Are MCU solo franchises necessary for all heroes?

[spideymouse]

Almost all comic book movies are inherently set up to have sequels and become franchises. It's why Marvel Studios is signing their actors to 6+ (!) film deals, and it's why we're getting sequels for three of their main characters to kick off the MCU's Phase II. Of course, the reason for this is the much observed effect that brand recognition has had on Hollywood: sequels make serious bank.

But does the MCU have to follow the formula for all of its heroes? Because they share the same universe, the same brand recognition, Marvel's movies from now on are pretty much sequels of each other in the larger, all-encompassing "MCU franchise." Does Marvel need to have solo franchises for everyone?

My question most directly relates to new characters that Marvel will be bringing into the fold. Ant-Man, Black Panther, Doctor Strange, and Ms. Marvel are probably at the top of most people's lists to join the MCU next, but do they all need to have their own solo franchises as well? One could perhaps argue that each deserves his/her own origin movie, but how crucial is it that there be, say, a Ms. Marvel 2 and 3 once she has joined the Avengers franchise? An example of this already happening could be the Hulk. While he is bound to appear in future films, the argument has now been made that Hulk may work best as a supporting character, and Marvel has no plans at this point to make a TIH2. We may never see a solo Hulk movie again, and that could end up being just fine with us.

My question also relates to some heroes who have already appeared in multiple Phase I MCU films. Nick Fury, Black Widow, and Hawkeye have each appeared at least twice in Marvel's first 6 movies, but none of them has yet to have a solo movie to their name. Some fans are clamoring for these three to have spin-off solo movies or a SHIELD movie, but as long as they continue to contribute to the greater MCU good by appearing in other heroes' movies, are they all that necessary?

What are your thoughts?

[Spider - Man]

Originally Posted by spideymouse

Almost all comic book movies are inherently set up to have sequels and become franchises. It's why Marvel Studios is signing their actors to 6+ (!) film deals, and it's why we're getting sequels for three of their main characters to kick off the MCU's Phase II. Of course, the reason for this is the much observed effect that brand recognition has had on Hollywood: sequels make serious bank.

But does the MCU have to follow the formula for all of its heroes? Because they share the same universe, the same brand recognition, Marvel's movies from now on are pretty much sequels of each other in the larger, all-encompassing "MCU franchise." Does Marvel need to have solo franchises for everyone?

My question most directly relates to new characters that Marvel will be bringing into the fold. Black Panther, Doctor Strange, and Ms. Marvel are probably at the top of most people's lists to join the MCU next, but do they all need to have their own solo franchises as well? One could perhaps argue that each deserves his/her own origin movie, but how crucial is it that there be, say, a Ms. Marvel 2 and 3 once she has joined the Avengers franchise? An example of this already happening could be the Hulk. While he is bound to appear in future films, the argument has now been made that Hulk may work best as a supporting character, and Marvel has no plans at this point to make a TIH2. We may never see a solo Hulk movie again, and that could end up being just fine with us.

My question also relates to some heroes who have already appeared in multiple Phase I MCU films. Nick Fury, Black Widow, and Hawkeye have each appeared at least twice in Marvel's first 6 movies, but none of them has yet to have a solo movie to their name. Some fans are clamoring for these three to have spin-off solo movies or a SHIELD movie, but as long as they continue to contribute to the greater MCU good by appearing in other heroes' movies, are they all that necessary?

What are your thoughts?

\

UNderstand that these studios make films for one reason: to make money, more specifically to make a profit. A popular business model is selling a product that has a backend, which means that you sell something, say a report on how to make money selling a certain thing on Ebay, for $10. At the end of the report you then offer additional reports telling where someone could get that something for next to nothing and another showing the simplest way to list those somethings on Ebay using a template to streamline the process. This opens the door for the first product to be a springboard from which to make additional money. Sequels are backends for Pilot films.

The question is will a certain character even be able to carry a solo film (Hawkeye, Black Widow, etc)? I don;t think you'd see that unless it is a SHIELD film with all 3 and maybe one or two other b-list heroes/characters and even that might be risky. In the end, if they have a choice of making just a sequel to the Avengers with the Hulk in it and make a $50 million profit or make that PLUS a Hulk solo which could net them an extra $20 mil, why would they NOT include a solo Hulk sequel?

Honestly though, I wouldn't mind them holding off on the solo sequels to IM, Cap and Thor so that instead they could do more 'other' characters' solo films and save the big 3 for Avengers sequels. But as I said, money talks and as long as those 3 are pulling it in, you can count on them getting first nod.

[spideymouse]

Originally Posted by Spider - Man

\

UNderstand that these studios make films for one reason: to make money, more specifically to make a profit. A popular business model is selling a product that has a backend, which means that you sell something, say a report on how to make money selling a certain thing on Ebay, for $10. At the end of the report you then offer additional reports telling where someone could get that something for next to nothing and another showing the simplest way to list those somethings on Ebay using a template to streamline the process. This opens the door for the first product to be a springboard from which to make additional money. Sequels are backends for Pilot films.

The question is will a certain character even be able to carry a solo film (Hawkeye, Black Widow, etc)? I don;t think you'd see that unless it is a SHIELD film with all 3 and maybe one or two other b-list heroes/characters and even that might be risky. In the end, if they have a choice of making just a sequel to the Avengers with the Hulk in it and make a $50 million profit or make that PLUS a Hulk solo which could net them an extra $20 mil, why would they NOT include a solo Hulk sequel?

Honestly though, I wouldn't mind them holding off on the solo sequels to IM, Cap and Thor so that instead they could do more 'other' characters' solo films and save the big 3 for Avengers sequels. But as I said, money talks and as long as those 3 are pulling it in, you can count on them getting first nod.

Yeah, if you read my first paragraph again, you'll see that we are definitely in agreement about money being why sequels are made. The scenario regarding the Hulk might have more to do with cost-effectiveness than anything else. TIH made a profit, but the word-of-mouth about Hulk's shenanigans in the Avengers may have contributed to the MCU franchise's total profit in a much bigger way than his whole solo movie did or any solo sequel could. The question becomes, where do Ruffalo's six appearances (or Black Panther's or Ms. Marvel's appearances, for that matter) make the biggest profit impact: as a supporting character in other movies, or as the main character in a solo franchise? It's a question that probably cannot be scientifically answered, though I bet studio executives have been trying to come up with some convoluted formula to do just that (instead of focusing on making good movies with good stories).

Ultimately, it is this "B-list" status issue that was what I was getting at. I'm sure Hollywood is wondering if the mainstream audience will really care about Moon Knight or Luke Cage. However, Iron Man was considered a B-list character even among comic book fans until the movie became so popular. Most of these characters are 40-50 years old now, and most of them have rich histories with very compelling stories to tell. Blade is probably considered a C-list hero, but an exciting story and intriguing characters made the movie a success, setting up a franchise and ultimately leading us into the present superhero movie age. One could argue that given the right creative team and resources, any Marvel character could carry a money-making franchise. (Not that I'm arguing it, I'm just asking the question. =P)

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by spideymouse

Ultimately, it is this "B-list" status issue that was what I was getting at. I'm sure Hollywood is wondering if the mainstream audience will really care about Moon Knight or Luke Cage. However, Iron Man was considered a B-list character even among comic book fans until the movie became so popular. Most of these characters are 40-50 years old now, and most of them have rich histories with very compelling stories to tell. Blade is probably considered a C-list hero, but an exciting story and intriguing characters made the movie a success, setting up a franchise and ultimately leading us into the present superhero movie age. One could argue that given the right creative team and resources, any Marvel character could carry a money-making franchise. (Not that I'm arguing it, I'm just asking the question. =P)

I think RDJ had a large amount to do with my Iron Man vaulted from B-list to A-list. In Blade's case, Snipes was a hot commodity at the time.

[cherokeesam]

The characters that may be B-listers (or less) in the comics might prove to be really popular on film, and conversely, the popular comic titles might not translate that well to the big screen (Punisher is the most glaring example of this).

The way I look at it is: how likely is a solo franchise to last for several films on its own? Dr. Strange can certainly support an ongoing franchise; and Black Panther probably could, with him doing time as an Avenger *and* solo movies, just like the other Avenger stalwarts. Characters like Ant-Man and Ms. Marvel, though, I question ---- yeah, it'll be great seeing their origin films, and watch them take their rightful place in the Avengers pantheon; but I *really* can't see an Ant-Man 2 or Ms. Marvel 2 becoming something that fans would want, even if their debut movies prove to be really popular.

[chiefchirpa]

Not all of them, but some of them.

Marvel has advantages over DC in numbers of non-legacy characters, and non-legacy characters mean new movie franchises, whether they're trilogy material or one-shot. Why not using them?

[DrCosmic]

I think the solo movies are, in effect, big advertisements for Avengers. I think they stand on their own, but in all... that's what they do, and Marvel studios knows this.

In the case of Ant-Man, Black Panther, Dr. Strange and Ms. Marvel... their sequels could/would still do that, and some have the material to do so. I think Ms. Marvel would have a lot of trouble pulling a third movie out of her/Mar-Vell's rogues gallery. Ant-Man might even have trouble pulling out a second movie if it weren't for Wright, but then he might be the reason a sequel takes another 6 years to make. Dr. Strange and Black Panther I'm much less worried about. They have pretty extensive rogues galleries and thematic elements

I think these franchises are *needed* even if they're only two films, to ease the transition into new actors, if any, for the existing Avengers.

[M-2]

I don't think everyone needs there own film, or for them to be joining the Avengers...

We all used to seeing the Avenger roster change, because we read the comics, and the roster always keeps changing... I think Marvel will keep the core of the team the same, because how will General Audiences take to these Changes?? Because General audiences have taken to this team... I think Marvel will have to keep the core of the team together until Avengers 3 at least, after that one we will see more changes...

But in the mean time, I think Doctor Strange should get a solo film, that
Leads into a Defenders film, Luke Cage, Iron Fist and Jessica Jones should probably all have a film together titled Heroes for Hire!! You can dive into there origin stories but not get to deep into it, basically after what happened in Avengers, with the Aliens in New York, More people with special skill sets decided to come out of the shadows and become Heroes.

It shouldnt feel like a Hero is born everyday, but rather that these people had these abilities, even before Tony got his armor. And after what happened in New York, they feel that they have to step up, they can't just leave the fate of the world in 6 people's hands... Perfect way to expand the Universe without having them to join the Avengers.

You could even have Hawkeye helping them out, so that he can get some screen time in, and not just pop up in Avengers 2, or 3.

And I think Cap 3 should be Cap and secret Avengers... That can be a really cool spy/action type film... Like James Bond, Bourne Identity, Mission Impossible but a team with Super powers, and those members again don't need solo films or be apart of Avengers. And Definetly get Cap in the Super Soldier costume!!

[chamber-music]

It really doesn't matter if a a character is B/C/D list in the comics, with the right approach Marvel or any other studio could make them successful and profitable.

Blade and Hellboy got successful franchises out of minor characters.

[metaphysician]

Originally Posted by chamber-music

It really doesn't matter if a a character is B/C/D list in the comics, with the right approach Marvel or any other studio could make them successful and profitable.

Blade and Hellboy got successful franchises out of minor characters.

I'm not sure if Hellboy really counts as "minor". . .

[spideymouse]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I think the solo movies are, in effect, big advertisements for Avengers. I think they stand on their own, but in all... that's what they do, and Marvel studios knows this.

While I agree with this, what do you think this means for non-Avenger characters (Dr. Strange, Namor, Punisher, Luke Cage/Heroes for Hire, GOTG, etc.)? I guess Dr. Strange and Namor could get together with Hulk and do some Defending, but then solo movies for these characters would no longer be advertisements for Avengers, right? With each of these characters you further expand the MCU beyond the Avengers world until the only movie they could ever be jointly advertising is a mega-crossover movie featuring Thanos and the Infinity Gauntlet! At that point, do you still call it an Avengers movie? (I don't know what I'm arguing against, if anything.)

Originally Posted by Rock Sexton

I think RDJ had a large amount to do with my Iron Man vaulted from B-list to A-list. In Blade's case, Snipes was a hot commodity at the time.

One could argue (and people have) that Iron Man had a large amount to do with why RDJ vaulted to the A-list as well... =) With Blade, I'll see your Wesley Snipes/hot commodity argument and raise you one Halle Berry, who was coming off an Oscar win and *should have succeeded* to popularize an already way more popular character, Catwoman. We know how that turned out.

In both cases, just because you have a star actor does not mean you will raise his/her role to relevance. You definitely need excellent stories, scripts, and execution to make a lesser known character popular.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I think Ms. Marvel would have a lot of trouble pulling a third movie out of her/Mar-Vell's rogues gallery. Ant-Man might even have trouble pulling out a second movie if it weren't for Wright, but then he might be the reason a sequel takes another 6 years to make. Dr. Strange and Black Panther I'm much less worried about. They have pretty extensive rogues galleries and thematic elements

I think these franchises are *needed* even if they're only two films, to ease the transition into new actors, if any, for the existing Avengers.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

The characters that may be B-listers (or less) in the comics might prove to be really popular on film, and conversely, the popular comic titles might not translate that well to the big screen (Punisher is the most glaring example of this).

The way I look at it is: how likely is a solo franchise to last for several films on its own? Dr. Strange can certainly support an ongoing franchise; and Black Panther probably could, with him doing time as an Avenger *and* solo movies, just like the other Avenger stalwarts. Characters like Ant-Man and Ms. Marvel, though, I question ---- yeah, it'll be great seeing their origin films, and watch them take their rightful place in the Avengers pantheon; but I *really* can't see an Ant-Man 2 or Ms. Marvel 2 becoming something that fans would want, even if their debut movies prove to be really popular.

Yep, these types of comments are the ultimate reason I started this thread. Which heroes do you guys see garnering 3+ film solo franchises, which ones do you see needing maybe only one solo film, and which heroes do you see never needing one at all?

[kaijunexus]

Originally Posted by spideymouse

Which heroes do you guys see garnering 3+ film solo franchises, which ones do you see needing maybe only one solo film, and which heroes do you see never needing one at all?

In reality, it's not a question of how many solo films a character or team needs; it's a question of how financially successful they can be.

Even if you can imagine a single Moon Knight film doing the character adequate justice, if it's a box office success... it WILL get sequels.

Alternately, if you think Dr. Strange's tales could easily be woven over three films, but the first movie bombs... Dr. Strange is probably only getting a single movie.

Furthermore, Marvel is being very careful about what they release, not just because they don't want to lose money on an unsuccessful film, but they also have to worry about juggling TOO MANY successful films. For every film they release that does well, they need to release a sequel within a few years in order to continue the momentum of that character. However, if they have too many successful franchises, they can't release them fast enough and they lose momentum (and potential profits) on those properties.

This is a very complex game Marvel is playing. Don't ever forget that...and don't ever think that they are forgetting that either.

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by kaijunexus

In reality, it's not a question of how many solo films a character or team needs; it's a question of how financially successful they can be.

Even if you can imagine a single Moon Knight film doing the character adequate justice, if it's a box office success... it WILL get sequels.

Alternately, if you think Dr. Strange's tales could easily be woven over three films, but the first movie bombs... Dr. Strange is probably only getting a single movie.

Furthermore, Marvel is being very careful about what they release, not just because they don't want to lose money on an unsuccessful film, but they also have to worry about juggling TOO MANY successful films. For every film they release that does well, they need to release a sequel within a few years in order to continue the momentum of that character. However, if they have too many successful franchises, they can't release them fast enough and they lose momentum (and potential profits) on those properties.

This is a very complex game Marvel is playing. Don't ever forget that...and don't ever think that they are forgetting that either.

While you may be right, not every solo movie should have a sequel either. the MCU is one universe. They can very well show up in other movies, or they could have a different set of solo films to promote a different team or even a Super film like Infinity Gauntlet or my personal favorite Secret Wars (In which in both cases we need to have some of those licensed characters back by then). They also need to utilize more mediums. I was very Disappointed that AKA Jessica Drew wasn't greenlit. This could have at worst introduce characters in the MCU that may not have been worth the risk of a solo film franchise.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by kaijunexus

In reality, it's not a question of how many solo films a character or team needs; it's a question of how financially successful they can be.

Even if you can imagine a single Moon Knight film doing the character adequate justice, if it's a box office success... it WILL get sequels.

Alternately, if you think Dr. Strange's tales could easily be woven over three films, but the first movie bombs... Dr. Strange is probably only getting a single movie.

Furthermore, Marvel is being very careful about what they release, not just because they don't want to lose money on an unsuccessful film, but they also have to worry about juggling TOO MANY successful films. For every film they release that does well, they need to release a sequel within a few years in order to continue the momentum of that character. However, if they have too many successful franchises, they can't release them fast enough and they lose momentum (and potential profits) on those properties.

This is a very complex game Marvel is playing. Don't ever forget that...and don't ever think that they are forgetting that either.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

Again, I think there's going to be a different perception of what constitutes a successful superhero franchise in the comics, vs. a successful *film* superhero franchise. For instance, you mention Moon Knight: definitely not an A or even B-lister in the comic world, but by god, his story is cinematic as hell, and would likely be a very successful film franchise. Punisher, OTOH, is huge in the comics, but he simply does not work on film --- in a superhero world, a gun-toting action movie hero is pretty unique and a fish out of water; in film, he's a dime a dozen in an oversaturated market.

As to my personal picks on which characters could or should handle multiple solo films (using just current Marvel Studios characters):

Iron Man, Hulk, Cap, Thor, and the Avengers proper: no limits. You can keep making these franchises forever.

Ant-Man: one film. Then add Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne to the Avengers roster.

Black Panther: one film, then add him to the Avengers, then return to the solo franchise and have him co-existent in the Avengers. No limit to the number of solo films he could count in Wakanda.

Ms. Marvel: one film, then add her to the Avengers, and shut down the solo franchise.

Dr. Strange: 3 films.

Luke Cage: one film, then see below.

Iron Fist: one film, then see below.

Heroes for Hire: After Cage and Rand have their solo outings, they team up for Heroes for Hire, which then becomes an ongoing franchise. Or even a TV series. HFH should *really* be a TV series. In fact, HFH should really have been a TV series long before the idea for "Alias" (now defunct) ever came about.

SHIELD: Make a "Spy Games" type thriller that covers the history of SHIELD from the Cold War on up until the beginning of the Avenger Initiative, and have it feature Fury, Widow, Hawkeye, Coulson and a lot of other SHIELD agents/heroes not yet introduced. I see it as a one-shot, but possibly leading to a TV series.

Namor: throw one film out there and see if it sticks. If audiences dig it, franchise it.

Guardians of the Galaxy: same as Namor....if it succeeds, franchise it.

About the only two films I'd want to limit to a single "intro" would be Ant-Man and Ms. Marvel, but then fold them into Avengers and have them remain strictly Avengers team members from then on.

[KangConquers]

I'm going to say there are certain Niches that need to be filled in the MCU, but not necessarily duplicated.

For example, there's no reason not to explore a cosmic franchise, a magic franchise, a young hero franchise, an underwater franchise, a couple of street level heroes etc.

On the flip side, we don't need solo films for each member of the Guardians of the Galaxy, or a solo film for every member of SHIELD.


The following seem to best suited for solo films:

Ant-Man
Black Panther
Black Widow
Doctor Strange
Iron Fist
Luke Cage
Sub-Mariner

Every other solo character I have some sort of issue with in terms of giving them a franchise (being too close to a more famous character, or not justifying the budget a great film staring them would require.) I'd definitely love to see other characters in films, and definitely want to see non-Avengers team movies (Guardians of the Galaxy, Runaways, a Heroes For Hire spin-off.)

[chiefchirpa]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

Again, I think there's going to be a different perception of what constitutes a successful superhero franchise in the comics, vs. a successful *film* superhero franchise. For instance, you mention Moon Knight: definitely not an A or even B-lister in the comic world, but by god, his story is cinematic as hell, and would likely be a very successful film franchise. Punisher, OTOH, is huge in the comics, but he simply does not work on film --- in a superhero world, a gun-toting action movie hero is pretty unique and a fish out of water; in film, he's a dime a dozen in an oversaturated market.

As to my personal picks on which characters could or should handle multiple solo films (using just current Marvel Studios characters):

Iron Man, Hulk, Cap, Thor, and the Avengers proper: no limits. You can keep making these franchises forever.

Ant-Man: one film. Then add Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne to the Avengers roster.

Black Panther: one film, then add him to the Avengers, then return to the solo franchise and have him co-existent in the Avengers. No limit to the number of solo films he could count in Wakanda.

Ms. Marvel: one film, then add her to the Avengers, and shut down the solo franchise.

Dr. Strange: 3 films.

Luke Cage: one film, then see below.

Iron Fist: one film, then see below.

Heroes for Hire: After Cage and Rand have their solo outings, they team up for Heroes for Hire, which then becomes an ongoing franchise. Or even a TV series. HFH should *really* be a TV series. In fact, HFH should really have been a TV series long before the idea for "Alias" (now defunct) ever came about.

SHIELD: Make a "Spy Games" type thriller that covers the history of SHIELD from the Cold War on up until the beginning of the Avenger Initiative, and have it feature Fury, Widow, Hawkeye, Coulson and a lot of other SHIELD agents/heroes not yet introduced. I see it as a one-shot, but possibly leading to a TV series.

Namor: throw one film out there and see if it sticks. If audiences dig it, franchise it.

Guardians of the Galaxy: same as Namor....if it succeeds, franchise it.

About the only two films I'd want to limit to a single "intro" would be Ant-Man and Ms. Marvel, but then fold them into Avengers and have them remain strictly Avengers team members from then on.

Mostly agree with you, but I kind of see some franchises potential to do more than one film - granted if the first outing is good enough.

Black Panther: 2+ film. Killmonger in the sequel, someone who's every bit as smart and even stronger than Black Panther. In short, the "Bane".

Ms Marvel: 2 film. Moonstone.

Iron Fist: 2+ film. Immortal Weapons.

Then the other heroes...

Nova: 2+ film

Moon Knight: 2+ film

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by spideymouse

One could argue (and people have) that Iron Man had a large amount to do with why RDJ vaulted to the A-list as well... =) With Blade, I'll see your Wesley Snipes/hot commodity argument and raise you one Halle Berry, who was coming off an Oscar win and *should have succeeded* to popularize an already way more popular character, Catwoman. We know how that turned out.

In both cases, just because you have a star actor does not mean you will raise his/her role to relevance. You definitely need excellent stories, scripts, and execution to make a lesser known character popular.

I'm not saying you don't need proper execution and scripts.

However in Iron Man's case RDJ was allowed an unbelievable amount of improv and collaboration that blossomed on the screen. Without RDJ's ability to do so, the movie's overall success is questionable considering IM's b-list status .... script or not. It's not like the script was unbelievably groundbreaking as far as the narrative and story. It was pretty vanilla when it comes to redemptions. But RDJ was just on top of his game .... he merged the Tony Stark character with his persona.

In Blade's case, Snipes was very similar (though not as successful financially obviously) ..... in fact his portrayal is somewhat legendary in that there are stories of how he stayed in character throughout filming, on and off set. That kind of dedication shows up on screen in a story that (again) is not very complex.

Halley Berry should not even be brought up. Her name was hot, I'll give you that ..... but you're talking about female superheros, which have historically been less than desirable on screen by the GA. Halley Berry also does not fit the actor chops as far as her approach to the character like RDJ and Snipes did.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by spideymouse

While I agree with this, what do you think this means for non-Avenger characters (Dr. Strange, Namor, Punisher, Luke Cage/Heroes for Hire, GOTG, etc.)? I guess Dr. Strange and Namor could get together with Hulk and do some Defending, but then solo movies for these characters would no longer be advertisements for Avengers, right? With each of these characters you further expand the MCU beyond the Avengers world until the only movie they could ever be jointly advertising is a mega-crossover movie featuring Thanos and the Infinity Gauntlet! At that point, do you still call it an Avengers movie? (I don't know what I'm arguing against, if anything.)

Yep, these types of comments are the ultimate reason I started this thread. Which heroes do you guys see garnering 3+ film solo franchises, which ones do you see needing maybe only one solo film, and which heroes do you see never needing one at all?

3+, Iron Man... *maybe* Cap (merged with SHIELD, basically), *maybe* Thor with his extensive mythology. In order for the latter two, their second films would have to be really great, and cement them in hearts like IM did with his first film.

Everyone else can get by with only one solo film, though I personally would prefer to see BP have a trilogy, and I just see an Ant-Man sequel somehow.

Good question on the non-Avengers though... take GotG for instance. If they do that, they'll be building up Thanos, for the Avengers. Perhaps it's less so with the Heroes for Hire or Dr. Strange, but they're not completely independent, they still feed into the 'universe' which all ends up funneling into The Avengers box office.

Those are the characters I see as only having one movie, purely case by case, if people love the film, then do two. The only characters that don't need a solo movie are the ones that naturally spin out of other heroes. Wasp doesn't need one, because she naturally spins out of Ant-Man. Vision naturally spins out of whatever movie uses Ultron. Non-powered Avengers can naturally spin out of SHIELD in any MCU movie, from Mockingbird to Swordsman. WonderMan, convoluted as he is, spins out of somewhere... i think. Falcon from Captain America. They're the only ones that need no solo film.

Other Avengers, including, but not limited to Sentry, Moondragon, Justice and Tigra don't naturally spin out of a teammate's solo movie, or really deserve their own film. That said, some of these can spin out of the non-Avengers MCU films. GotG can spin out anything from Sentry to Moondragon and Tigra can be... well, she can be a lot of things.

[Destructus86]

I think some of the B-listers could work as team ups.

Note...Ms. Marvel is NOT a B-lister.

[M-2]

Originally Posted by Destructus86

I think some of the B-listers could work as team ups.

Note...Ms. Marvel is NOT a B-lister.

Definitely NOT!! All I hope is that they can get someone that can write an Incredible story for her, as they have been doing in the comics for the last few years...

[Donnie Darko]

Ms Marvel is no a b lister in terms of powers, but as far as recognition and fan base, she is lucky to be considered a b lister.

[MarvelKnight]

I don't think it's totally necessary for all future characters, but I'm sure marvel has a benchmark for how many characters they'd like to have solo films for.

[LauraT]

Originally Posted by MarvelKnight

I don't think it's totally necessary for all future characters, but I'm sure marvel has a benchmark for how many characters they'd like to have solo films for.

Definitely, isn't this what the next few months are supposed to be about for Marvel, discussing which properties are viable for solo films, which can be supporting and how that fits into their schedule? We already know all but a couple up until 2014.

Ms Marvel is no a b lister in terms of powers, but as far as recognition and fan base, she is lucky to be considered a b lister.

She's awesome but totally unknown outside comic book I think. Although the movie promos might be a bit weird... "from Disney and Marvel Studios comes....Ms Marvel!" Still there's supposedly a strong script in contention so it wouldn't be a total surprise if she pops up.

The one thing Marvel has proved is that it doesn't have to matter if the character is unknown to general audiences, make a good movie with great casting and great scripts and you can draw people in.

[Donnie Darko]

I agree with all that you just said. I think some hardcore Marvel fanboys overestimate her popularity when referring to her as an a-lister. The a-listers in comics Batman. Superman, Spider-Man, Hulk, Wonder Woman, possibly Flash and "Robin" (just the name itself, people know little, if anything about the story of the character), and thanks to films, Wolverine and Iron Man. There might be a couple others, but I wouldn't consider Ms Marvel one. Think of all the characters with more mainstream recognition: Punisher, Spawn, Gambit (extremely popular with my generation bc the cartoon), lots of the JL and Teen Titans thanks to cartoons, even the Wonder Twins are more well-known.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by Donnie Darko

I agree with all that you just said. I think some hardcore Marvel fanboys overestimate her popularity when referring to her as an a-lister. The a-listers in comics Batman. Superman, Spider-Man, Hulk, Wonder Woman, possibly Flash and "Robin" (just the name itself, people know little, if anything about the story of the character), and thanks to films, Wolverine and Iron Man. There might be a couple others, but I wouldn't consider Ms Marvel one. Think of all the characters with more mainstream recognition: Punisher, Spawn, Gambit (extremely popular with my generation bc the cartoon), lots of the JL and Teen Titans thanks to cartoons, even the Wonder Twins are more well-known.

Yeah, when I think A-lister, I'm thinking: Can you support Multiple solo monthlies. Iron man can do that now. He couldn't six years ago.