MCU Phase 3: Have it your way

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by R_Hythlodeus

I always assumed that Phase II is longer than some on those boards expect and wrote so in this thread many times and by the way, nowhere does it say that Ant-Man is the last movie of Phase I. Just the last one which is in some kind of production, yet. Phase II might be even longer.

I think you meant to say "last movie of Phase II," but yeah, I agree that there's no indication that even Ant-Man, the Phase II movie with the farthest release date, will even close out the phase.

I *do,* however, believe it *will* be the last in Phase II, simply because it was the last to be announced, and I don't think Marvel is ready to announce Phase III movies yet. And if that's the case, I think the most logical thing we can conclude about this is that "Phases" are nothing more than the movies on Marvel's current production slate. Trying to tie "phases" into any type of overarching storyline -- or assuming any relation between all of the films in a given phase, period -- is leaping to conclusions that are wholly unwarranted.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I think you meant to say "last movie of Phase II,"

yeah, typo. sorry.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

but yeah, I agree that there's no indication that even Ant-Man, the Phase II movie with the farthest release date, will even close out the phase.

there might be a couple of new solo movies surprisingly be part of Phase II too. IF what I suspect is right and the 'Phases' refer to bigger story arcs (the first one being the assembly of the Avengers) it all depends on the story the want to tell and how they plan to end that arc (with a bang probably). To end a Phase with another Avengers movie always seemed very repetitive

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I *do,* however, believe it *will* be the last in Phase II, simply because it was the last to be announced, and I don't think Marvel is ready to announce Phase III movies yet.

Of course they will end Phase II first before they focus on Phase III (or at least come very close to the Phases end. I read somewhere, a couple of years ago, that MS has 5 year plans, they plan 5 years ahead. I think KF said so in an interview in 09. If that is true, they have plans for 2017 now, which is really amazing.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

And if that's the case, I think the most logical thing we can conclude about this is that "Phases" are nothing more than the movies on Marvel's current production slate. Trying to tie "phases" into any type of overarching storyline -- or assuming any relation between all of the films in a given phase, period -- is leaping to conclusions that are wholly unwarranted.

Well, it depends. I guess we will see once IM3 is out and the end credit scene reveals a little more. Or maybe the Phase I box set clarifies that..

[Chewy]

Avengers is their BIG MASSIVE TENTPOLE and will draw the biggest audience by a fairly wide margin, so they'll pay off any overarching story stuff there. Which will lead casual viewers to hunt down their other flicks that lead into or spin out of it.

It really makes zero sense to end a "phase" on anything else. Colloquially most people just think of "Phase 1" as "those movies that led into Avengers"

If Ant-Man's in phase two (which could just be an assumption on EW's part) I'd think it's sort of an epilogue

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Avengers is their BIG MASSIVE TENTPOLE and will draw the biggest audience by a fairly wide margin, so they'll pay off any overarching story stuff there. Which will lead casual viewers to hunt down their other flicks that lead into or spin out of it.

It really makes zero sense to end a "phase" on anything else. Colloquially most people just think of "Phase 1" as "those movies that led into Avengers"

If Ant-Man's in phase two (which could just be an assumption on EW's part) I'd think it's sort of an epilogue

God, I hope not. If so, then the whole Marvel Studios "experiment" has failed. Feige, Avi and everyone else at Marvel have said all along that the movies are meant to stand on their own --- and I believe they have.

Just like in the comics, Avengers has its franchise, and the solo heroes have their individual franchises, too. If, at the end of the day, everything is supposed to just tie into a central Avengers plot, then why even have the damn solo movies in the first place? Just franchise Avengers and forget the rest.

[Chewy]

Um, okay? You make the solo movies to develop our heroes and their worlds and move things forward. You make the solo movies because there are stories worth telling; that doesn't preclude them from building off Avengers a bit, and building into the next Avengers a bit

The movies can stand on their own while also working as pieces of a larger narrative. Which is kind of, y'know, what they've been doing. And is the entire point of the shared franchise idea.

Avengers didn't make 1.5B cause it was called THE AVENGERS. Avengers made 1.5B cause they built up all of the individual pieces and story threads beforehand, and made Avengers the big event. That their next four movies are the next chapters in the lives of Tony, Thor, Cap and Thanos pretty much tells you they aren't planning on changing that (successful) formula.

[Lord]

For the next few years i don't see them changing the formula, maybe if it begins to fail they will but i don't see that happening any time soon

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Um, okay? You make the solo movies to develop our heroes and their worlds and move things forward. You make the solo movies because there are stories worth telling; that doesn't preclude them from building off Avengers a bit, and building into the next Avengers a bit

The movies can stand on their own while also working as pieces of a larger narrative. Which is kind of, y'know, what they've been doing. And is the entire point of the shared franchise idea.

Avengers didn't make 1.5B cause it was called THE AVENGERS. Avengers made 1.5B cause they built up all of the individual pieces and story threads beforehand, and made Avengers the big event. That their next four movies are the next chapters in the lives of Tony, Thor, Cap and Thanos pretty much tells you they aren't planning on changing that (successful) formula.

Yes. Chances are, much like Avengers 1/ Phase 1, all of the elements of Avengers 2 will be in phase 2 solo films, and we'll see VERY few added elements.

That's why I've been arguing that Falcon will be a member of the team, instead of them adding Ms. Marvel, Vision, Black Panther, Wasp, Monica Rambeaux, Gilgamesh, Deathcry, Stingray...whoever.

[Chewy]

I've been saying that Falcon will probably be in Avengers 2, too. But I also think they'll definitely add a female Avenger, maybe with a small cameo elsewhere (like Hawkeye, but a little less clunky)

I just can't see Whedon happily going along with a 6:1 male to female ratio, now that he has more of a say in the overall franchise development

[DrCosmic]

But then the question becomes, okay, where will this female member come from? That little cameo didn't work out too well for Hawkeye and ostensibly she will have powers, making a two minute cameo even more clunky. There's no room for her in IM3 and we haven't seen in her in Thor 2. That leaves Cap and GotG to introduce this female character with...

[pr0xyt0xin]

Is the "Stephanie Szostak is Wasp" rumor already debunked?

I think that could answer both your questions...

[DrCosmic]

It certainly could, I hadn't been following that particular bit.

But wouldn't that kinda deflate Ant-Man if the other shrinking Avenger had already made a big splash?

[pr0xyt0xin]

the image in question:

appears to be a somewhat heated moment (either sexual or angry). Both of which emotions I could see Jan displaying if Hank was either A. missing, B. creating advanced artificial intelligent tech or C. not paying her enough attention.

The only debunk I see is that yeah, IM3 already has such a wide load (Extremis, Mandarin, Chen Lu, Coldblood, Firepower) and we have been told it won't be a "Avengers prequel" so to speak like IM2 was.

[xeno000]

Prior to that, the Szostak character slammed Stark into the wall. It seemed aggressive and violent rather than sexual to me, but it's impossible to know for sure until we see the clip in context.


Feige reiterated in an interview with Empire that there won't be any cameos by other Marvel characters in IM3. He could be lying, of course, but for now that's the party line.

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

the image in question:

appears to be a somewhat heated moment (either sexual or angry). Both of which emotions I could see Jan displaying if Hank was either A. missing, B. creating advanced artificial intelligent tech or C. not paying her enough attention.

The only debunk I see is that yeah, IM3 already has such a wide load (Extremis, Mandarin, Chen Lu, Coldblood, Firepower) and we have been told it won't be a "Avengers prequel" so to speak like IM2 was.

[cherokeesam]

Feige said: "Iron Man 3 doesn't feature any of the other Avengers, or Nick Fury showing up, or any of those world-blending conceits that the Phase One films had."

That definitively rules Szostak out as Wasp, an Avenger.
Doesn't mean Szostak isn't playing a traditional Iron Man villainess, though.

[OB12]

Feige said: "Iron Man 3 doesn't feature any of the other Avengers, or Nick Fury showing up, or any of those world-blending conceits that the Phase One films had."

That definitively rules Szostak out as Wasp, an Avenger.
Doesn't mean Szostak isn't playing a traditional Iron Man villainess, though.

Not so fast. She could still be Janet Van Dyne and not yet Wasp. It is a fine line, and not likely, but it adheres to Fiege quote above in the literal sense.

[DrCosmic]

That's a stretch though. People don't usually speak like genies in that what they're saying is only true in a literal sense. With all the flak IM2 caught for being so SHIELD-heavy, they may be deliberately trying to stay away from that.

So like I said. Where will the super woman come from? Cap 2? GotG? Both?

[OB12]

That's a stretch though. People don't usually speak like genies in that what they're saying is only true in a literal sense. With all the flak IM2 caught for being so SHIELD-heavy, they may be deliberately trying to stay away from that.

So like I said. Where will the super woman come from? Cap 2? GotG? Both?

Sure, it seems unlikely that Szostak is Janet, though I don't believe I would mind her at all in the role. Just saying that the possibility doesn't really go against what Fiege said.

To your question about the super-powered female, my preference would be to establish Carol Danvers in the SHIELD TV show for 1 1/12 seasons and have her transformation to Ms. Marvel flow into Avengers 2. Other than that, I'm not sure what the other possibilities are. Janet probably won't be introduced until Ant-Man which is after A2 and I'm not sure who from GotG would fit. Perhaps Scarlet Witch could be introduced with a somewhat altered back story.

[pr0xyt0xin]

I agree, Szostak looks the part. Now if I could only find a movie to watch her in so I know if she acts the part.

I agree its possible Jan plays a supporting character that doesn't focus on blending worlds. I also think its possible Feige is lying. So I'm not ruling her out as Jan until I see the film.

[KangConquers]

Szostak could be Madame Masque...she doesn't have to be a hero necessarily...

[pr0xyt0xin]

I think those are your two real options... in other words, I dont know why theyd reach any further into the barrel of female characters when Janet or Whitney still have yet to be introduced.

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

But then the question becomes, okay, where will this female member come from? That little cameo didn't work out too well for Hawkeye and ostensibly she will have powers, making a two minute cameo even more clunky. There's no room for her in IM3 and we haven't seen in her in Thor 2. That leaves Cap and GotG to introduce this female character with...

I think the Hawkeye cameo worked fine, it was just super obvious that they filmed it well after they filmed everything else and spliced in the footage somewhat clunkily. It needed to be shot and edited in more cleanly, it was written fine

[DrCosmic]

It worked fine as a cameo, but it didn't serve the character very well. He was barely introduced, and so it positioned him to be barely on the team, a sort of narrative scapegoat. I'd want more than than from a favorite Avenger.

[pr0xyt0xin]

I actually didnt know they said Barton right away. When he grabbed the bow it was obvious, but I think the cameo was clever and got me pumped. I didnt know it was spliced in after the fact until i just read it here. :P

color me daft.

[Lord]

I think most that didn't know he was a character from the comics though he was just a random S.H.I.E.L.D. goon

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

It worked fine as a cameo, but it didn't serve the character very well. He was barely introduced, and so it positioned him to be barely on the team, a sort of narrative scapegoat. I'd want more than than from a favorite Avenger.

It worked fine as a cameo, and that's all it needed to do. He was barely on the team because Whedon didn't have space to get more of him in there, not because his cameo was a cameo. Whedon said on the commentary that he originally had a full backstory for Hawkeye and he was a part of the team throughout the whole movie, but he had to chop it all out.

Hawkeye's my favorite Avenger and I'll be happy to see more of him in the sequels. But his role was fine in Avengers - he's a supporting character, and the movie was about the big guns getting together.