with the whole cast.

And after that, to start the recast, but 4 years is too much time, in my opinion too.

This. I want a trilogy with this cast. Not a partial recast.

[KangConquers]

You might look at 4 years as being momentum killing, but remember that we will be getting two MCU movies each year in between, helping to maintain and build on the anticipation (for Batman or Spider-Man, you really have nothing to get you excited for their sequels in between).

I also just feel that only four movies preceding Avengers 2 (three of them being sequels) in Phase II seems a bit light, especially given that there is still a good amount of new and unique characters that Marvel will want to introduce as they expand the MCU even further (Ant-Man/Wasp, Black Panther, Dr. Strange, Iron Fist, Luke Cage, Ms. Marvel, Namor, GotG...). Most of these characters deserve/require their own movies, but when you're juggling solo sequels/franchises for the Big Three, do you have enough time to fit them in when you only have two summers in between Avengers movies?

The easy answer is Marvel starts to do movies in the fall and spring. Point. Set. Match.

[spideymouse]

The easy answer is Marvel starts to do movies in the fall and spring. Point. Set. Match.
I agree, and they are, but this still only works if Marvel starts committing to more than two movies a year, which they haven't. Not yet.

[KangConquers]

I agree, and they are, but this still only works if Marvel starts committing to more than two movies a year, which they haven't. Not yet.

Here's a thought; if Marvel is expanding the marvel cinematic universe beyond just avengers, why do all of these films have to occur between Avengers 1 and Avengers 3? If anything, having say a Doctor Strange franchise that goes on after Avengers and falls in the same universe as the Downey avengers and the recast avengers ten years from now willl give the MCU a sense of connectivity, and legacy.

A lot of people seem to think that the MCU is just going to stop at Avengers 3; that's not the way film companies work. With the print medium diminishing, Marvel Studios is Marvel's new gold mine; This isn't just a ten-fifteen year project, they plan on doing this for the long haul. That's why I don't place NEARLY as much significance on getting every single possible movie out before Avengers 3.

[spideymouse]

Here's a thought; if Marvel is expanding the marvel cinematic universe beyond just avengers, why do all of these films have to occur between Avengers 1 and Avengers 3? If anything, having say a Doctor Strange franchise that goes on after Avengers and falls in the same universe as the Downey avengers and the recast avengers ten years from now willl give the MCU a sense of connectivity, and legacy.

A lot of people seem to think that the MCU is just going to stop at Avengers 3; that's not the way film companies work. With the print medium diminishing, Marvel Studios is Marvel's new gold mine; This isn't just a ten-fifteen year project, they plan on doing this for the long haul. That's why I don't place NEARLY as much significance on getting every single possible movie out before Avengers 3.

I suppose I have been thinking under the assumption that Thanos will appear some time between Avengers 1 and 3. Maybe that's a wrong assumption, but if things are leading towards the Infinity Gauntlet (and don't get me wrong, I'm not assuming that that is going to be the end of the MCU), I would hope that Marvel will have expanded the MCU pretty much across all of the different corners of the Marvel U by then.

Also, I don't know if I like the idea of compartmentalizing franchises if you truly want them to exist in the same universe. I think the best way to set a Dr. Strange franchise in the same universe as the Downey Avengers is to have at least his first movie between Avengers 1 and 3, and the same goes for some of those other major heroes I mentioned. If you introduce them all after the Downey Avengers are recast, I think that's the opposite of establishing continuity and legacy.

[I'm Venom]

May 3, 2013 - Iron Man 3

November 8, 2013 - Thor 2

April 4, 2014 - Captain America 2

June 13, 2014 - The Incredible Hulk 2

May 1, 2015 - The Avengers 2

That’s just my wishlist.

[KangConquers]

I suppose I have been thinking under the assumption that Thanos will appear some time between Avengers 1 and 3. Maybe that's a wrong assumption, but if things are leading towards the Infinity Gauntlet (and don't get me wrong, I'm not assuming that that is going to be the end of the MCU), I would hope that Marvel will have expanded the MCU pretty much across all of the different corners of the Marvel U by then.

Also, I don't know if I like the idea of compartmentalizing franchises if you truly want them to exist in the same universe. I think the best way to set a Dr. Strange franchise in the same universe as the Downey Avengers is to have at least his first movie between Avengers 1 and 3, and the same goes for some of those other major heroes I mentioned. If you introduce them all after the Downey Avengers are recast, I think that's the opposite of establishing continuity and legacy.

I didn't say have him after Avengers 3. As long as Doctor Strange shares the screen with Downey and co at some point, it's in continuity.

We just had a 1.5 B Avengers movie, with a cast that gelled in a fantastic way. Whether you like it or not, this is now the classic Avengers line-up to a new generation of people. This team worked really well, and is full of great actors. Why spoil it by trying to add six new heroes every Avengers movie?

I say add Ant-Man and Wasp in Avengers 2, and add Vision and Black Panther in 3. Why cluster**** everything into this trilogy, thus crippling the franchise ten years down the road? Everyone seems to have such a short term vision for this thing.

[MrAnonymous]

May 3, 2013 - Iron Man 3

November 8, 2013 - Thor 2

April 4, 2014 - Captain America 2

June 13, 2014 - The Incredible Hulk 2

May 1, 2015 - The Avengers 2

That’s just my wishlist.

Seriously? All sequels? okay then......
June 13th isn't even the reserved date.....

[KangConquers]

May 3, 2013 - Iron Man 3

November 8, 2013 - Thor 2

April 4, 2014 - Captain America 2

August 1, 2014 - Guardians of the Galaxy

May 1, 2015 - The Avengers 2

That’s just my wishlist.

What you're getting. :woot:

[BigThor]

3 years is too short. 4-5 years is perfect, let this Trilogy last please

A 3 year gap is perfectly fine, that would make for a 9 year trilogy surely there's nothing "short about 9 years.

[KangConquers]

A 3 year gap is perfectly fine, that would make for a 9 year trilogy surely there's nothing "short about 9 years.

6 year trilogy, really, because the movie falls on the 3rd year.

Granted, we did have a 4 year wait from Iron Man 1. I think Avengers 3 in 2018 wraps up this part of the MCU into a nice tidy little 10 year package.

[BigThor]

6 year trilogy, really, because the movie falls on the 3rd year.

Granted, we did have a 4 year wait from Iron Man 1. I think Avengers 3 in 2018 wraps up this part of the MCU into a nice tidy little 10 year package.

Yeah you're right, I don't know what the **** I was thinking. :doh:

[spideymouse]

I didn't say have him after Avengers 3. As long as Doctor Strange shares the screen with Downey and co at some point, it's in continuity.

We just had a 1.5 B Avengers movie, with a cast that gelled in a fantastic way. Whether you like it or not, this is now the classic Avengers line-up to a new generation of people. This team worked really well, and is full of great actors. Why spoil it by trying to add six new heroes every Avengers movie?

I say add Ant-Man and Wasp in Avengers 2, and add Vision and Black Panther in 3. Why cluster**** everything into this trilogy, thus crippling the franchise ten years down the road? Everyone seems to have such a short term vision for this thing.
I believe you're misreading what I'm saying. For one, I don't consider the Avengers franchise as a trilogy--it's just part of an ever-expanding, continuously progressing MCU narrative that could and should go beyond three movies. Secondly, I'm certainly not suggesting that they force six new characters into each Avengers movie.

What I am saying is that expanding the MCU beyond the Avengers franchise means that they should be introducing new heroes (Avengers and non-Avengers) during the second and third phases simultaneously while the major Avengers solo films build up to Avengers 2 and 3. But they can't introduce those new heroes between now and Avengers 3 if they only have 4-5 movies in between each Avengers sequel, and if 3-4 out of those 4-5 are sequels to the major solo Avengers. If you force Avengers 2 to release in Summer 2015, you can have at most 2 movies introducing new parts of the MCU, and that's only if neither of them are minor solo Avengers. The same is true if you force Avengers 3 to release in Summer 2018.

You suggest introducing new Avengers in the Avengers sequels, but I'm not exactly convinced that it's a good strategy, given how Hawkeye was given the short end of the stick in the first one, as well as how you would be spreading the screen time out across even more characters.

[I'm Venom]

Another reason The Avengers 2 shouldn't release until 2015 is because they need a lot of time to develop it and lay down more foundation in other films before they can gather everyone together. From what I read, it's going in this order:

Iron Man 3, Thor 2, and Captain America 2, and that covers 2013-2014.

[KangConquers]

I believe you're misreading what I'm saying. For one, I don't consider the Avengers franchise as a trilogy--it's just part of an ever-expanding, continuously progressing MCU narrative that could and should go beyond three movies. Secondly, I'm certainly not suggesting that they force six new characters into each Avengers movie.

What I am saying is that expanding the MCU beyond the Avengers franchise means that they should be introducing new heroes (Avengers and non-Avengers) during the second and third phases simultaneously while the major Avengers solo films build up to Avengers 2 and 3. But they can't introduce those new heroes between now and Avengers 3 if they only have 4-5 movies in between each Avengers sequel, and if 3-4 out of those 4-5 are sequels to the major solo Avengers. If you force Avengers 2 to release in Summer 2015, you can have at most 2 movies introducing new parts of the MCU, and that's only if neither of them are minor solo Avengers. The same is true if you force Avengers 3 to release in Summer 2018.

You suggest introducing new Avengers in the Avengers sequels, but I'm not exactly convinced that it's a good strategy, given how Hawkeye was given the short end of the stick in the first one, as well as how you would be spreading the screen time out across even more characters.


I think you're the one misreading now. I'm saying only two new characters should be added each Avengers film, (for example, introducing Ant-Man and Wasp in an Ant-Man film and having them show up in the subsequent Avengers sequel).

I personally would be fine sticking with this team of six for 3 films. People get way too stuck on wanting to see every single of their favorites on the big screen. That's how cluster**** films like X-3 and Spider-Man 3 occur.

I really just can't imagine anyone wanting to put off seeing an Avengers film in 2015 so we can get an Ant-Man solo film, or a Doctor Strange film, that may or may not succeed, and that probably won't greatly effect the Avengers franchise; Ultron's clearly not going to be the baddie in Avengers 2, so the idea of shoving Ant-Man in there at the expense of a punctually released Avengers sequel is stupid.

[Angamb]

I agree, and they are, but this still only works if Marvel starts committing to more than two movies a year, which they haven't. Not yet.

I think they will start doing it sooner or later, specially if they want to introduce another avenger on his/her own, before the next Avengers sequel.

Lets hope they release three movies on 2014, with a new solo movie for Black Panther or Ant-man, so the audience will be acquainted with the character once they release Avengers 2.

[I'm Venom]

Lets hope they release three movies on 2014, with a new solo movie for Black Panther or Ant-man, so the audience will be acquainted with the character once they release Avengers 2.

I don’t want any more additions to the cast. It’s perfect as it is now. Black Panther is redundant since he’s just agile and strong.

Ant-man? Seriously? He’s just lol. That’ll never happen.

[souNdwAve89]

I don’t want any more additions to the cast. It’s perfect as it is now. Black Panther is redundant since he’s just agile and strong.

Ant-man? Seriously? He’s just lol. That’ll never happen.

It will unless they put the project on the shelf. Edgar Wright just showed some footage of the movie during Iron Man 3's panel today.

[spideymouse]

I think you're the one misreading now. I'm saying only two new characters should be added each Avengers film, (for example, introducing Ant-Man and Wasp in an Ant-Man film and having them show up in the subsequent Avengers sequel).

I personally would be fine sticking with this team of six for 3 films. People get way too stuck on wanting to see every single of their favorites on the big screen. That's how cluster**** films like X-3 and Spider-Man 3 occur.

I really just can't imagine anyone wanting to put off seeing an Avengers film in 2015 so we can get an Ant-Man solo film, or a Doctor Strange film, that may or may not succeed, and that probably won't greatly effect the Avengers franchise; Ultron's clearly not going to be the baddie in Avengers 2, so the idea of shoving Ant-Man in there at the expense of a punctually released Avengers sequel is stupid.
Yeah, no, you still aren't understanding me. You were originally implying that I wanted Marvel to be adding six new Avengers for each sequel, so I was refuting that claim. I fully understand that you would be in favor of adding one or two Avengers at the most for each Avengers sequel, with which I don't entirely disagree.

What seems to be a contradiction is that you would introduce these new characters in their own solo films first before adding them to the roster in a subsequent Avengers sequel, and yet you are not at all in favor of doing so for Avengers 2. The whole point of our back-and-forth has been about this exact trade-off. So which is it that you want:
I'm saying only two new characters should be added each Avengers film,
or
I personally would be fine sticking with this team of six for 3 films?

By the way, the latter is most probably not going to happen. Feige has gone on record (http://movies.ign.com/articles/120/1200654p1.html?RSSwhen2011-10-17_105800&RSSid=1200654&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ignfeeds%2Fmovies+%28IGN+Movi es%29) that we can "absolutely" expect new characters in the Avengers sequels, stating that "that's the fun of it--introducing new characters." So let's just say hypothetically that Avengers 2 does indeed add one or two new members; would you rather they be introduced in their own origin movie(s) first or cold turkey in Avengers 2? It sounded like you would go with the former.

Again, please don't misread me. I'm no more a fan of cluster****s than you. I'm just concerned about how they will achieve what they intend to do if they have zero movies in between GotG and Avengers 2.

[catintheengine]

We really have to think about this from a logistics point-of-view.

These actors, many of them at least, are a little older. Many of them have other things they plan to do with their careers. They aren't going to want to play the same character forever.

Not only that but eventually we, as fans, will get burned out on these films. General audiences will also, eventually, get burned out. That's just the sad inevitability.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking to do Avengers 2 and Avengers 3 back-to-back. Keep the proverbial momentum going. I'm with a lot of other people on these forums expecting to see A2 release in 2015, but I expect we will get A3 a little sooner than many expect, and it will drop in 2017.

I really think Guardians of the Galaxy is going to be Marvel's way of testing the waters on a non-Avengers movie. It may take place in the same universe, it may even have subtle tie-ins or references, but I don't think we will see Nick Fury or Tony Stark make a surprise after-credits appearance.

[psylockolussus]

My wishlist
May 2015- Ant-Man
July 2015- The Avengers 2
May 2018- The Avengers 3

A 3 year gap for the Avengers movies is the most ideal because its not too early and its not too long.

[Tony Stark]

We really have to think about this from a logistics point-of-view.

These actors, many of them at least, are a little older. Many of them have other things they plan to do with their careers. They aren't going to want to play the same character forever.

Not only that but eventually we, as fans, will get burned out on these films. General audiences will also, eventually, get burned out. That's just the sad inevitability.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking to do Avengers 2 and Avengers 3 back-to-back. Keep the proverbial momentum going. I'm with a lot of other people on these forums expecting to see A2 release in 2015, but I expect we will get A3 a little sooner than many expect, and it will drop in 2017.

I really think Guardians of the Galaxy is going to be Marvel's way of testing the waters on a non-Avengers movie. It may take place in the same universe, it may even have subtle tie-ins or references, but I don't think we will see Nick Fury or Tony Stark make a surprise after-credits appearance.

I can tell you that Fiege made it plain that none of the main guys (i.e. Thor, CA, Tony, Hulk) will be making easter egg appearances because it counts against their contract, for number of films.

[catintheengine]

I'm alright with that. I'm anxious to see if a lesser known Marvel property can stand on its own.

[spideymouse]

I can tell you that Fiege made it plain that none of the main guys (i.e. Thor, CA, Tony, Hulk) will be making easter egg appearances because it counts against their contract, for number of films.

I'm alright with that. I'm anxious to see if a lesser known Marvel property can stand on its own.

At the same time, Sam Jackson did sign that 9-film contract, partially for this express purpose of making cameos like in Captain America: The First Avenger. If anyone, they would be using him as a bridge. (I've said in other threads that I'd like to see Carol Danvers become the next Coulson, but that's a much more important role to cast than Agent Coulson's was.)

[catintheengine]

I have a feeling that we will see Maria Hill step up and sort of take on the Coulson role.

[spideymouse]

i have a feeling that we will see maria hill step up and sort of take on the coulson role.Scherbatsky!!!!

[catintheengine]

It makes sense to me anyway. She, from Avengers, seems to have a very different 'handling' style from Coulson and even Fury. I think it could make for an interesting dynamic.

[pr0xyt0xin]

So. Not to say anything about wanting to wait longer for Avengers. But I would be just fine with Avengers 3 being as late as 2020. NO later obviously.

But 8 years ain't so bad for a 3 movie trilogy. Especially with a bunch of filler in between. (I use the term "filler" very loosely fyi. :)

The X-Men franchise has planned for over 13 years now. And I happen to doubt they'll stop there.
Harry Potter 10 years with almost the entire same lead cast. Children no less.

My only hope is that they continue to put out quality material. And if I am thirty by the time the story is finished so be it!

I'm just happy Marvel is in charge of one of the largest movie events since James Bond. It's a good day to be a fanboy.

[pr0xyt0xin]

I can tell you that Fiege made it plain that none of the main guys (i.e. Thor, CA, Tony, Hulk) will be making easter egg appearances because it counts against their contract, for number of films.

This may be true but what about Hawkeye and Black Widow?

I imagine Black Widow will be in Cap 2. I wouldn't mind seeing Hawkeye in Ant-Man.

You don't think they'd just leave them out of Phase 2? :/