Will Joss actually make Avengers 2 SMALLER?

[henzINNIT]

I believe he was sincere in his intentions, but I'm not sure Marvel will go for it.

Your thoughts?

[dbxkilla]

i think by smaller he means no alien invasion or city wide battle just the avengers vs some really tough villain

[Artistsean]

where was this interview from?
link?

[Gabe99]

From Collider:
Editorial: Marvel Needs to Re-Hire Joss Whedon for THE AVENGERS 2 (http://www.collider.com/the-avengers-2-sequel-joss-whedon/165606/)
“Marvel needs to re-hire Joss Whedon for The Avengers 2.” How does this require an editorial? It’s such an obvious statement. Not only did the movie have the most successful opening-weekend gross of all-time, but it was also successful among critics. Why would you risk losing a single piece? Why jeopardize a formula that delivered such a resounding commercial and critical success? What studio would do such a thing?

Marvel would. Their hit-it-and-quit-it relationship with directors has served them well in terms of keeping costs down and making the productions run smoothly. No one rocks the boat, no one gets a pay bump for the sequel, and no director becomes bigger than the property he is directing. From a business standpoint, it’s a sensible trend. But it’s a trend that shouldn’t continue when it comes to The Avengers franchise.

[cherokeesam]

Before you ask whether or not Joss will actually make Avengers 2 SMALLER, you need to ask if Joss will actually make Avengers 2....period.

There's a lot of variables to bringing Joss back for Avengers 2. It's nowhere close to being a "given." Joss *has* become bigger than the property, so first and foremost, the ball is going to be in *his* court. He has to decide if he even wants to do Avengers 2, or if he'd like to seize the moment to chase after some personal projects that he might not have been able to fund before. Then, the ball goes back to Feige, and they have to decide if *they* want Joss back, or if they want to continue their past strategy of going after directors that don't have a lot of dollar signs attached to their names.

[psylockolussus]

Well I hope there will be more villains. Like at least 3.

The Avengers only had Loki.

[Silvermoth]

I think he just means it will be more personal. Loki is personal for Thor and Hawkeye but not so much for anyone else I guess.

Think about the first and second season of Buffy. Angelus was a way better villian not because of his power but because of his effect on Buffy. I would say it will be that sort of thing.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Whedon can do what he wants.

I'll be ready with a big tub of popcorn.

Marvel would be suicidal to risk losing Whedon. Pay that man. He's earned it.

[henzINNIT]

Well I hope there will be more villains. Like at least 3.

The Avengers only had Loki.

Because more villains always works out so well.

[DrCosmic]

^Zing.

I think he just means it will be more personal. Loki is personal for Thor and Hawkeye but not so much for anyone else I guess.

Think about the first and second season of Buffy. Angelus was a way better villian not because of his power but because of his effect on Buffy. I would say it will be that sort of thing.

He probably means smaller and more personal, like he said. I'm thinking he's thinking an Empire Strikes Back-type of follow up. It'll still have a lot of action and sci-fi and all that, but the climax won't be a grand battle, it'll be a small personal battle. I like that, and that has potential to be more satisfying if earned well than trying to go bigger than a metropolitan invasion, which you will then need to top again. As long as the stakes remain high, the battle doesn't need to have the same scale, I believe.

If we see Ultron, I bet it'll be a single unit capable of taking down the whole team physically and mentally, not an army of Ultrons that will overwhelm by sheer numbers.

[psylockolussus]

Because more villains always works out so well.

No because this isn't Spider-Man or Batman. Avengers is a team of superheroes and I would prefer if they fight with multiple villains and not just Loki.

[DrCosmic]

Whenever you have more than two villains, they become thin, especially in an ensemble movie, where you have to give storyline to a team of superheroes and then on top of that, to a team of supervillains. Someone ends up looking thin story-wise and the whole movie becomes weak. It being Avengers doesn't give them magical powers to make screentime out of thin air. It'll run into the same exact problems Spidey and Batman had, and quicker, because it is a team of superheroes.

[PunyGod]

Whedon can do what he wants.

I'll be ready with a big tub of popcorn.

Marvel would be suicidal to risk losing Whedon. Pay that man. He's earned it.
Agreed. I said before this guy should be making all the Marvel films from now on as far I'm concerned. And this is coming from someone who is not even a Whedon fan. Avengers was just that good.

Also I wouldn't put too much stock in this "smaller" business. Director's always say things like that. I still remember when Lucas said Ep2 would just be a simple little love story.

[Silvermoth]

He probably means smaller and more personal, like he said. I'm thinking he's thinking an Empire Strikes Back-type of follow up. It'll still have a lot of action and sci-fi and all that, but the climax won't be a grand battle, it'll be a small personal battle. I like that, and that has potential to be more satisfying if earned well than trying to go bigger than a metropolitan invasion, which you will then need to top again. As long as the stakes remain high, the battle doesn't need to have the same scale, I believe.

If we see Ultron, I bet it'll be a single unit capable of taking down the whole team physically and mentally, not an army of Ultrons that will overwhelm by sheer numbers.
sooooo...precisely what I said

[Closerframe]

Smaller could just mean more personal. As someone suggested, it could just mean the plot doesn't involve another alien invasion or a city getting leveled. I think introducing multiple villains would be best because Loki, being related to Thor, seemed more like a rehash of what we already saw in Thor only more furious. I'd like Ultron, Red Skull, and possibly Vision to make an appearance. And I wanna see how they're going to explain Thor's return this time because the only reason he showed up in The Avengers was because he wanted to stop his brother and reclaim the Cosmic Cube.

[DrCosmic]

sooooo...precisely what I said

I guess... when you said 'just' I thought you were trying to say that it wasn't going to actually be smaller in scope.

[L0ngsh0t]

Whedon can do what he wants.

I'll be ready with a big tub of popcorn.

Marvel would be suicidal to risk losing Whedon. Pay that man. He's earned it.

This is the problem with movie franchise, the reason movie franchises often run stale after a few movies and is dreadfully undermining the Batman franchise by forcing a reboot after 3 films when a reboot is not needed.

There are so many talented directors/writers/actors/prodcuers in Hollywood....Why is Joss Whedon the only one that can pull of the Avengers? He did a marvelously fantastic job with Avengers and I sincerely hope he comes back for a sequel.....but he's not the only one who can do this.

Kevin Fiege has a lot of vision, I'm sure if they feel Joss can do it again they will bring him back....But they've shown to be pretty calculating when it comes to keeping the franchise fresh. John Faveru made them 1.5 billion dollars with 2 Iron Man movies and while the decision might be have been mutual it's not like Marvel was begging him to come back....they get it....they know what they are doing....if the passion isn't there they are going to find a new guy with a new vision to keep the franchise fresh so they don't have to reboot

DC should take note.....no need to reboot Batman again, just continue to make good movies

[MarvelKnight]

I believe he was sincere in his intentions, but I'm not sure Marvel will go for it.

Your thoughts?

With the success of The Avengers, I believe they'll be more than willing to let that man do whatever he wants.

[AvengeME]

I think Ultron or Kang fit a more personal scale. But I would stay away from time travel so leave out Kang. Ultron with Vision would work well. Have Vision be this crazy AI that knows each Avenger inside and out and gets loose to perform his own "missions" as he sees fit. Ultron would be this greater robot/AI threat designed not just by Pym but collaboratively by many scientists, not to rip off completely from Terminator. Vision would try to stop this from happening independently, but the Avengers cannot trust him and do not understand his true motives. That alone could be a plot for the Ant-Man movie but I don't think Marvel will give that project the budget to portray all that stuff while at the same time exploring Ant-Man and the nanotechnology.

[DrCosmic]

With the success of The Avengers, I believe they'll be more than willing to let that man do whatever he wants.

Without a doubt. He'll probably have to give some sort of movie precedent. So, basically he'll say Empire Strikes Back and then they'll be like 'okay, cool.' Chances are he wouldn't be saying it if he didn't already know he could do it.

This is the problem with movie franchise, the reason movie franchises often run stale after a few movies and is dreadfully undermining the Batman franchise by forcing a reboot after 3 films when a reboot is not needed.

There are so many talented directors/writers/actors/prodcuers in Hollywood....Why is Joss Whedon the only one that can pull of the Avengers? He did a marvelously fantastic job with Avengers and I sincerely hope he comes back for a sequel.....but he's not the only one who can do this.

Kevin Fiege has a lot of vision, I'm sure if they feel Joss can do it again they will bring him back....But they've shown to be pretty calculating when it comes to keeping the franchise fresh. John Faveru made them 1.5 billion dollars with 2 Iron Man movies and while the decision might be have been mutual it's not like Marvel was begging him to come back....they get it....they know what they are doing....if the passion isn't there they are going to find a new guy with a new vision to keep the franchise fresh so they don't have to reboot

DC should take note.....no need to reboot Batman again, just continue to make good movies

Oftentimes, filmmakers want to tell a story. Stories have endings. If the ending is hard enough, there's nowhere else to go, plus there's nothing else to say without rehashing a movie you've already made. At that point, a reboot is needed. That's what's happening with Batman. That won't happen with Avengers, but we're not going to get 'filler' movies that don't move towards a satisfying conclusion.

And let's be real. Not only is Whedon passionate, but he's the only director who loves (and writes) comics, has extensive experience managing large casts, and most importantly, is a proven success with the Avengers movies, and wants to do more. What good would getting another director do, anyway?

[Alexei Belyakov]

As many have already brought up, Empire Strikes Back is kinda movie Whedon was hinting at by saying "smaller & more personal." This will be a Thanos trilogy. Part I was a glorious victory for these guys, Part II will be dark times.

[natey2k4]

As many have already brought up, Empire Strikes Back is kinda movie Whedon was hinting at by saying "smaller & more personal." This will be a Thanos trilogy. Part I was a glorious victory for these guys, Part II will be dark times.
Exactly how I picture it.

Part 1 is an amazing victory, part 2 will see something horrible happen, and part 3 with be the final battle where the Avenger stand tall over Thanos.

I could see something where the Hulk leaves the team (because he thinks they don't trust him or SHIELD pisses him off) leaving them shorthanded in a battle which will cause either a death or someone being held hostage.

To kill off Hawkeye or Black Widow, they'd need a lot of screen time in an upcoming film as well as Avengers 2 to make the people care. Out of the other 3 (Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America) you can't really kill them.

Maybe have one be captured (Captain America sacrificing himself to save the others?). I think this would work well -- as you would have Hawkeye and Black Widow convince Hulk to help to try and rescue Captain America (say from Loki, The Other, and their army), while Iron Man and Thor have an epic war with Thanos.

[L0ngsh0t]

Without a doubt. He'll probably have to give some sort of movie precedent. So, basically he'll say Empire Strikes Back and then they'll be like 'okay, cool.' Chances are he wouldn't be saying it if he didn't already know he could do it.



Oftentimes, filmmakers want to tell a story. Stories have endings. If the ending is hard enough, there's nowhere else to go, plus there's nothing else to say without rehashing a movie you've already made. At that point, a reboot is needed. That's what's happening with Batman. That won't happen with Avengers, but we're not going to get 'filler' movies that don't move towards a satisfying conclusion.

And let's be real. Not only is Whedon passionate, but he's the only director who loves (and writes) comics, has extensive experience managing large casts, and most importantly, is a proven success with the Avengers movies, and wants to do more. What good would getting another director do, anyway?

I'm not saying they should replace Whedon, actually the opposite-he did a fantastic job if he's got the passion to continue it I am all for it. I don't think he's the only one that can tell a good Avengers story.

On to Batman. I'm A-OK with this being Nolan's "story" but it's not like he's the only one that can tell a good Batman story....it's called a story arc or character arc and Batman has many of those over the years....Am I supposed to believe there are no other challenges? That Batman has nothing else to learn? That there are no more supervillains in Gotham? I'm not buying it and also another origin story to sit through is gonna be awful.

[souNdwAve89]

Exactly how I picture it.

Part 1 is an amazing victory, part 2 will see something horrible happen, and part 3 with be the final battle where the Avenger stand tall over Thanos.

I could see something where the Hulk leaves the team (because he thinks they don't trust him or SHIELD pisses him off) leaving them shorthanded in a battle which will cause either a death or someone being held hostage.

To kill off Hawkeye or Black Widow, they'd need a lot of screen time in an upcoming film as well as Avengers 2 to make the people care. Out of the other 3 (Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America) you can't really kill them.

Maybe have one be captured (Captain America sacrificing himself to save the others?). I think this would work well -- as you would have Hawkeye and Black Widow convince Hulk to help to try and rescue Captain America (say from Loki, The Other, and their army), while Iron Man and Thor have an epic war with Thanos.

Yeah, a lot of people in the audience gasped or said "oh no..." when Coulson died. Even though he didn't have a huge role, he was a known character throughout MCU movies. I believe killing off Black Widow and Hawkeye or one of the two gives more room to add another character.

[DACrowe]

I think Whedon coming back is a must. If he wants to leave after that, I can understand (see how burned Raimi was on Spidey in SM3). However, he can follow TA up with a more emotionally gripping and intimate film.

One thing I'd like to see in TA2 is them behave more like a team. It's not Whedon if they aren't squabbling, but instead of being a "time-bomb" they should be a very dysfunctional family that works. And then Thanos should come along and completely destroy them. We're talking dark themes about death, mortality and even nihilism that should effect each character differently. Even if they "win," at the end of the film they're still badly hurting and not gloriously triumphant like the first film (i.e. Empire Strikes Back, Back to the Future Part II, The Dark Knight, etc. etc.)

Then, the third film can be them perhaps falling apart again in a grander scale after spending two movies of them together (Civil War? perhaps) and the testing of the whole "initiative" from the start. That's how I'd like to see the trilogy play out.

[cherokeesam]

I think Whedon coming back is a must. If he wants to leave after that, I can understand (see how burned Raimi was on Spidey in SM3). However, he can follow TA up with a more emotionally gripping and intimate film.

One thing I'd like to see in TA2 is them behave more like a team. It's not Whedon if they aren't squabbling, but instead of being a "time-bomb" they should be a very dysfunctional family that works. And then Thanos should come along and completely destroy them. We're talking dark themes about death, mortality and even nihilism that should effect each character differently. Even if they "win," at the end of the film they're still badly hurting and not gloriously triumphant like the first film (i.e. Empire Strikes Back, Back to the Future Part II, The Dark Knight, etc. etc.)

Then, the third film can be them perhaps falling apart again in a grander scale after spending two movies of them together (Civil War? perhaps) and the testing of the whole "initiative" from the start. That's how I'd like to see the trilogy play out.

What "trilogy"?

Feige has shown no indication whatsoever that he's interested in limiting the Avengers (or anyone else in the MCU) to a trilogy. He's not even limiting a franchise to the number of films that any given actor is signed for....he's already said that characters will be recast and continuity will remain intact --- even for Iron Man, post-RDJ.

Also, the Avengers has just painted a four-color universe, old school style. There's no need to Nolanize the Avengers to make them grittier and darker. And even though Thanos is a mass murderer, his presentation in the comics by Jim Starlin has always been more Jack Kirby than Frank Miller. Let's leave "dark and gritty" for the street-level crimefighters, where it belongs.

[DrCosmic]

You keep confusing having a trilogy with being limited to a trilogy. Actors are hired for 3, 6 and 9 movie deals. There's a trilogy structure there. And doing a dark second act is not Nolanizing, it's just good storytelling.

Yeah, a lot of people in the audience gasped or said "oh no..." when Coulson died. Even though he didn't have a huge role, he was a known character throughout MCU movies. I believe killing off Black Widow and Hawkeye or one of the two gives more room to add another character.

I agree too. I don't think Whedon will let go of his girl character though, and Hawkeye, with the least development is the easiest t let go, though they won't let him go without making him beloved first. I also think he may surprise us and kill off one of the big 4 somehow.

I think Whedon coming back is a must. If he wants to leave after that, I can understand (see how burned Raimi was on Spidey in SM3). However, he can follow TA up with a more emotionally gripping and intimate film.

One thing I'd like to see in TA2 is them behave more like a team. It's not Whedon if they aren't squabbling, but instead of being a "time-bomb" they should be a very dysfunctional family that works. And then Thanos should come along and completely destroy them. We're talking dark themes about death, mortality and even nihilism that should effect each character differently. Even if they "win," at the end of the film they're still badly hurting and not gloriously triumphant like the first film (i.e. Empire Strikes Back, Back to the Future Part II, The Dark Knight, etc. etc.)

Then, the third film can be them perhaps falling apart again in a grander scale after spending two movies of them together (Civil War? perhaps) and the testing of the whole "initiative" from the start. That's how I'd like to see the trilogy play out.

Agreed. This is the way I see things going, except for the third film. You can't go from dark to darker, you have to make things happy again. By the time they get to 3, they'll have been through enough together, and been in so much pain while being separated, that infighting really won't make any sense, narratively. Shoehorning civil war in there, especially with only three or four people to a side, seems very unlikely, and not a very good idea.

[shauner111]

Im thinking it'll be smaller like Whedon says. Hawkeye will have a lot more to do in the sequel but i think they should get rid of him at the end. I dont see a Hawkeye solo film, but i do see a Black Widow movie being made after TA2. Possibly featuring Clint Barton & Natasha Romanoff and their history together in Budapest. I'm sure he'll appear in the S.H.I.E.L.D/Nick Fury movie as well.

I wouldn't mind killing him off, possibly Black Widow leaves the team because of his death eventually. Makes room for some characters like Ant-Man to come in.

[Stark Bauer]

Why is Joss Whedon the only one that can pull of the Avengers? He did a marvelously fantastic job with Avengers and I sincerely hope he comes back for a sequel.....but he's not the only one who can do this.

Off the top of my head, the only writers that could possibly pull off an Avengers 2 is Alan Moore or Warren Ellis. But they are comic book writers.

It would be a BIG MISTAKE to not get Whedon back for 2. In the wrong hands, TA2 could be the next Batman & Robin.

[Silvermoth]

I don't even want to guess who could take Joss's place at the helm of The Avengers because he really is perfect and deserves to go back but if they had to get someone else, the only other person (people) I could think of is one of J J Abrahm's crew.

[cherokeesam]

You keep confusing having a trilogy with being limited to a trilogy. Actors are hired for 3, 6 and 9 movie deals. There's a trilogy structure there. And doing a dark second act is not Nolanizing, it's just good storytelling.



That's not a "trilogy structure," that's a structure that's set up for lawyers and contracts. The "3-6-9" contracts --- and there's no evidence whatsoever that Marvel Studios doesn't do contracts for other numbers --- overlaps multiple franchises, not just one or two. SLJ's contract, in particular, has scattered over several different solo films as well as Avengers, and he's still rumored to have his own Fury and/or SHIELD full movie soon. Nothing in Jackson's contract remotely resembles a trilogy structure.

And doing a dark second act isn't "good storytelling," it's just shamelessly copying other series, because you're too afraid to come up with an original concept. Trilogies are passe....even the franchises that were *considered* trilogies for many years have gone on to further expansion (Indiana Jones, Terminator, Alien, Die Hard, Mission Impossible, Bourne...), and writers simply don't limit themselves to trilogies anymore (Harry Potter, Wheel of Time, A Song of Ice and Fire, etc.). There's something very 1980s about the concept; and that's not very flattering.

[DrCosmic]

So you consider the heroic story structure shameless copying? Not everything is groundbreaking, most movies, and franchises, Avengers included are just doing the same thing in a new way. What you call unflattering and outdated, everyone else is calling a rocking good time. That's the way Avengers did it. That's the way America does it. And it's worked out pretty well so far.

You understand that many film franchises that go further start as trilogies. But you don't want to accept that Avengers is going to do the same, and you hang this idea on SLJ who appears in more than one franchise within the MCU not having a trilogy-based contract. We'll just agree to disagree homie.

[cherokeesam]

So you consider the heroic story structure shameless copying? Not everything is groundbreaking, most movies, and franchises, Avengers included are just doing the same thing in a new way. What you call unflattering and outdated, everyone else is calling a rocking good time. That's the way Avengers did it. That's the way America does it. And it's worked out pretty well so far.

You understand that many film franchises that go further start as trilogies. But you don't want to accept that Avengers is going to do the same, and you hang this idea on SLJ who appears in more than one franchise within the MCU not having a trilogy-based contract. We'll just agree to disagree homie.

Don't take it personally, but I *sincerely* hope you're wrong.

I hope the words "trilogy" and "reboot" don't even exist in Kevin Feige's vocabulary, because some of the business plans that you and some other people here are suggesting would truly put nails in the coffin of Marvel Studios on the eve of their greatest victory.

What Marvel Studios needs --- and what they're *showing* --- is vision, not limits. Trilogies and working towards an end is working towards a limit. Rebooting is the law of diminishing returns, and shows an utter lack of faith in your own product: "Yeah, we know this movie will probably suck; but look at it this way....we'll give the franchise to somebody else in a few years, let them take a crack at it, maybe it'll turn out better for you"

[marcvader]

I agree that I hope "reboot" doesn't come anywhere close to the MCU for a looong time.

[DrCosmic]

Don't take it personally, but I *sincerely* hope you're wrong.

I hope the words "trilogy" and "reboot" don't even exist in Kevin Feige's vocabulary, because some of the business plans that you and some other people here are suggesting would truly put nails in the coffin of Marvel Studios on the eve of their greatest victory.

What Marvel Studios needs --- and what they're *showing* --- is vision, not limits. Trilogies and working towards an end is working towards a limit. Rebooting is the law of diminishing returns, and shows an utter lack of faith in your own product: "Yeah, we know this movie will probably suck; but look at it this way....we'll give the franchise to somebody else in a few years, let them take a crack at it, maybe it'll turn out better for you"

I wish I could find the switch in your mind that equates trilogies with reboots and turn it off. :dry: After Marvel makes their trilogy and then starts on number 4 with the same continuity but a different direction, then maybe you'll finally accept that that ending a story isn't ending/limiting a franchise/universe, but can actually realize the infinite potential in the IP.

Maybe not though, maybe you'll still think the GA would be just as ravenous for the Avengers in all its forms without a solid trilogy to hang it's heart on. -shrug-

[OsGom]

Before you ask whether or not Joss will actually make Avengers 2 SMALLER, you need to ask if Joss will actually make Avengers 2....period.

There's a lot of variables to bringing Joss back for Avengers 2. It's nowhere close to being a "given." Joss *has* become bigger than the property, so first and foremost, the ball is going to be in *his* court. He has to decide if he even wants to do Avengers 2, or if he'd like to seize the moment to chase after some personal projects that he might not have been able to fund before. Then, the ball goes back to Feige, and they have to decide if *they* want Joss back, or if they want to continue their past strategy of going after directors that don't have a lot of dollar signs attached to their names.

There are so many talented directors/writers/actors/prodcuers in Hollywood....Why is Joss Whedon the only one that can pull of the Avengers? He did a marvelously fantastic job with Avengers and I sincerely hope he comes back for a sequel.....but he's not the only one who can do this.

Kevin Fiege has a lot of vision, I'm sure if they feel Joss can do it again they will bring him back....But they've shown to be pretty calculating when it comes to keeping the franchise fresh. John Faveru made them 1.5 billion dollars with 2 Iron Man movies and while the decision might be have been mutual it's not like Marvel was begging him to come back....they get it....they know what they are doing....if the passion isn't there they are going to find a new guy with a new vision to keep the franchise fresh so they don't have to reboot

DC should take note.....no need to reboot Batman again, just continue to make good movies

Typically I would agree that one man does not make a franchise and Marvel has been wise not to give any one director or actor too much influence. However, Whedon obviously has a solid grasp of how to make an appealing adaption of The Avengers, something hardly anyone thought was possible.
Since the Marvel strategy thus far has been utilize the heroes’ solo films as vehicles to develop and introduce characters and a unifying plot threads, it would make sense to make Whedon a contributing producer and allow him some creative input. Thus ensuring the films integrity supports the overall vision for the next Avengers sequels but limited to allow the director to competently adapt their own story. Kind of like DC did with Nolan but nowhere near that powerful.
I think Ultron or Kang fit a more personal scale. But I would stay away from time travel so leave out Kang. Ultron with Vision would work well. Have Vision be this crazy AI that knows each Avenger inside and out and gets loose to perform his own "missions" as he sees fit. Ultron would be this greater robot/AI threat designed not just by Pym but collaboratively by many scientists, not to rip off completely from Terminator. Vision would try to stop this from happening independently, but the Avengers cannot trust him and do not understand his true motives. That alone could be a plot for the Ant-Man movie but I don't think Marvel will give that project the budget to portray all that stuff while at the same time exploring Ant-Man and the nanotechnology.

This sounds interesting. One of the strengths of the approach Marvel has taken, (ironically what others see as the biggest weakness) is the ability to intoduce characters and plot threads that will culminate in the team film. So potentially Marvel could feature a Baron Zemo in a CA flick, an Enchantress & Executioner in a Thor flick and Titanium Man in IM and then bring them together in A2 as a Masters of Evil.

I'm not saying that's what they SHOULD do. Just pointing out one of the many possibilities with the Marvel format.

[The Question]

I have a question: What would be wrong if it were smaller and smaller meant "less action?"

If it's a very good movie, does it need action?

[AvengeME]

We already had an extra terrestrial threat. I wouldn't return to space or extra dimensions/realms just yet. Something more grounded and of this world would be a nice change of pace from a more cosmic or mystical threat. Some franchises tend to get out of hand when they keep reaching for something bigger and more fantastical.

[DrCosmic]

I have a question: What would be wrong if it were smaller and smaller meant "less action?"

If it's a very good movie, does it need action?

It needs action, to be sure. That's the expectation. If we show up to the Notebook with superpowers, we'll be pretty upset.

Does it need as much as The Avengers? No, I don't think so. I think you can have a lot of action and tension and suspense and set up for an explosive TA3, and people won't miss the war scene.

[cherokeesam]

I wish I could find the switch in your mind that equates trilogies with reboots and turn it off. :dry: After Marvel makes their trilogy and then starts on number 4 with the same continuity but a different direction, then maybe you'll finally accept that that ending a story isn't ending/limiting a franchise/universe, but can actually realize the infinite potential in the IP.

Maybe not though, maybe you'll still think the GA would be just as ravenous for the Avengers in all its forms without a solid trilogy to hang it's heart on. -shrug-


That's well and good, as long as the franchise continues on without rebooting....it's just that some people in favor of the trilogy theory are advocating ONLY a trilogy. They believe that you can't possibly have any greater threat than Thanos, so they see the whole franchise essentially wrapping up in Avengers 3 with Thanos, and then either tossing in the reboot, or just simply abandoning the franchise altogether. (Because "obviously", there are no stories left to tell in the Avengers universe after you get done with Thanos. :o)


So, sorry if you weren't one of those people, and if I accused you wrongly. It's just that when I hear people trying to put a finite reach to the Avengers and literally end the series after 5 or 6 years, right as the franchise is in its gold-plated infancy, I just gotta :facepalm:and :wall:

[DrCosmic]

I guess I can see how you would draw that conclusion. I still believe that Thanos is pretty much the ultimate cinematic threat for the Avengers. I also think that after the initial trilogy, Avengers can strike out in a whole new direction, with a blend of new and old characters/actors, taking on less powerful, but perhaps more interesting and challenging foes from Kang to Korvac to Kree to the frikkin Masters of Evil. Maybe it'll be a Quintology. And then after that cycle of contracts, after that 'story arc' they'll do another, as long as interest and quality holds, which isn't guaranteed, of course, but it might happen.

But even if not, there's nothing to be ashamed of in having the most successful trilogy of all time. That's not really facepalm worthy.

I personally imagine it will work like the Fast and Furious franchise, in that even though some actors contracts may expire and they'll go on to other things, their careers will level out and they'll come back to Marvel a film or two later.

[MarvelKnight]

Let's just hope Whedon will actually return to the MCU and Avengers2. If he doesn't, I'm I think the 'smaller, more personal sequel' will be thrown out the window.

[jaqua99]

Exactly how I picture it.

Part 1 is an amazing victory, part 2 will see something horrible happen, and part 3 with be the final battle where the Avenger stand tall over Thanos.

I could see something where the Hulk leaves the team (because he thinks they don't trust him or SHIELD pisses him off) leaving them shorthanded in a battle which will cause either a death or someone being held hostage.

To kill off Hawkeye or Black Widow, they'd need a lot of screen time in an upcoming film as well as Avengers 2 to make the people care. Out of the other 3 (Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America) you can't really kill them.

Maybe have one be captured (Captain America sacrificing himself to save the others?). I think this would work well -- as you would have Hawkeye and Black Widow convince Hulk to help to try and rescue Captain America (say from Loki, The Other, and their army), while Iron Man and Thor have an epic war with Thanos.

Ironman and Thor vs Thanos? No lol. Thanos is too powerful. that would suck

[jaqua99]

That's not a "trilogy structure," that's a structure that's set up for lawyers and contracts. The "3-6-9" contracts --- and there's no evidence whatsoever that Marvel Studios doesn't do contracts for other numbers --- overlaps multiple franchises, not just one or two. SLJ's contract, in particular, has scattered over several different solo films as well as Avengers, and he's still rumored to have his own Fury and/or SHIELD full movie soon. Nothing in Jackson's contract remotely resembles a trilogy structure.

And doing a dark second act isn't "good storytelling," it's just shamelessly copying other series, because you're too afraid to come up with an original concept. Trilogies are passe....even the franchises that were *considered* trilogies for many years have gone on to further expansion (Indiana Jones, Terminator, Alien, Die Hard, Mission Impossible, Bourne...), and writers simply don't limit themselves to trilogies anymore (Harry Potter, Wheel of Time, A Song of Ice and Fire, etc.). There's something very 1980s about the concept; and that's not very flattering.

I dont buy the avengers franchise NOT being a trilogy. And I hope its not. Another actor as Ironman, Thor, etc? To me that won't work. at all.

[cherokeesam]

I dont buy the avengers franchise NOT being a trilogy. And I hope its not. Another actor as Ironman, Thor, etc? To me that won't work. at all.

So you'd rather just write off the character of Iron Man altogether as soon as RDJ is done a few years from now?

[DrCosmic]

^Some people will. That always happen with recasts, unless it's been so long that people have already written off the original version and want to see a new one.

[baerrtt]

What "trilogy"?

Feige has shown no indication whatsoever that he's interested in limiting the Avengers (or anyone else in the MCU) to a trilogy. He's not even limiting a franchise to the number of films that any given actor is signed for....he's already said that characters will be recast and continuity will remain intact --- even for Iron Man, post-RDJ.

Also, the Avengers has just painted a four-color universe, old school style. There's no need to Nolanize the Avengers to make them grittier and darker. And even though Thanos is a mass murderer, his presentation in the comics by Jim Starlin has always been more Jack Kirby than Frank Miller. Let's leave "dark and gritty" for the street-level crimefighters, where it belongs.

Whedon gave his comments before the film was released anywhere (in March this year) and if IRON MAN 2 told us anything Marvel's gameplan, as you've suggested, isn't to do darker or gritty when sequels come. Some fans expected and hoped for the Demon in a Bottle storyline to be adapted and Favreau stated upfront that Marvel weren't interested in going down that route with IM.

As far as they're concerned they're making full blown family films where the 'edgiest' things have been solely comedic.

[DrCosmic]

^Hmmm, I dunno, in IM2, he had that whole creeping death thing going on and fought his best friend. He was dealing with his daddy issues. Just because it's not gritty doesn't mean its not darker. IM2 is a great example of a smaller more personal film than IM1. The end fight scene was turned up in scale, but he wasn't flying all over the world fighting terrorists, worried about his company/job, he was just dealing with all his personal stuff, his relationship, his daddy, his disease, his buddy, stuck at his house. I mean, he went to Monaco to get beat up, I guess, but the movie was smaller and more personal.

They are family films, to be sure, but storytelling is still storytelling, and if you want to have an explosive mindblowing number three, then you have to use pacing, and number two has to cut back on something.

[R_Hythlodeus]

What Marvel Studios needs --- and what they're *showing* --- is vision, not limits. Trilogies and working towards an end is working towards a limit.
I can't put in words how much I agree with that

[baerrtt]

^Hmmm, I dunno, in IM2, he had that whole creeping death thing going on and fought his best friend. He was dealing with his daddy issues. Just because it's not gritty doesn't mean its not darker. IM2 is a great example of a smaller more personal film than IM1. The end fight scene was turned up in scale, but he wasn't flying all over the world fighting terrorists, worried about his company/job, he was just dealing with all his personal stuff, his relationship, his daddy, his disease, his buddy, stuck at his house. I mean, he went to Monaco to get beat up, I guess, but the movie was smaller and more personal.

They are family films, to be sure, but storytelling is still storytelling, and if you want to have an explosive mindblowing number three, then you have to use pacing, and number two has to cut back on something.

Even though Stark is being poisoned in IM2 the overall tone of the movie (the main reason why I don't like IM2) doesn't really push those conceits. I don't feel Stark's pain at his belief that his dad never loved him, I'm never worried about his condition nor do I care about how he endangers his friendships with Pepper and Rhodes. It's all, imo, executed in such a shallow, nonchalant fashion.

[L0ngsh0t]

^Hmmm, I dunno, in IM2, he had that whole creeping death thing going on and fought his best friend. He was dealing with his daddy issues. Just because it's not gritty doesn't mean its not darker. IM2 is a great example of a smaller more personal film than IM1. The end fight scene was turned up in scale, but he wasn't flying all over the world fighting terrorists, worried about his company/job, he was just dealing with all his personal stuff, his relationship, his daddy, his disease, his buddy, stuck at his house. I mean, he went to Monaco to get beat up, I guess, but the movie was smaller and more personal.

They are family films, to be sure, but storytelling is still storytelling, and if you want to have an explosive mindblowing number three, then you have to use pacing, and number two has to cut back on something.

I think there were two problems with IM2 but outside of that I really like it.

1.) Didn't buy the fighting your best friend thing.....They didn't sell that enough for me and they forgave each other way too quickly. I've been in fights with best friends and feelings can get pretty hurt, they could have sold that more without going "dark"

2.) the final fight just kinda sucked

[DrCosmic]

Even though Stark is being poisoned in IM2 the overall tone of the movie (the main reason why I don't like IM2) doesn't really push those conceits. I don't feel Stark's pain at his belief that his dad never loved him, I'm never worried about his condition nor do I care about how he endangers his friendships with Pepper and Rhodes. It's all, imo, executed in such a shallow, nonchalant fashion.

I agree, RDJ's performance was very whimsical, but the intent of the movie, and the themes therein were much darker.

I think there were two problems with IM2 but outside of that I really like it.

1.) Didn't buy the fighting your best friend thing.....They didn't sell that enough for me and they forgave each other way too quickly. I've been in fights with best friends and feelings can get pretty hurt, they could have sold that more without going "dark"

2.) the final fight just kinda sucked

I mean, it really didn't do much of anything for me. It was cool. All I was saying was that the story was intentionally darker.

[RockSP]

To kill off Hawkeye or Black Widow, they'd need a lot of screen time in an upcoming film as well as Avengers 2 to make the people care. Out of the other 3 (Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America) you can't really kill them.

Yeah, a lot of people in the audience gasped or said "oh no..." when Coulson died. Even though he didn't have a huge role, he was a known character throughout MCU movies. I believe killing off Black Widow and Hawkeye or one of the two gives more room to add another character.

They don't necessarily need to kill either of them off to add other characters. Both are SHIELD agents and could be otherwise engaged. Or one or both could just make "cameo" appearances (kind of like Cyclops in X2) and spend that screentime on another character.

[DrCosmic]

^I wouldn't like that. "The world's about to be destroyed!" "Sorry, I'm undercover in Berlin, can't help."

[RockSP]

Heh, well it wouldn't be like that obviously. That's what the writers are for. Really it's no different than Rhodey somehow being unavailable to help with the alien invasion, or the other characters not all showing up to help in the solo films. I just don't see them killing off either of them so quickly...unless the actor wants out.

[RockSP]

double post

[DrCosmic]

Well, writers aren't magicians. Notice it's different in that A) the character will be expected to return and B) An explanation will be given. Notice how they didn't mention Rhodey at all? Any explanation would have sounded weak other than 'he's dead/injured.' Glossing over it was the best play.

[jaqua99]

So you'd rather just write off the character of Iron Man altogether as soon as RDJ is done a few years from now?

Assuming he is done after ironman 3, and avengers 3. Yes. I don't get why you guys don't see this. He IS Stark. wont it be, akward and just, blah, to see someone else playing tony stark, Ironman? Same with Thor, Cap, Ruffalo etc. I don't want it on going because i don't want it to be re-cast. It won't have the same aura. These actors are the ones who play them currently. They are their characters, to have different actors play these characters after to keep continuity, well, that would suck in my opinion. Badly. And I would be dissappointed. Hemsworth is Thor. Etc.

I pray it is a trilogy, and only that. And that way, it will be remembered as the legendary avengers trilogy, and these actors were the avengers. Period. Ya, we all wanna see the story be told even farther, but with new actors for an ongoing franchise, continuity? I think thats crap, The Avengers trilogy, with hemsworth, chris evans, ruffalo, and RDJ. They ARE Thor, Cap, Hulk, and Stark. And thats that. It will hurt going to see more movies after. To me, that is not worth making it an on going franchise. I say keep it a trilogy. The legendary avengers trilogy, like the star wars trilogy. Thats the type of vibe i get off it.

after the 3rd avengers movie (assuming there is one), if another one is announced, for continuity, but with a whole new cast, I will feel like my heart got ripped out of my chest, not the same, utterly heart broken.

Now excuse my french, but I don't understand how the **** no one else feels this way besides me. Its absolutely beyond me, and I am shocked that you are all okay with the idea of a re-cast for continuity, and frankly, this is the one fear I have of the MCU, absolutely terrified of it going that way.

[RockSP]

Well, writers aren't magicians. Notice it's different in that A) the character will be expected to return and B) An explanation will be given. Notice how they didn't mention Rhodey at all? Any explanation would have sounded weak other than 'he's dead/injured.' Glossing over it was the best play.

I don't think they have to be magicians to come up with a way for a character(s) to have less screentime or be absent altogether. We'll just have to disagree about Rhodey.

[marcvader]

Assuming he is done after ironman 3, and avengers 3. Yes. I don't get why you guys don't see this. He IS Stark. wont it be, akward and just, blah, to see someone else playing tony stark, Ironman? Same with Thor, Cap, Ruffalo etc. I don't want it on going because i don't want it to be re-cast. It won't have the same aura. These actors are the ones who play them currently. They are their characters, to have different actors play these characters after to keep continuity, well, that would suck in my opinion. Badly. And I would be dissappointed. Hemsworth is Thor. Etc.

I pray it is a trilogy, and only that. And that way, it will be remembered as the legendary avengers trilogy, and these actors were the avengers. Period. Ya, we all wanna see the story be told even farther, but with new actors for an ongoing franchise, continuity? I think thats crap, The Avengers trilogy, with hemsworth, chris evans, ruffalo, and RDJ. They ARE Thor, Cap, Hulk, and Stark. And thats that. It will hurt going to see more movies after. To me, that is not worth making it an on going franchise. I say keep it a trilogy. The legendary avengers trilogy, like the star wars trilogy. Thats the type of vibe i get off it.

after the 3rd avengers movie (assuming there is one), if another one is announced, for continuity, but with a whole new cast, I will feel like my heart got ripped out of my chest, not the same, utterly heart broken.

Now excuse my french, but I don't understand how the **** no one else feels this way besides me. Its absolutely beyond me, and I am shocked that you are all okay with the idea of a re-cast for continuity, and frankly, this is the one fear I have of the MCU, absolutely terrified of it going that way.

I don't know about you but I'm a fan of the comic or comic characters first and foremost. My dreams have always been of a fully realized representation of said characters off the written or drawn page. I want to see these characters go on and on in different situation or stories. The actor portraying these characters are just that, actors. They are not "the" character. It's the similar thing with James Bond, I'm sure you've heard this example ad neauseum. Sean Connery, for me, will always be the diffinitive James Bond but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the heck out of the countless other takes of the same character. I'm a fan of the James Bond characters first and foremost. Whoever plays it only gives you a different take and that's all, it doesn't ruin it for me in the least.

[cherokeesam]

I don't know about you but I'm a fan of the comic or comic characters first and foremost. My dreams have always been of a fully realized representation of said characters off the written or drawn page. I want to see these characters go on and on in different situation or stories. The actor portraying these characters are just that, actors. They are not "the" character. It's the similar thing with James Bond, I'm sure you've heard this example ad neauseum. Sean Connery, for me, will always be the diffinitive James Bond but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the heck out of the countless other takes of the same character. I'm a fan of the James Bond characters first and foremost. Whoever plays it only gives you a different take and that's all, it doesn't ruin it for me in the least.

*standing ovation*

Seriously, I can't even begin to fathom jaqua99's mindset. RDJ is NOT Iron Man, nor is Hemsworth Thor, yadda yadda yadda. They are ACTORS playing roles, and those roles contain their own 50+ year mythology. The current crop of actors are outstanding, yes. Long-time fans will balk when someone other than RDJ puts on the suit years from now, yes. But as you say, marcvader, it's no different than what Bond fans have experienced for decades. Some 007s are better than others, but the *character* is what's important.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Well, Jaqua does make a good point in that recasting isn't exactly pleasant to the audience. I for one hope that if Downey & Evans do jump ship, that their respective characters are given time to disassociate from the GA. I don't want Avengers 2 (2015) starring RDJ & then IM4 (2016) starring Josh Brolin right after. Give 'em at least 5 years off & work on other characters in the meantime.

[MarvelKnight]

I don't know about you but I'm a fan of the comic or comic characters first and foremost. My dreams have always been of a fully realized representation of said characters off the written or drawn page. I want to see these characters go on and on in different situation or stories. The actor portraying these characters are just that, actors. They are not "the" character. It's the similar thing with James Bond, I'm sure you've heard this example ad neauseum. Sean Connery, for me, will always be the diffinitive James Bond but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the heck out of the countless other takes of the same character. I'm a fan of the James Bond characters first and foremost. Whoever plays it only gives you a different take and that's all, it doesn't ruin it for me in the least.

:applaud Truth.

[L0ngsh0t]

Assuming he is done after ironman 3, and avengers 3. Yes. I don't get why you guys don't see this. He IS Stark. wont it be, akward and just, blah, to see someone else playing tony stark, Ironman? Same with Thor, Cap, Ruffalo etc. I don't want it on going because i don't want it to be re-cast. It won't have the same aura. These actors are the ones who play them currently. They are their characters, to have different actors play these characters after to keep continuity, well, that would suck in my opinion. Badly. And I would be dissappointed. Hemsworth is Thor. Etc.

I pray it is a trilogy, and only that. And that way, it will be remembered as the legendary avengers trilogy, and these actors were the avengers. Period. Ya, we all wanna see the story be told even farther, but with new actors for an ongoing franchise, continuity? I think thats crap, The Avengers trilogy, with hemsworth, chris evans, ruffalo, and RDJ. They ARE Thor, Cap, Hulk, and Stark. And thats that. It will hurt going to see more movies after. To me, that is not worth making it an on going franchise. I say keep it a trilogy. The legendary avengers trilogy, like the star wars trilogy. Thats the type of vibe i get off it.

after the 3rd avengers movie (assuming there is one), if another one is announced, for continuity, but with a whole new cast, I will feel like my heart got ripped out of my chest, not the same, utterly heart broken.

Now excuse my french, but I don't understand how the **** no one else feels this way besides me. Its absolutely beyond me, and I am shocked that you are all okay with the idea of a re-cast for continuity, and frankly, this is the one fear I have of the MCU, absolutely terrified of it going that way.


Pardon my douche baggery but if this is how you feel you gotta get some semblance of a life outside of movies.

It's not that serious.

Other actors can play these characters

Other writers and directors can do a service to the source material

This isn't Star Wars

Star Wars is a focused story set within a fictional Universe about Anakin Skywalker. The Marvel Universe is really about this world of superheroes. There isn't this big set up device that the MCU is centered around so when the device is done there is no need for a reboot....it's set stories that are interconnected....the Universe is the plot device and we are just at the tipping point of beginning to explore this Universe. Reboot would be the single worst thing they could possibly do

and they also won't reboot or end it....KF has already said they will recast RDJ and not reboot....so you can continue to feel this way but you are wasting your time because it is clearly and implicitly stated that is not what their plan is.

Also this "change" is likely 10 years away so just chill out and don't let it ruin the next decade of your life worrying about it

[DrCosmic]

I don't think they have to be magicians to come up with a way for a character(s) to have less screentime or be absent altogether. We'll just have to disagree about Rhodey.

The issue is coming up with a reason that sounds believable and doesn't create a plot hole. What possible excuse could there be for someone to not be available to help ensure the survival of the human race? If I'm deployed to Afghanistan and the world is ending, at some point, they're going to call me to save the world instead. Him being out of cell phone range or having broken his leg conveniently when he's needed just sounds contrived, because it is.

Sean Connery, for me, will always be the diffinitive James Bond but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the heck out of the countless other takes of the same character.

It stops me. It stops a lot of people. There's a reason no one talks about/shows Dalton or Lazenby or even Brosnan anymore. Craig gets the by because he's current and he's a different character with the same name. But, yeah, for most, as Alexei said, recasting, outside of a reboot with a break, is not palatable. I think people, including Feige who use the James Bond reference are vastly overestimating how popular these moves were, and certainly ignoring the context of how those films were perceived.

[L0ngsh0t]

It stops me. It stops a lot of people. There's a reason no one talks about/shows Dalton or Lazenby or even Brosnan anymore. Craig gets the by because he's current and he's a different character with the same name. But, yeah, for most, as Alexei said, recasting, outside of a reboot with a break, is not palatable. I think people, including Feige who use the James Bond reference are vastly overestimating how popular these moves were, and certainly ignoring the context of how those films were perceived.


It stops no one. Casino Royale made 600 million dollars. It stops no one. Die Another Day which was awful made nearly 500 million. It stops no one.

recast and solider on. good movies win out

[MarvelKnight]

If the movies are good, I don't think, in the long run, it matters who plays who. Of course RDJ will be missed, but that doesn't mean all IM movies post RDJ are going to suck..

If people don't want to enjoy a good cinematic experience because 'their guy' isn't in the movies anymore, they're missing out and cutting off their noses to spite their face, imho.

[DrCosmic]

It stops no one. Casino Royale made 600 million dollars. It stops no one. Die Another Day which was awful made nearly 500 million. It stops no one.

recast and solider on. good movies win out

Listing a bad movie being successful does not prove that good movies win out. That doesn't go together. Besides, this isn't Craig, or even Brosnan (whose early movies didn't do as well, so they *were* off putting for some reason), but this is George Lazenby. There is a definitive take on the character, and no one expects recasting. It's not going to be taken well.

[L0ngsh0t]

Listing a bad movie being successful does not prove that good movies win out. That doesn't go together. Besides, this isn't Craig, or even Brosnan (whose early movies didn't do as well, so they *were* off putting for some reason), but this is George Lazenby. There is a definitive take on the character, and no one expects recasting. It's not going to be taken well.

I think citing a franchise that has made over 20 movies and counting over 50 years is probably the incorrect franchise to show why recasting isn't successful.

Come on man Bond is the ultimate example of what we are talking about and for reference wikipidia is the best I can find but OHMSS has grossed 80 million wow box office and dr. No grosed 60 million. and lazenby left cause hee didn't want to do not that people didn't like him

[Silvermoth]

If the movies are good, I don't think, in the long run, it matters who plays who. Of course RDJ will be missed, but that doesn't mean all IM movies post RDJ are going to suck..

If people don't want to enjoy a good cinematic experience because 'their guy' isn't in the movies anymore, they're missing out and cutting off their noses to spite their face, imho.

Agreed.

Besides, I usually find whenever there's a change in an actor playing a role people complain til they're blue in the face then when they see the new interpretation they're all "LUV! Who wuz that last guy anyway????"

[DrCosmic]

You're cherry picking, Longshot. The immediate prior movie made much more than OHMSS, and the ones before that even moreso. When Connery came back, the numbers shot back up again. The recast put a lot of people off, which was my point, and the numbers hold that to be true. Good movies don't win out. Audiences having a break and getting hungry for a character they grew up with is what wins out post-1990. And Iron Man won't have that for IM4. Bond is an anomaly, one I think Feige will find is not so easily duplicated.

I agree in the long run, if you make good movies, people will hear 'the new Iron Man was actually pretty good' and go see the second new Iron Man, but presuming the audience is in love with Iron Man as a concept instead of RDJ's Iron Man is just... presumptuous.

[cherokeesam]

You're cherry picking, Longshot. The immediate prior movie made much more than OHMSS, and the ones before that even moreso. When Connery came back, the numbers shot back up again. The recast put a lot of people off, which was my point, and the numbers hold that to be true. Good movies don't win out. Audiences having a break and getting hungry for a character they grew up with is what wins out post-1990. And Iron Man won't have that for IM4. Bond is an anomaly, one I think Feige will find is not so easily duplicated.

I agree in the long run, if you make good movies, people will hear 'the new Iron Man was actually pretty good' and go see the second new Iron Man, but presuming the audience is in love with Iron Man as a concept instead of RDJ's Iron Man is just... presumptuous.


There will probably never be an Iron Man as popular as RDJ, but what's presumptuous is assuming that people will desert the franchise like rats on a sinking ship.

There's nothing even *remotely* anomalous about the success of Bond's recast, as you imply; and recasts have been going on for decades. Every time you see a movie version of a 70s or 80s TV show with a 21st century cast, that's a recast. Every time you see a new version of Sherlock Holmes or Wyatt Earp or Robin Hood, that's a recast. Every time you see a new actor in the role of Joker or Bruce Banner or Batman or Clark Kent or Col. James Rhodes or James Bond or M or Q or Moneypenny, that's a recast. And yes, everyone has their favorites, but guess what? Everyone moves on, and FAR more times than not, people embrace the newest version and forget all about whoever wore the mantle before.

There is absolutely no reason under heaven or earth to believe that history is suddenly going to change in the case of one freakin' actor whose initials are RDJ.

[L0ngsh0t]

You're cherry picking, Longshot. The immediate prior movie made much more than OHMSS, and the ones before that even moreso. When Connery came back, the numbers shot back up again. The recast put a lot of people off, which was my point, and the numbers hold that to be true. Good movies don't win out. Audiences having a break and getting hungry for a character they grew up with is what wins out post-1990. And Iron Man won't have that for IM4. Bond is an anomaly, one I think Feige will find is not so easily duplicated.

I agree in the long run, if you make good movies, people will hear 'the new Iron Man was actually pretty good' and go see the second new Iron Man, but presuming the audience is in love with Iron Man as a concept instead of RDJ's Iron Man is just... presumptuous.


I'm not going to put in more effort than a wikipedia search in a debate (not that i don't respect you I just worry I take posting on SHH too seriously already) and I didn't know the movie previous to OHMSS and the only Connery movie I could find was Dr. No's box office total

so I wasn't cherry picking to find something that fit my argument it was just how my desire to not take it too seriously shook out.

still it's clear OHMSS did not suffer box office wise, whether or not it was more or less successfull than a Bond movie is up for debate but let's use the comparison for Iron Man

Iron Man 1 grossed something like 600 million and I think IM2 was in the 7's....i they recast and it takes the audience a movie too adjust but yet it still grosss 450/500 million......that's a successful movie, it's more than every x-men movie has made (which is also a testimant too how poorly those movies have been made and marketed)

I don't see how rebooting is a better idea. I wouldn't be opposed to them waiting awhile after RDJ hangs it up...but there gonna make more movies....might as well keep it in continuity and not burn down the house they've built.

[L0ngsh0t]

Bond is the example of how I want Marvel to handle it

solider on, if you make a bad movie don't freak out just make a better one next time. don't let it get too stale

[DrCosmic]

Bond is the example of how I want Marvel to handle it

solider on, if you make a bad movie don't freak out just make a better one next time. don't let it get too stale

I understand that, and I can definitely respect dialing back the seriousness of the argument, cuz I do that too. What I'm saying is: have you considered that if Marvel handles it like that, it won't work because it's 2012 and not 1972?