MCU: Phase II - Part 1

[AvengeME]

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).

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.

While your example with MASH and TV soaps is a good one in comparison to the general discussion of extended timelines, they almost certainly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

One can not compare the TV medium to the cinema medium and take anything from the two. The one exception being Star Trek, but that's the only thing I can think of off the top of my head (because it was the most successful). They blurred that distinction so much that you eventually couldn't tell the difference. It was just Star Trek (but this also devalued the movies by bringing them down to TV level). Tony Stark post Iron Man in a TV series? Nope. Same with the Hulk post gamma radiation.

TV is meant to be a LONG, extended novel. Ebbs and flows, with characters coming and going (many times nowhere). It's meant to drag viewers in and make the characters a part of the viewers' daily lives. It provides tidbits, with compelling drama and entertainment to keep people coming for more tidbits. People care little about a characters' age and continuity when they are so engrossed in them to begin with.

Movies are one sitting. People want a complete story. The full course. Not something that drags on and on an ultimately goes nowhere once viewership declines. So no, people don't want to see Stark doing all the trivial things he may do when off screen. They want to see Stark saving the world on grand occasions. Which brings us to Bond, another character that has seemingly done the same for decades.

And again, the comparison falls short. Note how Bond movies have almost nothing in common. The closest we got was Quantum, which sort of played out as a two part Bond movie. The movies barely reference one another. Characters are constantly changing, as are love interests. It's just another story in a different time and place and only God knows why. Where is that happening with Iron Man? We have gotten Rhodey, Pepper, and Happy in every film and counting. We are seeing a maturation of Tony Stark. A maturation of Pepper Potts. A growth in their relationship. A growth in Tony's relationship with Howard Stark. It doesn't follow the Bond format. It is evolving with the passage of time.

So how on Earth do you run away from continuity and expect audiences to just go with the flow? I don't see it.

[Panther X]

Originally Posted by Markyboy00

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..

In all honesty I think they should save Ant-Man for Phase III. As it stands, the current roster already has two science buffs (in the form of Stark and Banner) on the team, and adding one more may or may not be overkill. I think by the time A3 comes around, either Stark and/or Banner (most likely the latter) would drop out by then leaving room for Hank and Wasp to join.

There's also the added problem of trying to sell the character to audiences. Sure, we've seen some bizzare things in the MCU up to now, from gods, aliens and everything in between, but having people who can actually shrink down to the size of an ant will be an exceptionally tough one to swallow. Then again, I guess that's what the solo outings are for.

[AvengeME]

You need a big name for Ant-Man to give him the attention he deserves. Casting a supporting actor like Simon Pegg will relegate Ant-Man as such, when he is supposed to be a staple Avenger. An actor on RDJ's level will give the character the credence and gravitas he needs from the getgo. Someone like Jason Bateman or on that level at least.

[JB-the-Hunter]

Originally Posted by AvengeME

You need a big name for Ant-Man to give him the attention he deserves. Casting a supporting actor like Simon Pegg will relegate Ant-Man as such, when he is supposed to be a staple Avenger. An actor on RDJ's level will give the character the credence and gravitas he needs from the getgo. Someone like Jason Bateman or on that level at least.

Brad Pitt = Hank

Ashley Green = Janet

[spideyboy_1111]

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..

Ultron

And I know he's more of a fantastic four villain, but molecule man would be great for Pym

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I can't wait for this panel

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by AvengeME

While your example with MASH and TV soaps is a good one in comparison to the general discussion of extended timelines, they almost certainly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

One can not compare the TV medium to the cinema medium and take anything from the two. The one exception being Star Trek, but that's the only thing I can think of off the top of my head (because it was the most successful). They blurred that distinction so much that you eventually couldn't tell the difference. It was just Star Trek (but this also devalued the movies by bringing them down to TV level). Tony Stark post Iron Man in a TV series? Nope. Same with the Hulk post gamma radiation.

TV is meant to be a LONG, extended novel. Ebbs and flows, with characters coming and going (many times nowhere). It's meant to drag viewers in and make the characters a part of the viewers' daily lives. It provides tidbits, with compelling drama and entertainment to keep people coming for more tidbits. People care little about a characters' age and continuity when they are so engrossed in them to begin with.

Movies are one sitting. People want a complete story. The full course. Not something that drags on and on an ultimately goes nowhere once viewership declines. So no, people don't want to see Stark doing all the trivial things he may do when off screen. They want to see Stark saving the world on grand occasions. Which brings us to Bond, another character that has seemingly done the same for decades.

And again, the comparison falls short. Note how Bond movies have almost nothing in common. The closest we got was Quantum, which sort of played out as a two part Bond movie. The movies barely reference one another. Characters are constantly changing, as are love interests. It's just another story in a different time and place and only God knows why. Where is that happening with Iron Man? We have gotten Rhodey, Pepper, and Happy in every film and counting. We are seeing a maturation of Tony Stark. A maturation of Pepper Potts. A growth in their relationship. A growth in Tony's relationship with Howard Stark. It doesn't follow the Bond format. It is evolving with the passage of time.

So how on Earth do you run away from continuity and expect audiences to just go with the flow? I don't see it.

Where exactly do you see Tony Stark "maturing"....? If anything, he was even *more* of an insufferable prick in Avengers than either of the two IM movies. And nobody wants to pay good money to see Tony Stark mature and sober up. The point of franchise heroes (whether super- or otherwise) is that audiences buy into that persona, and they sure as hell don't want to see it changed (hence the lack of an actual personality-altering character arc for franchise heroes like James Bond or Indiana Jones).

Originally Posted by Panther X

In all honesty I think they should save Ant-Man for Phase III. As it stands, the current roster already has two science buffs (in the form of Stark and Banner) on the team, and adding one more may or may not be overkill. I think by the time A3 comes around, either Stark and/or Banner (most likely the latter) would drop out by then leaving room for Hank and Wasp to join.


There's also the added problem of trying to sell the character to audiences. Sure, we've seen some bizzare things in the MCU up to now, from gods, aliens and everything in between, but having people who can actually shrink down to the size of an ant will be an exceptionally tough one to swallow. Then again, I guess that's what the solo outings are for.

Not to single you out, because I've heard the "too many scientists" argument before, but it's not much of a reason to hold Pym (or anyone else) back. There are lots of different branches of science, and it's perfectly acceptable for the Avengers to have many scientists from different disciplines. Stark is an expert in electronics, robotics, and weapons tech; Banner is an expert in physics; Pym is an expert in biochemistry. That gives each a very different specialty, and makes each one unique.

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Originally Posted by Aztec

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!

I thought I read somewhere that they were going to be showing Item 47 at SDCC. Wish I could be there for the panel

[Markyboy00]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

Ultron

And I know he's more of a fantastic four villain, but molecule man would be great for Pym

How is Ultron a Fantastic four villain? I can only remember a few times that Ultron went up against the Fan4.. But many many times that it was Ultron against some form of the Avengers.. I think Ultron is one of the few consistant villains that go up against the Avengers

[Markyboy00]

Originally Posted by DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs

I thought I read somewhere that they were going to be showing Item 47 at SDCC. Wish I could be there for the panel

I might be a Moron.. But.. What is Item 47??

[marcvader]

Originally Posted by Markyboy00

How is Ultron a Fantastic four villain? I can only remember a few times that Ultron went up against the Fan4.. But many many times that it was Ultron against some form of the Avengers.. I think Ultron is one of the few consistant villains that go up against the Avengers

Read it again. Molecule Man an F4 villain.

Item 47 is a MS short film, look it up.

[Markyboy00]

Originally Posted by marcvader

Read it again. Molecule Man an F4 villain.

Item 47 is a MS short film, look it up.

My bad.. I wasnt looking at it right..

[R_Hythlodeus]

Originally Posted by AvengeME

You need a big name for Ant-Man to give him the attention he deserves. Casting a supporting actor like Simon Pegg will relegate Ant-Man as such, when he is supposed to be a staple Avenger. An actor on RDJ's level will give the character the credence and gravitas he needs from the getgo. Someone like Jason Bateman or on that level at least.

How is Simon Pegg not on RDJs level?

[Panther X]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Not to single you out, because I've heard the "too many scientists" argument before, but it's not much of a reason to hold Pym (or anyone else) back. There are lots of different branches of science, and it's perfectly acceptable for the Avengers to have many scientists from different disciplines. Stark is an expert in electronics, robotics, and weapons tech; Banner is an expert in physics; Pym is an expert in biochemistry. That gives each a very different specialty, and makes each one unique.

I can't see the vast majority of people caring about that. Stark and Banner work in two separate areas sure, yet in the film they were both discussing about the same thing, the Tessearct. Let's say a similar situation arises in the sequel, wouldn't the same just happen again in order to show links between them? It's not necessarily bad, but could be overkill when half the superhero team is made up of scientists. It should be more diverse, in and out of action.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by R_Hythlodeus

How is Simon Pegg not on RDJs level?

Judging by last year, I can think of 50 million reasons. However, I think casting A-list talent and turning a minor superhero into an actor vehicle is no replacement for casting for the role and making the best movie possible.

[spideymouse]

Originally Posted by Panther X

I can't see the vast majority of people caring about that. Stark and Banner work in two separate areas sure, yet in the film they were both discussing about the same thing, the Tessearct. Let's say a similar situation arises in the sequel, wouldn't the same just happen again in order to show links between them? It's not necessarily bad, but could be overkill when half the superhero team is made up of scientists. It should be more diverse, in and out of action.

Well, the bigger outcry from the GA would probably be the lack of ethnic diversity in the team.

When it comes to having a third scientist, I wouldn't really mind, given the fact that all three characters are vastly different in personality and value systems. You also solve this problem if you have Ruffalo hanging around as the Hulk more often (out of action), instead of Banner. I think we'd all be for that.

[Hawkingbird]

Originally Posted by JB-the-Hunter

Brad Pitt = Hank

Ashley Green = Janet

Eerryyeaaaahhhhno. No.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

Ultron

And I know he's more of a fantastic four villain, but molecule man would be great for Pym

Molecule Man is WAY too powerful for Pym. He went toe to toe with the Beyonder. It'd be like having Galactus as the Ant-Man villain.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Molecular Manipulation: The Molecule Man possesses the ability to mentally control, transform, and manipulate the molecules of all matter and energy. Owen Reece gained his extraordinary abilities by mutation through exposure to radiation from an experimental particle generator, which (as later revealed) also opened a "pinhole" into the dimension of the Beyonders, irradiating him with the energy that infuses a Cosmic Cube. Through concentration, he projects a psionic-manipulative energy, the precise nature of which is unknown, that alters the arrangement of molecules according to any visualized pattern. He can animate inanimate materials by causing constant mass movement of molecules: for example, he can make a brick building walk. He can rearrange molecules so radically, he can use his power to reconfigure all forms of matter and them into different substances and forms (such as, for example, turning air into glass), and can change matter into energy and back again. He can create force fields and energy blasts, and also open up worm holes through hyperspace and traverse them, thus travelling faster than light. The maximum area he can affect at a single time is not yet known. In the past, however, he has enclosed the entire island of Manhattan in a plexiglass barrier, lifted a 150 billion ton mountain under his own power alone, converted a two-square mile parcel of land into an ornate palace, and, with assistance from the Silver Surfer, affected the entire planet Earth. Once he effects a change in the arrangement of molecules in a quantity of matter, it remains in its new configuration until he consciously changes it back. Even if rendered unconscious, the transformed substances remain. The Molecule Man can even affect the molecules of matter with mystical properties (such as Thor's hammer), matter fashioned by vast cosmic power (the Silver Surfer's surfboard), and matter composed of the most impervious materials devised by man (Captain America's steel alloy-vibranium shield). The process of molecular manipulation does not cause the Molecule Man any more exertion than performing simple arithmetic. Although the energies that gave Owen Reece his powers came from the same power source as the Cosmic Cubes, Owen Reece generally does not use this capability to the same extent as "true" Cosmic Cubes do, limiting himself to manipulation of "mere" matter and energy. Regardless he has been able to effortlessly recreate an entire galaxy even in his regular state, and on a later occasion unleashed his 'darkest aspect', which possessed sufficient might to fight, and overpower, the Beyonder in a more than 3-dimensional battle, which in turn was claimed by Kubik to be far less than his full potential.

Not someone you have go against a guy who talks to Ants.

I think the best bet for Pym is Whirlwind, or some other old Master of Evil. There are tons of Cap or Iron Man villains that could be borrowed.

[JB-the-Hunter]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

Eerryyeaaaahhhhno. No.

I wasn't serious, just throwing something out there...

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Originally Posted by Markyboy00

I might be a Moron.. But.. What is Item 47??

Item 47 is the new one shot short film about the aftermath of the chitari technology leftover from the invasion in NY. It's going to be included on the blu-ray of TA

[AvengeME]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Where exactly do you see Tony Stark "maturing"....? If anything, he was even *more* of an insufferable prick in Avengers than either of the two IM movies. And nobody wants to pay good money to see Tony Stark mature and sober up. The point of franchise heroes (whether super- or otherwise) is that audiences buy into that persona, and they sure as hell don't want to see it changed (hence the lack of an actual personality-altering character arc for franchise heroes like James Bond or Indiana Jones).

Tony settling down in a more serious relationship is maturing. Tony seeing his father in a different light is maturing. This is currently happening in this franchise.

Indiana Jones sort of proves my point, because the character is stuck in the 40's-60's and he ages accordingly, dating back to the young Indiana Jones TV series. He is not updated to fit a future era. That is how I see this franchise playing out. Not like Bond where they are telling a new story/take on the character every time.

[marcvader]

Originally Posted by AvengeME

Tony settling down in a more serious relationship is maturing. Tony seeing his father in a different light is maturing. This is currently happening in this franchise.

Indiana Jones sort of proves my point, because the character is stuck in the 40's-60's and he ages accordingly, dating back to the young Indiana Jones TV series. He is not updated to fit a future era. That is how I see this franchise playing out. Not like Bond where they are telling a new story/take on the character every time.

That certainly is a preference not a certainty.

[Joeyjojo72]

Actually James Bond changed quite a bit in the course of Casino Royale. But the Bond movies are a terrible analogy to these films for the reasons already stated. Different animals. I do think the current movies (as long as Craig is attached) will show some level of continuity for the character that didnt exist in previous eras.

And Tony definitely has matured, he just isnt used to working as part of a team, especially a team where hes not calling all the shots. He's still a control freak, but the fact is that by the end of TA he accepted Cap as the leader of the team. Also hes in a committed relationship with someone he respects. Thats also new.

And the Indy movies/shows are also completely different because theyre not even chronological. Temple is a prequel to Raiders and the show is of course him as a kid. Maturing isnt really an option.

[spideymouse]

Originally Posted by Joeyjojo72

Actually James Bond changed quite a bit in the course of Casino Royale. But the Bond movies are a terrible analogy to these films for the reasons already stated. Different animals.

And Tony definitely has matured, he just isnt used to working as part of a team, especially a team where hes not calling all the shots. He's still a control freak, but the fact is that by the end of TA he accepted Cap as the leader of the team. Also hes in a committed relationship with someone he respects. Thats also new.

He also learned to make the sacrifice play, to lay himself on the wire and let the other guy step over him, to be a real hero and not just fight for himself. Tony's was the biggest character arc in The Avengers.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Joeyjojo72

Actually James Bond changed quite a bit in the course of Casino Royale. But the Bond movies are a terrible analogy to these films for the reasons already stated. Different animals.

And Tony definitely has matured, he just isnt used to working as part of a team, especially a team where hes not calling all the shots. He's still a control freak, but the fact is that by the end of TA he accepted Cap as the leader of the team. Also hes in a committed relationship with someone he respects. Thats also new.

Really? When did that happen?
I saw Cap giving orders to everyone *except* Iron Man, who was off doing his own thing. I think Whedon made it perfectly clear by the end of the movie that the divide still exists between Tony and Steve, even if there's a brothers-in-arms kind of truce going on right now.