MCU: Phase II

[MarvelKnight]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

NO REBOOT.

Why does everyone say "reboot?" Get that word out of the dictionary. Burn it burn it BURN IT.

Nobody said anything about rebooting. It's a CONTINUING franchise, so all you do is recast the roles with new actors as time goes by. Continuity stays the same. You don't need to REBOOT anything.

[MarvelKnight]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

How did the Bond movies get "progressively worse"....?
People got tired of watching each individual Bond grow old and stale on film, and they welcomed each new actor in the role. Although nowadays there's some backlash against some of the actors over the decades, the truth is that Lazenby was the only one who was rejected by audiences *at the time.* Otherwise, the Bond franchise remained (and remains) strong, only faltering if a single actor outlasted his welcome after more than three or so installments. In fact, the Bond franchise is at its strongest point ever with both Craig AND Brosnan, with the last 5 films since 1995 getting PROGRESSIVELY bigger box office.

If the Avengers/MCU model follows Bond's success, well then, that's a very good thing.

I couldn't help but hum the goldeneye theme as I read this particular post. hahah. BOND. JAMES BOND.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Not to get too far off the subject and turn this into a Bond forum, but where exactly is this Bond "reboot" anyway that I keep hearing about....? Yeah, they recast Bond (again, nothing new there at all), and recast M (again, nothing new there at all), and recast Moneypenny (again, nothing new there at all), and recast Q (again, nothing new there at all). Bond has had to readjust post-Cold War, but hell, if we're talking a change in political climate, that already happened wayyy back in the 90s. If there was *any* kind of "reboot" at all, it was with Brosnan, not Craig; and that "reboot" amounts to nothing more than recasting the leads. It's not like Bond is an American now and works for the CIA instead of MI-6....*that* would be a reboot.

Craig Bond made his first two kills onscreen in order to become a 00 agent. They did this in the first five minutes so that everyone would understand immediately that this is not the same character played by any of the previous actors. This is a new person with no history as a 007. This is why he met his old friend Felix Leiter for the first time, among other things. This is why everyone widely refers to Craig's Bond as a reboot, because of the fresh continuity so clearly and often displayed in the new films. There is a significant amount of dialogue and character development you would have had to miss in order to reasonably theorize that he has been through any of the events that Brosnan et al have been through.

Originally Posted by roach

I believe in a theory that "James Bond" is a codename that several spies have had at MI6...which is why you can have several actors who don't resemble each other play 007. It also explains why M was the latest M in the Brosnan series and was the first M in the Craig series.

That doesn't explain why two "different" James Bonds had the same personal relationship with Blofield, or why this theory is never given any credence of any sort in any of the films, no one is ever 'conferred' the title of James Bond, and no one ever mentions that anything has ever happened to the old one, they are happy to see their old friend James, even the other reacast parts, like Leiter. It's a nice Fanon, but nothing more.

And to the topic, do we want Tony Stark to be a title conferred on new people every three to five years?

Originally Posted by KangConquers

The idea that Disney would EVER just make 3 Avengers movies and stop is so laughable.

Think about it. It's an adapted property that's set to break 1.5 Billion dollars in it's first film, with pre-existing stories (read: potential sequels) numbering in the hundreds. It has bigger cash cow potential than any franchise before it. They'd be absolute idiots to stop the Avengers after 3 films.

It's not laughable if the second film doesn't do gangbusters like the first one. They also likely have learned from POTC that just because you can do a fourth one, just because you *can* tell another story doesn't mean that you can tell another story the audience will care about. Also, if you think Avengers comics have hundreds of potential billion dollar movies in them, you're confusing passable stories that keep children interested with great stories that keep everyone interested. I like Avengers as well, but you're really overselling it here. It's not the pinnacle of anything, it's just a solid property that's been executed really well, in the comics world it's not even top ten, critically or commercially, most of the time.

[JB-the-Hunter]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

It's not laughable if the second film doesn't do gangbusters like the first one. They also likely have learned from POTC that just because you can do a fourth one, just because you *can* tell another story doesn't mean that you can tell another story the audience will care about. Also, if you think Avengers comics have hundreds of potential billion dollar movies in them, you're confusing passable stories that keep children interested with great stories that keep everyone interested. I like Avengers as well, but you're really overselling it here. It's not the pinnacle of anything, it's just a solid property that's been executed really well, in the comics world it's not even top ten, critically or commercially, most of the time.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=...caribbean4.htm

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

It's not laughable if the second film doesn't do gangbusters like the first one. They also likely have learned from POTC that just because you can do a fourth one, just because you *can* tell another story doesn't mean that you can tell another story the audience will care about. Also, if you think Avengers comics have hundreds of potential billion dollar movies in them, you're confusing passable stories that keep children interested with great stories that keep everyone interested. I like Avengers as well, but you're really overselling it here. It's not the pinnacle of anything, it's just a solid property that's been executed really well, in the comics world it's not even top ten, critically or commercially, most of the time.

Pirates are a very specific, very limited genre. There's still plenty of billion-dollar life left in POTC, if Gore & Depp desire, but at the end of the day, a POTC5 or 6 is still going to be pretty much the same old story about a drunk pirate of the 18th century carousing the high seas. Avengers, on the other hand, is in a wide-open genre about TONS of characters, and can exist in virtually any nation, setting, planet, dimension, or era you can think of. You could go through ten billion-dollar Avengers films and still not even come *close* to exhausting the possibilities for high-concept storylines.

[PSYLENTGuardian]

Very good point, cherokeesam. From a marketing standpoint, Avengers is made of so much diversity and richness in its characters that it really appeals to everyone.

[xeno000]

Kevin Feige has already stated that Marvel will never reboot its franchises and go back to square one but will instead recast the leads. Since Feige calls the shots, that's how it's going to be.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by JB-the-Hunter

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=...caribbean4.htm

Look at the domestic numbers, compare with the domestics for previous films. But you did get me, I didn't expect it to do so well overseas, and it'd be interesting to know what Disney's overseas deal is, how much of that they actually got back.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Pirates are a very specific, very limited genre. There's still plenty of billion-dollar life left in POTC, if Gore & Depp desire, but at the end of the day, a POTC5 or 6 is still going to be pretty much the same old story about a drunk pirate of the 18th century carousing the high seas. Avengers, on the other hand, is in a wide-open genre about TONS of characters, and can exist in virtually any nation, setting, planet, dimension, or era you can think of. You could go through ten billion-dollar Avengers films and still not even come *close* to exhausting the possibilities for high-concept storylines.

Die Hard is also in a wide open genre, that doesn't mean people will be interested in seeing McClain on Mars. The premise of the franchise is superheroes defending the earth, and if you leave that, you betray your own story. And while Avengers can certainly cycle characters, by the time you go through ten movies... what haven't you covered that's interesting and relevant? Who haven't you included that anyone would care about? If you don't believe me, try pitching "The Avengers are stuck on Skrullos" as a movie to someone or telling them how cool Black Knight is, see how excited they get.

By ten, even six movies, you've deal with magic, time travel, aliens, supertech, cosmic entities, secret organizations, infighting, and had a chance to include everyone from Ant-Man to Wonder Man. So unless you want to rehash one of those plots, or regress a completed character arc, or start headlining the film with Gilgamesh and Swordsman... you've said all that there is to say about the Avengers. Now, in comics, they just regress characters and rehash plots ad nauseum, but that won't keep the interest of the public who will have cool new things to go see.

[PSYLENTGuardian]

Originally Posted by xeno000

Kevin Feige has already stated that Marvel will never reboot its franchises and go back to square one but will instead recast the leads. Since Feige calls the shots, that's how it's going to be.

Plus, we got an example of that with the studio going from Edward Norton to Mark Ruffalo.

[Matt Mortem]

Originally Posted by PSYLENTGuardian

Plus, we got an example of that with the studio going from Edward Norton to Mark Ruffalo.

And that turned out really good IMO. I have no doubts that if they keep making quality pictures that a recast won't be a big deal at all.

[PSYLENTGuardian]

Originally Posted by Matt Mortem

And that turned out really good IMO. I have no doubts that if they keep making quality pictures that a recast won't be a big deal at all.

I'm glad it turned out well, and I'm definitely confident in Marvel Studios and Kevin Feige to make good recasting decisions, if it had to happen.

[Zionite1]

Personally my idea for the MCu phases would be to release an Avengers trilogy then take a break from it and let other marvel team up mvies take its place-Team ups like Gotg.After a trilogy of these team ups then return to the Avengers franchise.Keeps everything fresh.

[Brawl]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Tango

Luke Cage is not Black Panther

lol had a funny old joke to finish this off but ....

[Brawl]

Originally Posted by Big Green

How am I trolling? The Bond box office got bigger cause ticket prices went up. That's the truth with any old movie to new movie box office comparrison. I'm sorry I thought the forum was for disscussion, not just to agree with the "veterans" of the forums.

I'm not a vet but Bronson had some great Bond movies, Craig might be the TFOTM but Moore and Bronsen made great Bond Movies, I mean how can you not like Moonraker?

[The Guard]

Didn't Feige come out and say they were planning at least six Avengers films at some point?

[AvengeME]

I always envision these franchises as six films. Either two trilogies or at least four to five films revolving around the same core characters. As of now I would shoot for 3-4 with this current cast/heroes and maybe 2-3 more films with a much different roster but a continuation of the saga.

Even for Batman, I imagine a sequel trilogy at some point whether Nolan/Bale are involved or not. Spiderman is ****ed because they rebooted it, but they can still make five more films involving that Spiderman. Maybe a crossover with the MCU way down the line.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by xeno000

Kevin Feige has already stated that Marvel will never reboot its franchises and go back to square one but will instead recast the leads. Since Feige calls the shots, that's how it's going to be.

I agree that's their current intention, but the question I have is: will that be successful? They've recast supporting characters and characters from movies that were disliked, but they haven't recast a beloved starring character yet, and proven they could be successful doing so. It'll be interesting to see if they can pull that off.

I think a smarter way to do it would be to have some sort of replacement characters, as the comics have done, until the actors' careers come back down and they're ready to sign new manageable contracts. I think that's part of the reason Sebastian Stan (Bucky) has a 6 movie contract now. If Chris Evans decides now that his career is hot again he doesn't want to resign or wants some obscene amount of money, they can just bring in Bucky Cap, until Evans realizes he's not really all that A-list after all, and then Steve Rogers will return! Same with RDJ, though harder to replace narratively, you do have a War Machine, and other scientists as need be.

[AvengeME]

If it were six movies I would prefer something similar to this:

Avengers 2: Cap, Thor, Iron Man, Ant-Man, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Black Panther vs Ultron.

Avengers 3: Cap, Thor, Iron Man, Vision, Giant-Man, Wasp, Dr. Strange, Black Panther vs Kang/Thanos

Avengers 4: Cap, Giant-Man, Wasp, Ms. Marvel, Hawkeye, Dr. Strange, Falcon, and Vision vs HYDRA/AIM/MODOK.

Avengers 5: Thor, Iron Man, Sentry, Vision, Ms. Marvel, Spider-Woman, Wonder Man vs Korvac

Avengers 6: Spiderman, Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, Ms. Marvel, Spider-Woman vs MoE (Leader, MODOK, Doc Ock/Hop Goblin, Baron Zemo).

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by AvengeME

If it were six movies I would prefer something similar to this:

Avengers 2: Cap, Thor, Iron Man, Ant-Man, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Black Panther vs Ultron.

Avengers 3: Cap, Thor, Iron Man, Vision, Giant-Man, Wasp, Dr. Strange, Black Panther vs Kang/Thanos

Avengers 4: Cap, Giant-Man, Wasp, Ms. Marvel, Hawkeye, Dr. Strange, Falcon, and Vision vs HYDRA/AIM/MODOK.

Avengers 5: Thor, Iron Man, Sentry, Vision, Ms. Marvel, Spider-Woman, Wonder Man vs Korvac

Avengers 6: Spiderman, Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, Ms. Marvel, Spider-Woman vs MoE (Leader, MODOK, Doc Ock/Hop Goblin, Baron Zemo).

So you'd have Kang and Thanos split a movie, but you'd give MODOK his own movie? Can't say I agree with that.

[Picard Sisko]

I really want to see a Secret Wars movie more than anything. However, it will feel empty without Spider-Man.

[DrCosmic]

Hmmm... I don't think the lineup can be predicted after Avengers 3, but as far as main stories, I think a 'trilogy of trilogies' sounds awesome.

Avengers 2: Team Grows together, decides not to separate at end. Family/Friendship theme. Ultron (Ultron Unlimited + Celestial Madonna)
Avengers 3: Team survives without support or infrastructure. Virtue/Perseverance theme. Thanos (Thanos Imperative + Infinity Quest)
Avengers 4: Team deals with true undesirables on the squad. Betrayal/Trust themes. Skrull vs Kree (Secret Invasion + Avengers Disassembled)
Avengers 5: Team splits on ideological differences about their effect on the world. Responsibility/Morality Themes. Masters of Evil. (Thunderbolts + Acts of Vengeance)
Avengers 6: 2 Teams battle each other until they find a solution. Justice/Revenge Themes. Kang (Kang Dynasty + Civil War)
(If Interest Holds)
Avengers 7: Team comes out of retirement. Hope/Idealism themes. Korvacs (Korvacs Saga + Operation Galactic Storm)
Avengers 8: Team mentors the next generation. Change/Maturity Themes. AIM/Hydra (Avengers Initiative + New Avengers)
Avengers 9: Team is chosen to decide the fate of the Universe. Destiny/Fate themes. The Beyonder. (Secret Wars + Avengers Forever)

Over the course of these films, I'd like to see:
Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Luke Cage, Vision, and Ms. Marvel all be involved as Avengers for at least four or five Avengers movies each. I'd also like to see Dr. Strange, Mockingbird, War Machine, Spider-Woman, Sentry, Ronin, Mantis, Falcon and Iron Fist appear as Avengers for one or two films, as needed.

But that's just how I'd do it. You could stretch it out, if you make each movie with fewer cast and a shallower story, but that's not the way to make billion dollar block busters imho.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Die Hard is also in a wide open genre, that doesn't mean people will be interested in seeing McClain on Mars. The premise of the franchise is superheroes defending the earth, and if you leave that, you betray your own story. And while Avengers can certainly cycle characters, by the time you go through ten movies... what haven't you covered that's interesting and relevant? Who haven't you included that anyone would care about? If you don't believe me, try pitching "The Avengers are stuck on Skrullos" as a movie to someone or telling them how cool Black Knight is, see how excited they get.

By ten, even six movies, you've deal with magic, time travel, aliens, supertech, cosmic entities, secret organizations, infighting, and had a chance to include everyone from Ant-Man to Wonder Man. So unless you want to rehash one of those plots, or regress a completed character arc, or start headlining the film with Gilgamesh and Swordsman... you've said all that there is to say about the Avengers. Now, in comics, they just regress characters and rehash plots ad nauseum, but that won't keep the interest of the public who will have cool new things to go see.

C'mon, Doc....are you even listening to yourself....? You're comparing Avengers to Die Hard in terms of storylines to explore: that's not comparing apples to oranges, that's comparing apples to fruit cocktail --- with every fruit known to mankind, and then some.

An action movie franchise like Die Hard is extremely limited in scope, time period, location, central hero and everything else. Character and setting are locked in --- it's going to be John McLane, and it's going to be someplace John McLane is likely to go to. With Avengers, you've got EVERY conceivable spec fic genre and subgenre available (sci-fi, fantasy, horror), and not only the *entirety* of space to explore, but time as well --- and beyond. I could list 100 high concept Avenger film pitches and still not even be scratching the surface of the franchise's potential.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I agree that's their current intention, but the question I have is: will that be successful? They've recast supporting characters and characters from movies that were disliked, but they haven't recast a beloved starring character yet, and proven they could be successful doing so. It'll be interesting to see if they can pull that off.

I think a smarter way to do it would be to have some sort of replacement characters, as the comics have done, until the actors' careers come back down and they're ready to sign new manageable contracts. I think that's part of the reason Sebastian Stan (Bucky) has a 6 movie contract now. If Chris Evans decides now that his career is hot again he doesn't want to resign or wants some obscene amount of money, they can just bring in Bucky Cap, until Evans realizes he's not really all that A-list after all, and then Steve Rogers will return! Same with RDJ, though harder to replace narratively, you do have a War Machine, and other scientists as need be.

WHAT THE --- i don't even --- I mean, you can't....really? Really?

Good lord, Doc, we've had plenty of differences, but this suggestion just takes the cake....replacement heroes??? You want to hire scabs to cross the picket line to fill in for your all-stars....? hoo boy

[Whiskey Tango]

I hear D-Man is always available.

[AvengeME]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

So you'd have Kang and Thanos split a movie, but you'd give MODOK his own movie? Can't say I agree with that.

No. I meant Kang or Thanos. Thanos might be more of a GotG type threat so maybe he just stays in the background in Avengers for quite some time.

By the looks of it, Marvel appears to be going with an EPIC trilogy in the classical sense. Phase I, II, and III. All building up to an Avengers movie. I don't know how I feel about that yet. I think it is pretty limited in scope and would only focus on a core set of characters every time. Not that you can't branch off and spawn other franchises like GotG from that. But Avengers itself might be one trilogy and that's all she wrote.

Obviously we are hardly into Phase II so predicting what happens after Phase III is a stretch. What I think will be inevitable, is that we have to get some sort of conclusion to THIS set of characters. Much like the X-Men trilogy painted itself into a corner, it still provided some closure, whether we liked the fates of those characters or not. Had they gotten X-3 right, no one would be complaining or begging to see more movies (if the quality wasn't going to be as good).

So I think Avengers 2-3 has to provide some closure to Thor/Iron Man/Cap/Fury/Hulk. You can't keep continuing a saga with recasts and rehashes of previously told stories. Thor is obviously a little different because he is a God and potentially indefinite, but that's not the case with Cap, Iron Man, Black Widow, etc. Unless of course you are rebooting which means the hell with everything we just did the past decade.

I see Avengers as an indefinite saga that does not have to paint itself into a corner by getting locked down with the same cast of character. I'd have a 3-4 movie cap on every character as long as we are in this continuity. Whether characters die, get too old and retire, whatever. Just don't rehash characters, stories, and villains. So that's how I see it playing out.

1. Phase I-III. Self contained trilogy leading up to Thanos or Kang.

2. Phase IV-VI. Continuation of Phase III with a new roster. Central characters may return on a limited basis but not all together. I wouldn't include Cap/Thor/IM in every movie because they would overshadow new characters on display. I wouldn't even bring back Iron Man because he'd be too old at this point. Cap for maybe one final appearance if they haven't killed him off at this point (Evans is signed for 6, so maybe bypass Cap 3). Hulk could make selective appearances as could Thor, just not all together. Rosters would be structured similarly:

a. 1-2 key original Avengers for all-star flavor (Hulk, Cap, Thor, Ant-Man, Wasp, Iron Man).
b. Key supporting characters (Captain Mar-Vell, Wonder man, Vision, Sentry, Namor, etc).
c. Reoccurring heroes to fill the Black Widow/Hawkeye roles (Ms. Marvel, Dr. Strange, Black Panther, Falcon, Spider Woman, Iron Fist)

That way you wouldn't have to recast every Avenger all at once. But right now we have another 5-6 years just to finish Phase III. Hopefully they don't royally screw it up and paint themselves into a corner like the X-Men/Spidey franchises.

[cherokeesam]

How did the X-Men paint themselves into a corner, or create closure? The four principals of the "trilogy" --- Charles, Magneto, Mystique and Logan --- are still very much going strong, and still franchise. If the X-films' "Big Four" can still keep going beyond the "trilogy," you can damn sure bet that the Avengers' "Big Four" of Thor, Cap, Tony and Hulk can still pack houses for years (and decades) to come.

Bottom line is: you don't mess with the bottom line. It would be *suicidal* for Marvel to throw away their top marquee players in the Avengers to give a bunch of C-listers and nobodies their fifteen minutes of fame.

It's simple as hell: you do what the Avengers comics has ALWAYS done. There are three core players there --- Cap, Iron Man, and Thor. They are The Big Three. Always have been, always will be. Those of us who have actually *read* Avengers comics loyally in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and/or 10s know damn well that Cap, Iron Man and Thor are (say it with me: ) The...Big....Three. You keep them....you recast them when necessary....and you rotate in other Avengers as their co-stars (three mentors to 4-6 n00bs) with each new installment.

That's the way Stan did it, that's the way America does it, and by god, it's worked pretty well so far.