MCU: Phase II - Part 1

[MrAnonymous]

How about for Phase 2 we get this:

Iron Man 3 - 2013
Thor II - 2013
Captain America 2 - 2014
Guardians of the Galaxy - 2014
Black Panther - 2015
Hulk 2 - 2015
Ant-Man - 2015
Avengers 2 - 2016

It gives us two more films than Phase One. Guardians can bea way of keeping Thanos involved without him being the villain in A2 where Ultron could be the smaller more personal villain

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by MrAnonymous

How about for Phase 2 we get this:

Iron Man 3 - 2013
Thor II - 2013
Captain America 2 - 2014
Guardians of the Galaxy - 2014
Black Panther - 2015
Hulk 2 - 2015
Ant-Man - 2015
Avengers 2 - 2016

It gives us two more films than Phase One. Guardians can bea way of keeping Thanos involved without him being the villain in A2 where Ultron could be the smaller more personal villain

So you'd rather Thanos not show up again until A3, which, by your 4-year intervals, would be 2020....? A six-year break between Thanos appearances....? Why even bother....?

I think a more realistic look at Phase II shakes out as:

2013: IM3, Thor 2
2014: CA2, GOTG, Ant-Man
2015: Avengers 2, plus one other film before that (possibly BP, Hulk 2, Dr. Strange)

Have Thanos make a cameo in Thor 2 (face it, Avengers almost *requires* that Thanos and Loki "settle up" in some fashion), be the major baddie in GOTG, and have a climactic confrontation with the Avengers in TA2.

[DrCosmic]

I do want to point out with the floating/sliding timelines that there are two separate concepts. One is the idea of a Relative Timeline like the MCU and Star Wars Have. Events occur at a distinct separation of time from a starting point, ie IM1+2 or the 10 years before the Battle of Yavin 4. This works when/since the actual date is indistinguishable from the implied date, so no one ever notices that time is not concrete, no continuity questions arise.

The other concept is Comic Book Time, where time passes differently for different characters, and the passage of time is generally an illusion. Kids age into adults and their parents and mentors remain the same age. Someone may say it's been 12 years since the heroes first debuted, but We've experienced 30 Christmas Episodes/Issues. You see this in cartoons, soaps and long running comedies on TV, where continuity questions are never asked because they are not expected to be taken seriously. Notably, James Bond was able to employ it in previous decades with less cynical audiences, however Bond's aging became part of the story with Brosnan's Bond, because modern audiences care about such things, and then of course the whole thing had to be rebooted with a more serious take on continuity, necessary for gripping character development.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I do want to point out with the floating/sliding timelines that there are two separate concepts. One is the idea of a Relative Timeline like the MCU and Star Wars Have. Events occur at a distinct separation of time from a starting point, ie IM1+2 or the 10 years before the Battle of Yavin 4. This works when/since the actual date is indistinguishable from the implied date, so no one ever notices that time is not concrete, no continuity questions arise.

The other concept is Comic Book Time, where time passes differently for different characters, and the passage of time is generally an illusion. Kids age into adults and their parents and mentors remain the same age. Someone may say it's been 12 years since the heroes first debuted, but We've experienced 30 Christmas Episodes/Issues. You see this in cartoons, soaps and long running comedies on TV, where continuity questions are never asked because they are not expected to be taken seriously. Notably, James Bond was able to employ it in previous decades with less cynical audiences, however Bond's aging became part of the story with Brosnan's Bond, because modern audiences care about such things, and then of course the whole thing had to be rebooted with a more serious take on continuity, necessary for gripping character development.

Why would you assume that M*A*S*H* wasn't taken seriously? Or ask the soap fans if they take Days of Our Lives or whatever seriously. TBH, I never once saw anyone question Bond continuity (or lack thereof).

It's willing suspension of disbelief, and I think it's kind of ridiculous to think that general audiences (unlike us fanboys) would get all serious about timelines and continuity in a genre that is patently fantasy to begin with.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Why would you assume that M*A*S*H* wasn't taken seriously?

Or ask the soap fans if they take Days of Our Lives or whatever seriously. TBH, I never once saw anyone question Bond continuity (or lack thereof).

Soap fans may take their viewing seriously, but they don't take the storylines seriously, unless they are naive psychopaths. And while no one questioned James Bond's continuity, as they had grown up with it, you did see people stop caring about James Bond because they had no reason to.

It's willing suspension of disbelief, and I think it's kind of ridiculous to think that general audiences (unlike us fanboys) would get all serious about timelines and continuity in a genre that is patently fantasy to begin with.

All suspension of disbelief is not equal. There's a great difference between radioactive spiders and characters not being affected by their previous experiences.

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Can't wait for news from SDCC! Marvel is gonna blow us away with phase II

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Does anyone know when the Marvel panel is?

[Markyboy00]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

No, it doesn't. As Spideymouse said, sliding timelines have been par for the course in both comic books and long-running TV shows forever, and nobody has ever questioned the aging factor. Case in point: the Korean War lasted less than 3 years, while M*A*S*H* lasted 11 years.

MCU time =/= real time. Again: that's why they don't use real dates in the Marvel movies (other than 1942, in CATFA).

And dont forget.. Bart Simpson has been in the fourth grade for the last 15 years..

[Markyboy00]

I wasnt sure.. I just new it was for awhile

[MrAnonymous]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

So you'd rather Thanos not show up again until A3, which, by your 4-year intervals, would be 2020....? A six-year break between Thanos appearances....? Why even bother....?

I think a more realistic look at Phase II shakes out as:

2013: IM3, Thor 2
2014: CA2, GOTG, Ant-Man
2015: Avengers 2, plus one other film before that (possibly BP, Hulk 2, Dr. Strange)

Have Thanos make a cameo in Thor 2 (face it, Avengers almost *requires* that Thanos and Loki "settle up" in some fashion), be the major baddie in GOTG, and have a climactic confrontation with the Avengers in TA2.

The reason I don't want Thanos as the villain in A2 is because I feel like A3 should end that arc for Thanos since it started with A1. Besides by A3 they could possibly kill off a major character by the hand of Thanos and get away with it.
And I never said Thanos would not appear in other films in Phase III.

[Lord]

Originally Posted by MrAnonymous

How about for Phase 2 we get this:

Iron Man 3 - 2013
Thor II - 2013
Captain America 2 - 2014
Guardians of the Galaxy - 2014
Black Panther - 2015
Hulk 2 - 2015
Ant-Man - 2015
Avengers 2 - 2016

It gives us two more films than Phase One. Guardians can bea way of keeping Thanos involved without him being the villain in A2 where Ultron could be the smaller more personal villain

That would be the perfect choice in my opinion.

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I just can't wait for all this Marvel goodness. It has me excited. Here's hoping we get some big news from SDCC

[Aztec]

Originally Posted by DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs

Does anyone know when the Marvel panel is?

Saturday at 6pm Pacific time. It's the Iron Man 3 panel. Expect Iron Man 3 info, Item 47 info, Guardians of the Galaxy (rumored), and the Phase II lineup. Very exciting indeed!

[Lord]

They're going to reveal the release dates of all their Phase II movies or just the 2014 ones?

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Lord

They're going to reveal the release dates of all their Phase II movies or just the 2014 ones?

One would think they'd lay out phase II...Announcing Guardians of the Galaxy alone is kind of small beans.

I'm hoping we get titles, dates, and directors for all Phase II movies.

[Aztec]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

One would think they'd lay out phase II...Announcing Guardians of the Galaxy alone is kind of small beans.

I'm hoping we get titles, dates, and directors for all Phase II movies.

That would be awesome but I'm not sure about the directors part. At least not for Guardians.

As of now it looks like Phase II is gong to be:

Iron Man 3
Thor 2
Captain America 2
Guardians of the Galaxy
Marvel's The Avengers 2

Of course Marvel can still throw a curveball or two in there.

[Lord]

I dunno, Joss Whedon talked about wanting Avengers 2 to be smaller, Ultron as a villain would fit that, and for that to happen Ant-Man needs to happen in Phase II, not to mention that latelly there have been some things making it clear that it will happen soon, like them saying to keep attention to Edgar Wright's tweets and a couple of well dressed guys searching for Ant-Man comics in a comic shop near the studios.

And Marvel seemed interested in making a Hulk sequel with a possible 2015 release date.

[Aztec]

Originally Posted by Lord

I dunno, Joss Whedon talked about wanting Avengers 2 to be smaller, Ultron as a villain would fit that, and for that to happen Ant-Man needs to happen in Phase II, not to mention that latelly there have been some things making it clear that it will happen soon, like them saying to keep attention to Edgar Wright's tweets and a couple of well dressed guys searching for Ant-Man comics in a comic shop near the studios.

And Marvel seemed interested in making a Hulk sequel with a possible 2015 release date.

Marvel could certainly surprise us on Saturday, but I think the chances of Ant-Man are slim to none at this point. They seem very early in the process and by all signs there is some hesitation at some level. Exactly why or what is causing this I don't know; but it's definitely there.

As for Hulk Marvel may have to realize that Hulk simply works better in an ensemble film. Why? Because when he's a solo star the entire audience is rooting AGAINST the interests of Bruce Banner throughout the film. Banner wants to stay calm and in control and everyone in the audience wants him raged up and on a rampage. This works real well in a save the day/team type scenario, ala Avengers, but not so well when it's just him. Don't get me wrong I loved TIH and it worked as a different sort of film: scared freak on the run. But Hulk is a hero (thanks to Whedon/Ruffalo's development of the character beyond Norton's take) now and I just don't see that translating well in a solo film.

I personally would love to see a Stark/Banner team up film. Their chemistry was outstanding in Avengers.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Lord

I dunno, Joss Whedon talked about wanting Avengers 2 to be smaller, Ultron as a villain would fit that, and for that to happen Ant-Man needs to happen in Phase II, not to mention that latelly there have been some things making it clear that it will happen soon, like them saying to keep attention to Edgar Wright's tweets and a couple of well dressed guys searching for Ant-Man comics in a comic shop near the studios.

And Marvel seemed interested in making a Hulk sequel with a possible 2015 release date.

- Every single sign has pointed to Thanos being in Avengers 2. Ultron will not be the villain.
- Kevin Fiege has stated that if they start Ant-Man it will be a 3rd film in 2014, not occupy the second spot.
- There's no reason a Hulk 2 couldn't occur after Avengers 2, during phase 3.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I take it you never watched MASH, then.
If you think Klinger was just cross-dressing to get some yuks, you don't know a thing about that show. Despite the laughs, MASH was high drama in every episode.

[Panther X]

The way I see it, Disney and Marvel are not going to wait more than 3 years until they release a sequel to their biggest film to date. Yes, these solo outings can build up anticipation, but as a company who's goal is to make money, they know what audiences want, and they'll be sure to give it to them as soon as possible. Here's how I think it will plan out:

2013:
Iron Man 3
Thor 2

2014:
Captain America 2
Guardians of the Galaxy

2015:
The Avengers (End of Phase II)
Ant-Man

I can see them focusing most of their efforts on The Avengers 2 in 2015. The predecessor has been the only film released by them this year, and Ant-Man has been in development for a while, it shouldn't take too much away from it.

Ant-Man would effectively begin Phase III of the MCU where they will release sequels to both Thor and Captain America the year after. In 2017 they might make a sequel to Iron Man but with a new cast (for 2017). Depending on the success of GotG, a sequel may be released in 2017 too.

[Markyboy00]

Originally Posted by Panther X

The way I see it, Disney and Marvel are not going to wait more than 3 years until they release a sequel to their biggest film to date. Yes, these solo outings can build up anticipation, but as a company who's goal is to make money, they know what audiences want, and they'll be sure to give it to them as soon as possible. Here's how I think it will plan out:

2013:
Iron Man 3
Thor 2

2014:
Captain America 2
Guardians of the Galaxy

2015:
The Avengers (End of Phase II)
Ant-Man

I can see them focusing most of their efforts on The Avengers 2 in 2015. The predecessor has been the only film released by them this year, and Ant-Man has been in development for a while, it shouldn't take too much away from it.

Ant-Man would effectively begin Phase III of the MCU where they will release sequels to both Thor and Captain America the year after. In 2017 they might make a sequel to Iron Man but with a new cast (for 2017). Depending on the success of GotG, a sequel may be released in 2017 too.

I think Ant-Man being phaseII or PhaseIII might be depended upon who they want to be the main villain in A2.. A hero like Ant-man will do very little against Thanos physically, but the brains of Hank Pym might be a big help.. My opinion, if they want Thanos to be the main villain in A2 then Ant-man would be a great start for phase3(with a cameo role in A2).. If they hold off the final showdown with Thanos until A3 and have a different villain in A2, then have Ant-Man come out as Phase2(show Pym working on Ultron).. Then have him a main character A2 agianst an all powerful and evil Ultron..

[Markyboy00]

And could someone tell me who some of Ant-Man(Hank Pym) Main villains are? I'm not too aware of many of Pyms solo exploits except, I know him more as a scientist and as a West Coast Avenger..

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Markyboy00

And could someone tell me who some of Ant-Man(Hank Pym) Main villains are? I'm not too aware of many of Pyms solo exploits except, I know him more as a scientist and as a West Coast Avenger..

That's just it....Ant-Man isn't really a solo character. Yeah, Eric O'Grady has had a miniseries in recent years, and Hank and Janet started out as two of many pulp-ish heroes in one of Marvel's early pulp comics, Tales to Astonish. But Hank Pym and Scott Lang are known almost 99.99% as Avengers instead of solo acts, so you can't really say either has "villains," per se.

Ultron is the closest thing Pym has to a true nemesis who was created specifically by him, and as an archenemy for him by Marvel writers.

[Markyboy00]

Thats what I thought.. But I think Ultron is too big of a villain to leave to just an Ant-Man movie, but he's absolutly perfect for a baddie against the Avengers.. SO mant different possibilities and angles that they could take it with Ultron.. Even looking way into the future linking him with GotG like they did with the Phlanax(awesome story)