Will Joss actually make Avengers 2 SMALLER?

[L0ngsh0t]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by baerrtt

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.

Originally Posted by L0ngsh0t

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]

Originally Posted by natey2k4

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.

Originally Posted by souNdwAve89

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]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

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]

Originally Posted by marcvader

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]

Originally Posted by marcvader

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.

Truth.

[L0ngsh0t]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

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]

Originally Posted by RockSP

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.

Originally Posted by marcvader

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]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

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]

Originally Posted by L0ngsh0t

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]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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?