Thor 2: First MCU movie not to mention Stark?

[spideymouse]

So, the first seven MCU movies--from IM1 through IM3--all have references to the name Stark (I mean, RDJ will have been in 5 out of the 7). It just shows how centrally important the GA's familiarity with the first Iron Man movie has been to the marketing and success of the whole franchise and the whole crossover idea. But now, thanks to the huge success of The Avengers, the GA has a greater awareness of Thor/lesser known Marvel characters.

My question is, could Thor 2 be the first Marvel Studios movie not to feel the need to reference Stark in any capacity, and would that hurt or help in expanding the MCU beyond the Iron Man world?

I know this is a silly discussion, but the thought came to mind and I wanted to bring it up. =P

[Avenger]

I think the MCU has reached a point now where it doesn't need to rely on Tony Stark.

[LuisTX85]

I think the MCU has reached a point now where it doesn't need to rely on Tony Stark.

Agreed!

[PSYLENTGuardian]

I don't think saying "Tony Stark" would matter to anything unless the context of it meant a drastic change for other MCU movies. Not mentioning Stark won't make or break the movie.

[souNdwAve89]

I don't think saying "Tony Stark" would matter to anything unless the context of it meant a drastic change for other MCU movies. Not mentioning Stark won't make or break the movie.

Agreed. Not like reviewers will take off a star or a whole number if they didn't reference Stark. Past MCU movies referenced Stark and others is there to remind us that we're watching a movie in the same universe, apart of the movie (Howard Stark), or fan service (SHIELD agents mentioning Stark when The Destroyer came).

[BigThor]

Yeah I do think it's time that Marvel Studios raises off of RDJ/Iron Man's nuts a little bit.

[Godzilla2000]

You know, considering the fangirl draw of Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth mention of Tony Stark in Thor 2 is not really needed to convince the general audience to see the movie.

[spideymouse]

You know, considering the fangirl draw of Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth mention of Tony Stark in Thor 2 is not really needed to convince the general audience to see the movie.My sister would add to that one Zachary Levi.

[BigThor]

You know, considering the fangirl draw of Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth mention of Tony Stark in Thor 2 is not really needed to convince the general audience to see the movie.

Yep Tom Hiddleston and Hemsworth have more than enough of there own audience drawing power now. :woot:

[Vartha]

So, the first seven MCU movies--from IM1 through IM3--all have references to the name Stark (I mean, RDJ will have been in 5 out of the 7). It just shows how centrally important the GA's familiarity with the first Iron Man movie has been to the marketing and success of the whole franchise and the whole crossover idea. But now, thanks to the huge success of The Avengers, the GA has a greater awareness of Thor/lesser known Marvel characters.

My question is, could Thor 2 be the first Marvel Studios movie not to feel the need to reference Stark in any capacity, and would that hurt or help in expanding the MCU beyond the Iron Man world?

I know this is a silly discussion, but the thought came to mind and I wanted to bring it up. =PWell if you THINK about it ODIN and ASGARD has been snuck into a few films as well.
Tho seeing as Marvel studios wanted Thor to being World hopping in Thor 2 I don't really see a need for Stark at this point seeing as ASGARDIAN tech is better. :D

[jaqua99]

You know, considering the fangirl draw of Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth mention of Tony Stark in Thor 2 is not really needed to convince the general audience to see the movie.

Sickens me

[spideymouse]

Sickens meIt doesn't bother me except at comic cons when the fangirls dominate the Q&As and don't ask any questions that are important to anyone but themselves. It happened at NYCC, and it sounds like it happened this year at SDCC too.

[BigThor]

"Ummm what's your favorite place to shop?", ***** who gives a flying ****.

[jonathancrane]

Sadly, Q/A's are dominated by stupidity of all sorts: when Under the Dome was released, I attended a reading/presentation/Q&A with Stephen King. The interviewer - a war correspondent for NPR or some channel - hogged the Question session by repeatedly trying to get King to bash the military and Bush, through what seemed like twenty questions. At one point, he checked the time on his watch, midquestion. She was ticked. Meanwhile, audience questions such as mine - regarding the fate of Jerusalem's Lot- went unanswered, along with a lot of other good fan questions.
Grr.
So, I feel the pain.

[spideymouse]

Frustrations aside, it is promising that there is a large female population who gets into these movies for one reason or another. The true fanboys and fangirls just need to be better at getting to the front of the line before the silly question people do.

[Mjölnir]

It could certainly be the case. Iron Man is the father of all the MCU success in more ways than one but THOR was a huge success for such an unknown character, and it's probably set to play out where Tony Stark is irrelevant, so that's two big reasons why he might be left out.

I'd say that the biggest chance/risk (depending on your preference) that he gets named is if there's a post credit scene that is to tie directly into the Avengers, although I'd say Thanos is more likely to be mentioned there.

[spideymouse]

It could certainly be the case. Iron Man is the father of all the MCU success in more ways than one but THOR was a huge success for such an unknown character, and it's probably set to play out where Tony Stark is irrelevant, so that's two big reasons why he might be left out.

I'd say that the biggest chance/risk (depending on your preference) that he gets named is if there's a post credit scene that is to tie directly into the Avengers, although I'd say Thanos is more likely to be mentioned there.Certainly Thor: The Dark World will still have some thread/easter eggs leading towards the Phase II event. It just may not involve Stark.

As for calling it risk, it's not like someone would watch it and say, "I do not prefer that Stark be mentioned in this movie! Therefore I shall not watch any more Marvel movies!"

[Doc Ock]

I like the MCU and in-universe mentions of other characters. But I do think Thor and Cap can now prove themselves on their own. I'm sure there is plenty of people who have become intrigued by Thor and Cap and didn't watch their solo movies but just watched The Avengers. I think its finally time to step away from the Stark/RDJ crutch.

(And speaking of fangirls, my Aunt loves Thor now because of Chris Hemsworth so I can't complain hehe. It was enough to get her to watch and enjoy the movie and become a fan!)

[psylockolussus]

I think the MCU has reached a point now where it doesn't need to rely on Tony Stark.

and Robert Downey Jr. I'm sure if he Robert Downey Jr. was Thor and Chris Hemsworth was Iron Man. The most popular character of the MCU would be Thor.

Sometimes I wish that they had cast a big actor for Captain America and Thor just so Iron Man wouldn't be the "face" of The Avengers.

[Avenger]

RDJ as Thor...

Now there's a freaky image. :funny:

EDIT: Ooo, 616th post! :awesome:

[Dark Raven]

If Natalie Portman somehow ends up in the nude, even implied, then Thor can say to her: "Thou art stark naked fair maiden. I must preserve thy dignity. Here. My hammer shalt cover thee."

And if Maria Hill is now the new SHIELD agent Thor deals with instead of Coulson, he can say "Aye, thou art in stark contrast to thy predecessor."


And that will be the stark reference.

[Lady Marion]

:pal: lmfao. It's a stark joke.

[spideymouse]

If Natalie Portman somehow ends up in the nude, even implied, then Thor can say to her: "Thou art stark naked fair maiden. I must preserve thy dignity. Here. My hammer shalt cover thee."

And if Maria Hill is now the new SHIELD agent Thor deals with instead of Coulson, he can say "Aye, thou art in stark contrast to thy predecessor."


And that will be the stark reference.Haha love it.

[Doc Ock]

If Natalie Portman somehow ends up in the nude, even implied, then Thor can say to her: "Thou art stark naked fair maiden. I must preserve thy dignity. Here. My hammer shalt cover thee."

And if Maria Hill is now the new SHIELD agent Thor deals with instead of Coulson, he can say "Aye, thou art in stark contrast to thy predecessor."


And that will be the stark reference.

You know, that's actually pretty clever. Hehe. :)

[Quasar]

Or Jane Foster could, with wide-eyed wonder, ask him "Do you really know Tony Stark?"

[Spuzz]

How was Stark referenced in the first Thor again?

[Dark Raven]

If Tony's not mentioned in this movie, then to get round that, they need to change the title to Thor: The Stark World. :hehe:

[pr0xyt0xin]

Sickens me

A friend of mine hates Thor/Loki but has the female equivalent of a rock hard-on for Captain America. sigh... the lesser of two evils i suppose. :dry:

[pr0xyt0xin]

How was Stark referenced in the first Thor again?

Agent: Is that one of Stark's?
Agent Coulson: I don't know. That guy never tells me anything...

[Quasar]

There could be a suit of armor designed for Thor with a note attached "Thought you might want a little enhancement. Tony", to which Thor would wave off with an "As if!" look on his face.

[MarvelKnight]

If Natalie Portman somehow ends up in the nude, even implied, then Thor can say to her: "Thou art stark naked fair maiden. I must preserve thy dignity. Here. My hammer shalt cover thee."

And if Maria Hill is now the new SHIELD agent Thor deals with instead of Coulson, he can say "Aye, thou art in stark contrast to thy predecessor."


And that will be the stark reference.

:up: :up: I also agree. Unless it is this, there is no need. lol

In all seriousness though, there is no real reason to mention stark in a thor movie that is going to take place throughout the various realms. I would assume the only reason Earth has to be even involved is because they decided they Had to have portman/foster tag along. So i don't really see the point.

[Keyser Soze]

Sickens me

Why? :huh:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YK2NASKA1d4/ThRUiprXrNI/AAAAAAAAO5s/3T5GK9yqUtU/s1600/treehouse.jpg

[misjuevos]

it's not like they went out of their way to mention stark. it was justified. the same shield agent who was in im 1 and 2 who knew stark and his armor now sees a new armored thing. of course he will immediately think stark.

[Godzilla2000]

It doesn't bother me except at comic cons when the fangirls dominate the Q&As and don't ask any questions that are important to anyone but themselves. It happened at NYCC, and it sounds like it happened this year at SDCC too.

You know, I'm thinking that this is more or less your typical Convention faring female fangirl's behavior. Trust me I have seen panels where fangirls were even more brazen, like any panel that features voice actor Vic Mignogna who voiced many dubbed Anime characters, but you might know him more as Broly from the DBZ movies. Seriously just google any of Vic's panels and he relates some borderline bizarre fan encounters he's had.

What bothers me though is if Tom decides to do a little stage work this type of behavior would be quite distracting and break his concentration not to mention it being very rude to those just there to enjoy the play.

[Still A ThorFan]

So, the first seven MCU movies--from IM1 through IM3--all have references to the name Stark (I mean, RDJ will have been in 5 out of the 7). It just shows how centrally important the GA's familiarity with the first Iron Man movie has been to the marketing and success of the whole franchise and the whole crossover idea. But now, thanks to the huge success of The Avengers, the GA has a greater awareness of Thor/lesser known Marvel characters.

My question is, could Thor 2 be the first Marvel Studios movie not to feel the need to reference Stark in any capacity, and would that hurt or help in expanding the MCU beyond the Iron Man world?

I know this is a silly discussion, but the thought came to mind and I wanted to bring it up. =P


After his first movie and on to Avengers I found Iron Man/Stark to be annoying. I wouldn't mind at all if he isn't mentioned in this film.

[jaqua99]

Why? :huh:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YK2NASKA1d4/ThRUiprXrNI/AAAAAAAAO5s/3T5GK9yqUtU/s1600/treehouse.jpg

Loki's fangirls no nothing about Loki. It's all Tom. I love Tom, he's great as Loki, don't get me wrong. But after reading a whole lot of comics, Loki is that character you are just waiting to get his. Atleast he is to me. He is NOT a character that should attract fangirls. They really know nothing about the character, or even read comics. The simply love tom hiddleston playing loki. Because of tom.

There is nothing physically attractive about Loki, he cold dark, evil..etc...he shouldned be attracting fangirls. But the movie loki does, and they are just ridiculous. I saw a comment, on a trailer for the Thor and Loki blood brothers thing, they refuse to see it because Loki isn't tom, and he is a gross old looking man, and they are stupid for making loki not look like tom.

It's like...Loki has been around since the 60s

And it fustrates me, because besides Thanos, loki is probably my favorite villain. I love him as villain because of how he is. and to see his fangirls gushing over him the way they do, clueless about the character, its just gross, and honestly, kind of offensive

[Silvermoth]

That's not really fair. Just because they're girls it doesn't mean they only want love and romance and redemption. Some fangirls have been reading Thor for years.

I think what they're saying isn't just 'I want to believe I can change the bad boy', it's about how just about every Thor story involving Loki involves Thor trusting Loki. For that to happen he needs a reason, otherwise it would be difficult for Loki to manipulate people the way we love to see him manipulate people.