Originally Posted by AvengeME
While your example with MASH and TV soaps is a good one in comparison to the general discussion of extended timelines, they almost certainly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
One can not compare the TV medium to the cinema medium and take anything from the two. The one exception being Star Trek, but that's the only thing I can think of off the top of my head (because it was the most successful). They blurred that distinction so much that you eventually couldn't tell the difference. It was just Star Trek (but this also devalued the movies by bringing them down to TV level). Tony Stark post Iron Man in a TV series? Nope. Same with the Hulk post gamma radiation.
TV is meant to be a LONG, extended novel. Ebbs and flows, with characters coming and going (many times nowhere). It's meant to drag viewers in and make the characters a part of the viewers' daily lives. It provides tidbits, with compelling drama and entertainment to keep people coming for more tidbits. People care little about a characters' age and continuity when they are so engrossed in them to begin with.
Movies are one sitting. People want a complete story. The full course. Not something that drags on and on an ultimately goes nowhere once viewership declines. So no, people don't want to see Stark doing all the trivial things he may do when off screen. They want to see Stark saving the world on grand occasions. Which brings us to Bond, another character that has seemingly done the same for decades.
And again, the comparison falls short. Note how Bond movies have almost nothing in common. The closest we got was Quantum, which sort of played out as a two part Bond movie. The movies barely reference one another. Characters are constantly changing, as are love interests. It's just another story in a different time and place and only God knows why. Where is that happening with Iron Man? We have gotten Rhodey, Pepper, and Happy in every film and counting. We are seeing a maturation of Tony Stark. A maturation of Pepper Potts. A growth in their relationship. A growth in Tony's relationship with Howard Stark. It doesn't follow the Bond format. It is evolving with the passage of time.
So how on Earth do you run away from continuity and expect audiences to just go with the flow? I don't see it.
Where exactly do you see Tony Stark "maturing"....? If anything, he was even *more* of an insufferable prick in Avengers than either of the two IM movies. And nobody wants to pay good money to see Tony Stark mature
and sober up. The point of franchise heroes (whether super- or otherwise) is that audiences buy into that persona, and they sure as hell don't want to see it changed (hence the lack of an actual personality-altering character arc for franchise heroes like James Bond or Indiana Jones).
Originally Posted by Panther X
In all honesty I think they should save Ant-Man for Phase III. As it stands, the current roster already has two science buffs (in the form of Stark and Banner) on the team, and adding one more may or may not be overkill. I think by the time A3 comes around, either Stark and/or Banner (most likely the latter) would drop out by then leaving room for Hank and Wasp to join.
There's also the added problem of trying to sell the character to audiences. Sure, we've seen some bizzare things in the MCU up to now, from gods, aliens and everything in between, but having people who can actually shrink down to the size of an ant will be an exceptionally tough one to swallow. Then again, I guess that's what the solo outings are for.
Not to single you out, because I've heard the "too many scientists" argument before, but it's not much of a reason to hold Pym (or anyone else) back. There are lots of different branches of science, and it's perfectly acceptable for the Avengers to have many scientists from different disciplines. Stark is an expert in electronics, robotics, and weapons tech; Banner is an expert in physics; Pym is an expert in biochemistry. That gives each a very different specialty, and makes each one unique.