The (potential) Masters of Evil thread

[The Question]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

That does sound interesting, very TDK-ish, but I don't think you can use them in Avengers 2 or 3 without them being Thanos related, and I think that can still be their motivation even if they are Thanos related. And everything other than him personally putting hands on the Avengers is using a proxy, there's plenty room to present something different in that gap. Just because Thanos gives them a push, or a leader doesn't mean that they're using his weapons and army to achieve his goals, for instance.

Why not? Just conclude Thanos' story in Avengers 2 and have the Masters of Evil be a different story in Avengers 3.

Maybe it's just me, but all these ideas to have Thanos be involved from behind the scenes seem to exist solely to rationalize Thanos being involved with the Masters so everything could be tied together. If Thanos takes a direct, active interest in the Earth then I don't see him working through proxies anymore, I see him getting his hands dirty. That's the kind of guy he is. Plus, his goals would completely overshadow those of anyone working for him if he were actually in the movie. I don't see how it's necessary for Thanos to have a connection to the MoE and it would probably work better if he didn't.

[DrCosmic]

It's more than just tying everything together it's "If Thanos doesn't get ended in Avengers 2 who are the Avengers going to defeat in Avengers 2?" Which, based on what we know about Trilogies and the clues Marvel has given about the culminations of Phase II and III coming from the build up of Phase II, it seems a very valid supposition.

And while Thanos may not work from behind the scenes anymore, he actually doesn't get his hands dirty until the climax, from what I've seen of him, as he runs a big giant empire. He fields others, both from his army and from Earth to do things for him as often as not.

The MoE, just happen to be the convenient thing for him to field vs more Chitauri or Ultron or Kang or any other Avengers villain. Would his goals overshadow those of the MoE? Absolutely. I think that's acceptable, because the MoE still carries the personal motivation angle, while Thanos is a relatively indifferent philosophical enemy. I think that works at least as well as the MoE being both the personal and philosophical enemies. Plus, it's not like the "real" MoE can't be done with Zemo later.

[Duran Man]

I just wish Marvel wasn't going cosmic with Thanos, but it is what it is.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

It's more than just tying everything together it's "If Thanos doesn't get ended in Avengers 2 who are the Avengers going to defeat in Avengers 2?" Which, based on what we know about Trilogies and the clues Marvel has given about the culminations of Phase II and III coming from the build up of Phase II, it seems a very valid supposition.

And while Thanos may not work from behind the scenes anymore, he actually doesn't get his hands dirty until the climax, from what I've seen of him, as he runs a big giant empire. He fields others, both from his army and from Earth to do things for him as often as not.

The MoE, just happen to be the convenient thing for him to field vs more Chitauri or Ultron or Kang or any other Avengers villain. Would his goals overshadow those of the MoE? Absolutely. I think that's acceptable, because the MoE still carries the personal motivation angle, while Thanos is a relatively indifferent philosophical enemy. I think that works at least as well as the MoE being both the personal and philosophical enemies. Plus, it's not like the "real" MoE can't be done with Zemo later.

This is all based on the assumption that Thanos will be in the films past 2. I don't see any reason to assume that. Trilogies do tend to have one story that ties all three films together, but the character of Thanos doesn't have to be that binding element. The movie seemed to be a lot more about the Avengers themselves than the threat they faced. I see no reason to drag out Thanos' story beyond the second film.

[I'm Venom]

I don't see why Thanos needs to be saved for 3. You could go from him to someone else if it's set up properly. There are lots of villains to use and lots of ways they can top Thanos, given their versatility, but I'm superbly excited to see Thanos in Avengers 2 because the storyline will be more exciting than the first movie, and so should the action.

[DrCosmic]

I don't think Thanos needs to be "saved" for 3, either. I think he should be in 2 and 3, like a sort of Palpatine/Voldemort/Sauron. Me personally, I'd like to see Thanos go from behind the scenes manipulator in Avengers 1, to Conquering General in Avengers 2 to Omnipotent god in Avengers 3. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by The Question

This is all based on the assumption that Thanos will be in the films past 2. I don't see any reason to assume that. Trilogies do tend to have one story that ties all three films together, but the character of Thanos doesn't have to be that binding element. The movie seemed to be a lot more about the Avengers themselves than the threat they faced. I see no reason to drag out Thanos' story beyond the second film.

I don't think the main character(s) of a franchise can be the binding element of a trilogy. Or at least, they can't serve the same role in terms of scope, buildup/payoff and metaphor that a trilogy-wide villain can. And the Avengers existed entirely because of the threat they faced, which is precisely Thanos. The two don't separate, thematically. Imagine if Lucas hadn't dragged out Palpatine and Vader to Return of the Jedi?

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I don't think Thanos needs to be "saved" for 3, either. I think he should be in 2 and 3, like a sort of Palpatine/Voldemort/Sauron. Me personally, I'd like to see Thanos go from behind the scenes manipulator in Avengers 1, to Conquering General in Avengers 2 to Omnipotent god in Avengers 3. But that's just me.



I don't think the main character(s) of a franchise can be the binding element of a trilogy. Or at least, they can't serve the same role in terms of scope, buildup/payoff and metaphor that a trilogy-wide villain can. And the Avengers existed entirely because of the threat they faced, which is precisely Thanos. The two don't separate, thematically. Imagine if Lucas hadn't dragged out Palpatine and Vader to Return of the Jedi?

No, the Avengers don't exist because of Thanos. They exist because Fury needed a group to face threats that SHIELD couldn't....his own words. And specifically, they were called together to face Loki, *not* Thanos. Nobody in the Avengers even knows Thanos exists at this point.

And no, as The Question said, there's no evidence whatsoever that Thanos is a "trilogy-wide villain," nor any evidence whatsoever that there's a trilogy at all, despite your insistence to the contrary. As soon as you find actual proof that Feige has declared the same limited vision and scope for this franchise that you espouse, feel free to say "I toldja so." Otherwise, you need to just accept the fact that you're just making assumptions and astounding jumps to conclusions.

[I'm Venom]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I don't think Thanos needs to be "saved" for 3, either. I think he should be in 2 and 3, like a sort of Palpatine/Voldemort/Sauron. Me personally, I'd like to see Thanos go from behind the scenes manipulator in Avengers 1, to Conquering General in Avengers 2 to Omnipotent god in Avengers 3. But that's just me.

I don't believe in the trilogy theory. Yeah, George Lucas did it, but that doesn't mean Marvel has to.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by I'm Venom

I don't believe in the trilogy theory. Yeah, George Lucas did it, but that doesn't mean Marvel has to.

Not even if they're both owned by the same company now...?

But yeah, the big difference is that with a trilogy, that concept is set up from the very beginning. SW was *designed* to be a finite series with a beginning, middle and end, and the very first crawl clearly showed that. As do all other trilogies, tetralogies, or any other franchise with a definite ending in mind. With the MCU, all we see is a bunch of individual franchises loosely tied together once per phase in an Avenger party.

[jaqua99]

what we got is what Fiege said. It can be taken as Thanos will be around in phase 3.

It can be taken as the fall of thanos will have something to do with the phase 3 villain.

Right now, since he hasn't said if thanos will be around or not, there is an equal chance from our perspective as to whether or not he will be in phase 3. So we can't really be just saying people are assuming things and pulling it out of thin air. Cause saying thanos WON'T be in phase 3 is the same thing.

It can go either way at the moment, so I think we should agree to disagree on that and keep our mouths shut

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

No, the Avengers don't exist because of Thanos. They exist because Fury needed a group to face threats that SHIELD couldn't....his own words. And specifically, they were called together to face Loki, *not* Thanos. Nobody in the Avengers even knows Thanos exists at this point.

And no, as The Question said, there's no evidence whatsoever that Thanos is a "trilogy-wide villain," nor any evidence whatsoever that there's a trilogy at all, despite your insistence to the contrary. As soon as you find actual proof that Feige has declared the same limited vision and scope for this franchise that you espouse, feel free to say "I toldja so." Otherwise, you need to just accept the fact that you're just making assumptions and astounding jumps to conclusions.

... didn't Thanos send Loki? So how is Thanos not the problem? And how was Thanos/Loki not the threat that the Avengers were put together to face?

And while I enjoy your rants, the burden of proof is on you. Since you don't have a quote where Feige says Thanos' story is going to end in Avengers 2, perhaps there are some things you need to accept.

Originally Posted by I'm Venom

I don't believe in the trilogy theory. Yeah, George Lucas did it, but that doesn't mean Marvel has to.

I don't think Marvel has to either, I think that's what they're doing. I think it's proven successful for others and will for them as well. I think that's why most actors are given Six-Movie deals, so they can be included in a solo trilogy and an Avengers trilogy. Even Sam Jackson started with a 9 movie deal. I don't think Marvel has been making movie deals in 3s arbitrarily.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Not even if they're both owned by the same company now...?

But yeah, the big difference is that with a trilogy, that concept is set up from the very beginning. SW was *designed* to be a finite series with a beginning, middle and end, and the very first crawl clearly showed that. As do all other trilogies, tetralogies, or any other franchise with a definite ending in mind. With the MCU, all we see is a bunch of individual franchises loosely tied together once per phase in an Avenger party.

And yet here we are talking about Star Wars episodes 7-12 - based on the designer's notes, no less. This idea of finite vs "unlimited" series, especially with the idea of a trilogy being the separator between them is silly. Star Wars is an infinite series of trilogies (so far), as designed, Avengers may very well be the same.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

... didn't Thanos send Loki? So how is Thanos not the problem? And how was Thanos/Loki not the threat that the Avengers were put together to face?

Nope. Thanos did *not* send Loki. Loki wanted Earth for himself, and he went to Thanos to ask for an army. Loki was just a fortuitous accident for Thanos.

Again: nobody in the MCU other than Loki knows about Thanos at this point. As far as Fury, the Avengers, and the rest of the world are concerned, the entirety of that movie is about Loki materializing at the JDEM lab, stealing the Cube, raising an alien army, and getting his ass kicked. There's no "Thanos" in that equation whatsoever, from an earthly perspective.

And while I enjoy your rants, the burden of proof is on you. Since you don't have a quote where Feige says Thanos' story is going to end in Avengers 2, perhaps there are some things you need to accept.

Where's your quote that Feige says there's going to be a trilogy, or that Thanos will be in Phase 3? There's exactly the same "burden of proof" on me that there is on you, pal. That's what you need to accept.

[I'm Venom]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I don't think Marvel has to either, I think that's what they're doing. I think it's proven successful for others and will for them as well. I think that's why most actors are given Six-Movie deals, so they can be included in a solo trilogy and an Avengers trilogy. Even Sam Jackson started with a 9 movie deal. I don't think Marvel has been making movie deals in 3s arbitrarily.

Jumping ahead a bit, don't you think? The second movie isn't even finished, and you're talking about its sequel. I can only imagine we'll get some more hints with upcoming movies; it's pretty early to really tell what they're going to do.

Seeing Thanos in Avengers 3 would be cool, but I'm hoping to see the Masters of Evil with Baron Zemo.

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Nope. Thanos did *not* send Loki. Loki wanted Earth for himself, and he went to Thanos to ask for an army. Loki was just a fortuitous accident for Thanos.

Again: nobody in the MCU other than Loki knows about Thanos at this point. As far as Fury, the Avengers, and the rest of the world are concerned, the entirety of that movie is about Loki materializing at the JDEM lab, stealing the Cube, raising an alien army, and getting his ass kicked. There's no "Thanos" in that equation whatsoever, from an earthly perspective.



Where's your quote that Feige says there's going to be a trilogy, or that Thanos will be in Phase 3? There's exactly the same "burden of proof" on me that there is on you, pal. That's what you need to accept.

Sam, it can be seen from both points. There is no burdon of proof for either right now, as I said, fiege's quote can be interpreted both ways. Until something is confirmed, we should be acting like smart asses and know it alls, cause none of us is more right than the other.

So I say, outside of JUST speaking our opinion, we should let this go.

And I don't think Loki went to Thanos. You are jumping all over the place. Didn't you say you thought Thanos set Loki up for failure? So he can get the tesseract back in asgard, so he can infiltrate and and retrieve the gauntlet? Now you are saying Loki decided to go to Thanos?

Personally I believe that Thanos found Loki, lost. Said to him (with his true motive in mind), well, pursuaded him with power, and rule, to take the tesseract from earth. Do this for me, and you will have power, and I will give you the army.

That's the point of thanos being the one pulling Loki's strings. No?

Make up your mind dude lol It's hard to get a read on your opinion sometimes lol

Originally Posted by I'm Venom

Jumping ahead a bit, don't you think? The second movie isn't even finished, and you're talking about its sequel. I can only imagine we'll get some more hints with upcoming movies; it's pretty early to really tell what they're going to do.

Seeing Thanos in Avengers 3 would be cool, but I'm hoping to see the Masters of Evil with Baron Zemo.

See, my gut tells me that is going to happen in avengers 2. Zemo most likely is going to be around in phase 2. And apparently thanos will have a presence in all these movies. according to the leaks.

Here is my opinion on what is going to happen. don't jump at me, cause its just an opinion.

Personally, I think that the reason for all these villains being introduced is because they are somehow going to creat an MCU version of the MoE, assembled by Thanos. and the MoE will be the ones who the avengers "fight" in the second movie. Thanos will still be in it. He will be a frequently appearing character, but his motives, or even presence, or even existance is still unknown till say, the end of the movie.

With Ironman 3 introducing manderin, radioactive man, Cap 2 introducing Crossbones, and who ever is pulling his strings (probably zemo) thor introducing malekith, and kurse (though both will probably die) and we still have the abomination.

So lets look at all the villains being introduced in phase 2. Assuming the rumors are true. Assumimg.

Manderin, radioactive man, Winter Solider, Cross Bones, Baron Zemo, Surtur, Malekith, Kurse,

plus villains we already have, Abomination, "The Other"

some of these villains very well could be used for a masters of evil type thing, recruited by thanos for whatever reason, guys like, radioactive man, Manderin, Crossbones, Zemo, maybe Kurse, pluss the abomination.

The fact that all these characters are being introduced, and if Thanos is suppose to have a role in the whole of these movies as said, that leads me to believe that there will be some type of team to fight the avengers. Resulting in Thanos getting..something..which will lead to an infinity gauntlet avengers 3.

That right now is how I see it playing out. It's just my opinion, but based on what I have derrived this opinion from, if anyone says that it is illogical, you are just being ignorant

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

Sam, it can be seen from both points. There is no burdon of proof for either right now, as I said, fiege's quote can be interpreted both ways. Until something is confirmed, we should be acting like smart asses and know it alls, cause none of us is more right than the other.

So I say, outside of JUST speaking our opinion, we should let this go.

I'm perfectly fine with speaking opinions, as long as we realize they're just that right now. Doc is the one trying to say The Question's theories are wrong because they don't jibe with *his* opinion about a Thanos Trilogy.

And I don't think Loki went to Thanos. You are jumping all over the place. Didn't you say you thought Thanos set Loki up for failure? So he can get the tesseract back in asgard, so he can infiltrate and and retrieve the gauntlet? Now you are saying Loki decided to go to Thanos?

Personally I believe that Thanos found Loki, lost. Said to him (with his true motive in mind), well, pursuaded him with power, and rule, to take the tesseract from earth. Do this for me, and you will have power, and I will give you the army.

That's the point of thanos being the one pulling Loki's strings. No?

Make up your mind dude lol It's hard to get a read on your opinion sometimes lol

It's not hard to figure out my theory at all, nor is it contradictory. Look: Loki vanishes into the cosmos at the end of Thor. During his travels through the void, he winds up literally on the doorstep of Thanos, who he may or may not know from Adam's housecat. In any event, his plan to take Earth was already hatched by the end of Thor --- if Thor was going to rule Asgard, Loki was going to rule Midgard. So Thanos and Loki made a deal....Thanos gave him an army in return for the Cube. At least that's what Thanos tells Loki; in reality, he's manipulating him into unwittingly opening the "back door" to Asgard and Odin's Treasury.

Taking over Earth was always Loki's idea, not Thanos'. Thanos doesn't give a **** about a podunk planet like Earth. (Yet.) All Thanos wanted was to get his Glove back, so Loki's arrival was nothing more than wonderful serendipity that Thanos took full advantage of.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by I'm Venom

Jumping ahead a bit, don't you think? The second movie isn't even finished, and you're talking about its sequel. I can only imagine we'll get some more hints with upcoming movies; it's pretty early to really tell what they're going to do.

Seeing Thanos in Avengers 3 would be cool, but I'm hoping to see the Masters of Evil with Baron Zemo.

Well... it'd be a lot easier not to look ahead if they hadn't hinted at the conclusion of Phase III already. I really couldn't have cared less before they started talking about it. At the end of the day though, I can't say I'd mind Zemo in Cap 3 and Avengers 3.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I'm perfectly fine with speaking opinions, as long as we realize they're just that right now. Doc is the one trying to say The Question's theories are wrong because they don't jibe with *his* opinion about a Thanos Trilogy.

Question was sharing his take on the story, not any theory about what will happen. I was sharing my theories and appealing to the story potential therein. No one's wrong.

[I'm Venom]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

Personally, I think that the reason for all these villains being introduced is because they are somehow going to creat an MCU version of the MoE, assembled by Thanos. and the MoE will be the ones who the avengers "fight" in the second movie. Thanos will still be in it. He will be a frequently appearing character, but his motives, or even presence, or even existance is still unknown till say, the end of the movie.

It depends on which plot is used. If Thanos is provided with certain items that will grant him certain abilities, not a person will be able to beat him. I don't think that'll happen though; what would be the fun in having a movie where Thanos godstomps all of the heroes? Movie versions are almost always much weaker than their comic counterparts. Most significant examples being Loki and the Destroyer.

[I'm Venom]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Well... it'd be a lot easier not to look ahead if they hadn't hinted at the conclusion of Phase III already. I really couldn't have cared less before they started talking about it. At the end of the day though, I can't say I'd mind Zemo in Cap 3 and Avengers 3.

So what's your point? There are other villains that warrant an appearance after Thanos.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by I'm Venom

So what's your point? There are other villains that warrant an appearance after Thanos.

Of course there are.

My point is that it would be really weird if Thanos' story ended in Avengers 2, based on the hints they've given us, the scale of Thanos, the way they're developing him, and the success that trilogy-wide villains bring and enjoy.

Even little stuff, like Red Skull being teleported, likely to Thanos, at the end of Cap 2, leaves the door wide open for the premise of this thread.

[I'm Venom]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Of course there are.

My point is that it would be really weird if Thanos' story ended in Avengers 2, based on the hints they've given us, the scale of Thanos, the way they're developing him, and the success that trilogy-wide villains bring and enjoy.

Even little stuff, like Red Skull being teleported, likely to Thanos, at the end of Cap 2, leaves the door wide open for the premise of this thread.

Weaving said he's tired of playing these types of characters, so he doesn't want to do guys anymore like Agent Smith, Red Skull, V, and other movies like that. I can't imagine him being someone else's pawn, no matter how powerful that someone is. Still hoping for Zemo.

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by I'm Venom

Weaving said he's tired of playing these types of characters, so he doesn't want to do guys anymore like Agent Smith, Red Skull, V, and other movies like that. I can't imagine him being someone else's pawn, no matter how powerful that someone is. Still hoping for Zemo.

I don't recall Weaving making his comments in regards to anything else besides Red Skull.

Truthfully I agree with him because the character wasn't allowed to reach the potential it should've ..... With a guy like Weaving, you better allow him to be a dynamic element.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Rock Sexton

I don't recall Weaving making his comments in regards to anything else besides Red Skull.

Truthfully I agree with him because the character wasn't allowed to reach the potential it should've ..... With a guy like Weaving, you better allow him to be a dynamic element.

Yeah, the only comment I've heard Weaving make about the subject was about not really wanting to do Red Skull again, specifically.

But yes, there's no way Skully would ever wind up being the henchman of Thanos or anyone else, for that matter. Nor would Loki ever consent to serving anyone else, and he would absolutely balk at the suggestion that Thanos (or anybody) is his boss.

That's what makes putting together an MoE very difficult....in all the comic book incarnations, you get one particular leader organizing (loosely) the gang. But if you get a whole bunch of evil masterminds in the same room, nobody's going to consent to being governed by the others.

[I'm Venom]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

But yes, there's no way Skully would ever wind up being the henchman of Thanos or anyone else, for that matter. Nor would Loki ever consent to serving anyone else, and he would absolutely balk at the suggestion that Thanos (or anybody) is his boss.

That's what makes putting together an MoE very difficult....in all the comic book incarnations, you get one particular leader organizing (loosely) the gang. But if you get a whole bunch of evil masterminds in the same room, nobody's going to consent to being governed by the others.

Right you are! You put it all together, thank you!

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by I'm Venom

Right you are! You put it all together, thank you!

"Your Welcome! ", said Cherokeesam

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Yeah, the only comment I've heard Weaving make about the subject was about not really wanting to do Red Skull again, specifically.

But yes, there's no way Skully would ever wind up being the henchman of Thanos or anyone else, for that matter. Nor would Loki ever consent to serving anyone else, and he would absolutely balk at the suggestion that Thanos (or anybody) is his boss.

That's what makes putting together an MoE very difficult....in all the comic book incarnations, you get one particular leader organizing (loosely) the gang. But if you get a whole bunch of evil masterminds in the same room, nobody's going to consent to being governed by the others.

Loki is already Thanos' lackey. The story of how Thanos used Loki as his surrogate in seeking to obtain the Tesseract provided the subtext in The Avengers. Loki owes Thanos everything: his life, his scepter and the army he used to try to capture the Tesseract and conquer the Earth. Had Thanos not pulled Loki out of the void he would have died; had Thanos not given him power and an army he would never have been able to invade the Earth. Now that Loki has failed to fulfill his end of his bargain with the Mad Titan, he ought to be looking over his shoulder every second, in fear of the retribution that The Other promised.


In TA2 I hope we'll see all of Loki's chickens come home to roost in the form of an enraged Thanos seeking revenge. It's impossible to imagine that Thanos won't want to punish the Jotun traitor for failing him. Loki is a great villain, who deserves great suffering for his crimes. Hopefully we will see Loki tormented the way Gamora was, or at the very least enslaved like Mephisto, when Thanos finally gets around to dealing with Loki's failure.