Who should be the villain in an Avengers sequel? (Poll)

[Chewy]

No one has ever said there wouldn't be an Avengers 4. Why do you keep saying that? Have you actually seen someone say that there wouldn't be an Avengers 4? Talk about a straw man

Anyway, that entire paragraph is an answer to a question about where Thanos will show up next. It's not Feige randomly going on about the future of the film universe. So I suppose if you remove any and all context you could read whatever you want into the statement, but in context there's a pretty strong implication.

[pr0xyt0xin]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Again (and we ALL know we've ALL been over this particular flamewar before, several times....): where does Feige's quote indicate any sort of finality or trilogy-ality to the Avengers? Does this quote imply there WON'T be an Avengers 4, or Phase 4? Nope.

And where does that quote indicate any kind of overarching story, that some of you insist on believing in? "Folding in elements that will not only build up to the culmination of Phase Two, but even Phase Three" could be very easily, and very logically, explained as introducing elements such as AIM and/or HYDRA in Phase II, to become the Avenger foe for Avengers 3; or introducing the Kree in Phase II, to lead up to the Kree-Skrull War for Avengers 3; or introduce Surtur in Phase II, to lead up to Ragnarok for Avengers 3; or introduce assorted villains in Phase II to team up as the MoE to do battle in Avengers 3; or introduce Hank Pym in Phase II to create Ultron as the main baddie for Avengers 3....I could go on. Should I go on?

...Because nowhere in that quote does Feige prohibitively state, "This clearly means that Thanos is the element we're setting up in Phase II to come back (again) as the villain in Phase III."

"Should I go on?" yes. please. go on. THAT is the topic of this thread. Not whether or not there will be more sequels but WHO will be the villain in those sequels.

[Chewy]

Yeah sorry, back to the topic, lol.

Instead of a straight Masters of Evil movie I feel like it'd be really neat if they could pull off an adaptation of the original Thunderbolts concept.

[pr0xyt0xin]

That'd be fascinating. But maybe without calling them the Thunderbolts. XD

But really, like it would be interesting if they some how pulled the wool over even comic book fans' eyes by calling them West Coast or Avengers Delta. lol idk. Its a good idea though.

[pr0xyt0xin]

double post -_-

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Again (and we ALL know we've ALL been over this particular flamewar before, several times....): where does Feige's quote indicate any sort of finality or trilogy-ality to the Avengers? Does this quote imply there WON'T be an Avengers 4, or Phase 4? Nope.

And where does that quote indicate any kind of overarching story, that some of you insist on believing in? "Folding in elements that will not only build up to the culmination of Phase Two, but even Phase Three" could be very easily, and very logically, explained as introducing elements such as AIM and/or HYDRA in Phase II, to become the Avenger foe for Avengers 3; or introducing the Kree in Phase II, to lead up to the Kree-Skrull War for Avengers 3; or introduce Surtur in Phase II, to lead up to Ragnarok for Avengers 3; or introduce assorted villains in Phase II to team up as the MoE to do battle in Avengers 3; or introduce Hank Pym in Phase II to create Ultron as the main baddie for Avengers 3....I could go on. Should I go on?

...Because nowhere in that quote does Feige prohibitively state, "This clearly means that Thanos is the element we're setting up in Phase II to come back (again) as the villain in Phase III."

That'd be revealing too much. We assume avengers franchise will be going on. Personally, I believe Thanos' arc will go through phase 3. Does that mean it will all end after phase 3? Not at all. There will be a phase 4, etc. Some just think thanos will end in phase 3, opposed to phase 4. Feiges comments are that the elements that conclude phase 3, will start to show in phase 2. We know thanos will be in phase 2. It's just simple speculation. Not set in stone, it's ALL speculation.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Chewy

No one has ever said there wouldn't be an Avengers 4. Why do you keep saying that? Have you actually seen someone say that there wouldn't be an Avengers 4? Talk about a straw man

Anyway, that entire paragraph is an answer to a question about where Thanos will show up next. It's not Feige randomly going on about the future of the film universe. So I suppose if you remove any and all context you could read whatever you want into the statement, but in context there's a pretty strong implication.

What "straw man?"

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

Phase 2 and 3 need to ramp up to a FINAL showdown with The Avenger's most POWERFUL adversary.

Originally Posted by Chewy

Yeah Kevin Feige definitely never mentioned things building into a culmination in Phase 3

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

But Hollywood likes trilogies. Avengers 1, 2 and 3 will be announced as The Avengers Trilogy bundle on Blu-Ray as soon as its out of theaters. Whether it continues on from there is up to Marvel. MANY films originally thought to be trilogies have a fourth installment. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Die Hard. Just because a conclusion to an arc has been made doesnt destroy a franchise.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Furthermore, a planned trilogy is a much more successful road to a fourth installment (Lord of the Rings, Star Wars) than going one by one (X-Men, Spider-Man). Nowadays once you have that stinker, you need a reboot of some sort.




To say nothing of the 3, 6 and 9 picture deals they made.


Trilogy and then another trilogy. Why not?

I see the words "trilogy," "final," "culmination," and "reboot" in those posts. Implying that you guys believe the Avengers is set up in an LOTR/SW trilogy format with a definite ending in Avengers 3. And then, maybe, wait 'n' see a decade down the road if we wanna reboot and start all over again, like Spidey and Bats, or prequel or requel or whatthefugever like X-Men and Star Wars and LOTR/Hobbitses.

And I fail to see *any* evidence whatsoever that this is Marvel/Feige's intention, up to and including that very quote you posted on the previous page. And I *sure* as hell fail to see where that would even remotely be a good idea.

Avengers is an *episodic franchise.* Like James Bond and Indiana Jones. And no, Indiana Jones was *not* a trilogy, nor was it ever planned to be one. It was episodic, and had four episodes --- more, if you want to include the Young Indy TV series --- and that's *exactly* what Avengers is, and how Avengers will play out.

Why? Because that's the way God and Stan Lee intended. He/They didn't need no frickin-frackin' trilogies....trilogies suck wind.

[Chewy]

The words final and reboot aren't being used in the context you're claiming they are. Someone saying there will be a final showdown with Thanos is not someone saying it will be the final Avengers movie; the mention of rebooting was in regards to "one-shot" franchises lending themselves to reboots more easily.

None of the posts even remotely suggest that there will be no more Avengers movies or an immediate reboot after Avengers 3. A trilogy does not mean "no more movies", as we've seen many many times in the past decade. It means "we wrap up some overarching story points, and give some closure". That doesn't preclude an Avengers 4. It does, however, give them an out if RDJ and Hems and Evans all decide to move on (likely).

Anyway, back to villains.

[I'm Venom]

What's the one thing all the greatest works of literature share? They all have an ending. They don't continue on forever as if life was endless and meaningless the way comics do. Go crazy. Just follow your vision and have an ending. If they want this to be a three-movie deal, and only that, that's what they should stick to.

[Chewy]

An ending is just another beginning.

[I'm Venom]

If new territory isn't traversed, not really. I can only see the same interpretation so many times.

[pr0xyt0xin]

I see it both ways. For instance, The Rolling Stones shouldve quit 20 years ago. But at the same time, Doctor Who and Bond just keep getting better.

With the MCU they should keep making them as long as the creative juices are flowing. Which could be indefinitely or perhaps sometime after phase 16.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I see the words "trilogy," "final," "culmination," and "reboot" in those posts. Implying that you guys believe the Avengers is set up in an LOTR/SW trilogy format with a definite ending in Avengers 3. And then, maybe, wait 'n' see a decade down the road if we wanna reboot and start all over again...

How can I imply I want a reboot a decade later by saying "trilogy and then another trilogy?" The only person implying the beliefs you're rallying against is the straw man.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

How can I imply I want a reboot a decade later by saying "trilogy and then another trilogy?" The only person implying the beliefs you're rallying against is the straw man.

"Furthermore, a planned trilogy is a much more successful road to a fourth installment (Lord of the Rings, Star Wars) than going one by one (X-Men, Spider-Man). Nowadays once you have that stinker, you need a reboot of some sort."

Your words.
And categorically incorrect, anyway --- XMFC is *not* a reboot, but a prequel; and Raimi had every intention of and was already planning an SM4, but Sony thought he was moving too slow and pushed for the reboot. And in both cases, the "third act" movies were by far the most successful at the box office in their respective franchises. Not much of a "third act curse" in either franchise.

[pr0xyt0xin]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Your words.
And categorically incorrect, anyway --- XMFC is *not* a reboot, but a prequel; and Raimi had every intention of and was already planning an SM4, but Sony thought he was moving too slow and pushed for the reboot. And in both cases, the "third act" movies were by far the most successful at the box office in their respective franchises. Not much of a "third act curse" in either franchise.

oh my gord. You know what the curse is! do I seriously need to explain it to you?

Spider-Man 2 = Great movie ... Spider-Man 3 = terrible in comparison
X-Men 2 = Great movie ... X-Men 3 = terrible in comparison
Batman Returns --> Batman Forever
Superman II --> Superman III

Nothing to do with their box office numbers. Most movie-goers, comic book fans and HUMAN BEINGS consider those movies to be awful. That's the third act curse.

do your damn homework. Its a turn of phrase. Do you know how many of Shakespeare's plays have 4 and 5 acts? What I said has nothing to do with the finality of a series. But generally speaking, when the third one is that bad, they probably hesitate (or at least they should hesitate) to make a fourth. For fear that it turns out like Batman and Robin, Superman IV or Wolverine: Origins.

[pr0xyt0xin]

And many do consider XM:FC to be a reboot simply because it was a new cast, new director and new time period. Its not a complete reboot of the universe, but it was a renaissance as far as X:Men films are concerned. Considering the two that came before it.

[DrCosmic]

I generally would like to see the Masters of Evil next, just because I really like the idea of assembling villains, something that hasn't been done before, and escalating from there to the guy who can end worlds solo. That's cool to me.

Ultron, Kang and Civil War (yeah, I said it) is something I'd like to see later. I think having Kang as a through line there could be really interesting if that were a separate trilogy.

Beyond that, I'd like to see some really cutting edge stuff like Disassembled/House of M (imagine the twist, a movie that's story is that it's not in continuity with the rest of the universe its in), where there isn't really a villain per se. That'd be really interesting too. It'd also be interesting if whenever Marvel gets the rights for the X-Men back they do Avengers vs X-Men as a movie. That'd be crazy.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Your words.
And categorically incorrect, anyway --- XMFC is *not* a reboot, but a prequel; and Raimi had every intention of and was already planning an SM4, but Sony thought he was moving too slow and pushed for the reboot. And in both cases, the "third act" movies were by far the most successful at the box office in their respective franchises. Not much of a "third act curse" in either franchise.

So are you saying the third one will suck? Or that I believe the third one will suck?
The idea of a "Reboot of some sort" kinda covers prequels with new casts, storylines and continuity, don't you think?
I think it's a bit odd to think SM3 sucking had nothing to do with why there was no SM4. Why do you think Raimi took so long?

[I'm Venom]

Civil War is just too many characters. I don't think it could work in a film. Kang is over the top, and I don't think people would respond to a villain like that. A different lineup of the Masters of Evil could work. We just have to see who the villains are after the second movie.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I generally would like to see the Masters of Evil next, just because I really like the idea of assembling villains, something that hasn't been done before, and escalating from there to the guy who can end worlds solo. That's cool to me.

Ultron, Kang and Civil War (yeah, I said it) is something I'd like to see later. I think having Kang as a through line there could be really interesting if that were a separate trilogy.

Beyond that, I'd like to see some really cutting edge stuff like Disassembled/House of M (imagine the twist, a movie that's story is that it's not in continuity with the rest of the universe its in), where there isn't really a villain per se. That'd be really interesting too. It'd also be interesting if whenever Marvel gets the rights for the X-Men back they do Avengers vs X-Men as a movie. That'd be crazy.



So are you saying the third one will suck? Or that I believe the third one will suck?
The idea of a "Reboot of some sort" kinda covers prequels with new casts, storylines and continuity, don't you think?
I think it's a bit odd to think SM3 sucking had nothing to do with why there was no SM4. Why do you think Raimi took so long?

From Wiki:

Sony Pictures announced in January 2010 that plans for Spider-Man 4 had been cancelled due to Raimi's withdrawal from the project. Raimi reportedly ended his participation due to his doubt that he could meet the planned May 6, 2011 release date while at the same time upholding the film creatively. Raimi purportedly went through four iterations of the script with different screenwriters and still "hated it".

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

From Wiki:

As far as I knew. raimi was insistant on his script using the vulture. They didn't take it, so he backed out. Raimi was very selfish. isn't that how it all went?

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

As far as I knew. raimi was insistant on his script using the vulture. They didn't take it, so he backed out. Raimi was very selfish. isn't that how it all went?

He originally wanted Lizard, and later drafts chose Vulture instead. Again, from Wiki:

In 2007, Spider-Man 4 entered development, with Raimi attached to direct and Maguire, Dunst and other cast members set to reprise their roles. Both a fourth and a fifth movie were planned and at one time the idea of shooting the two sequels concurrently was under consideration. However, Raimi stated in March 2009 that only the fourth film was in development at that time and that if there were fifth and sixth films, those two films would actually be a continuation of each other. James Vanderbilt was hired in October 2007 to pen the screenplay after initial reports in early 2007 that Sony Pictures was in contact with David Koepp, who wrote the first Spider-Man film. The script was subsequently rewritten by Pulitzer-winning playwright David Lindsay-Abaire and rewritten again by Gary Ross in October 2009. Sony also engaged Vanderbilt to write scripts for Spider-Man 5 and Spider-Man 6.

In 2007, Raimi expressed interest in portraying the transformation of Dr. Curt Connors into his villainous alter-ego, the Lizard; the character's actor Dylan Baker and producer Grant Curtis were also enthusiastic about the idea. It was reported in December 2009 that John Malkovich was in negotiations to play Vulture and that Anne Hathaway would play Felicia Hardy, though she would not have transformed into the Black Cat as in the comics. Instead, Raimi's Felicia was expected to become a brand-new superpowered figure called the Vulturess.

I guess thank god Anne Hathaway became that *other* catwoman, eh?

[pr0xyt0xin]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

He originally wanted Lizard, and later drafts chose Vulture instead. Again, from Wiki:



I guess thank god Anne Hathaway became that *other* catwoman, eh?

I think you might mean thank god they didn't make Spider-Man 4. I'm not gonna say it would've been definitely bad. But, I do honestly believe it was ready to be rebooted. Even if the origin didn't need to be retold.

Or do you prefer Batman/Catwoman to Spider-Man/Black Cat? Either way, I'm really not an avid Hathaway fan.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

I think you might mean thank god they didn't make Spider-Man 4. I'm not gonna say it would've been definitely bad. But, I do honestly believe it was ready to be rebooted. Even if the origin didn't need to be retold.

Or do you prefer Batman/Catwoman to Spider-Man/Black Cat? Either way, I'm really not an avid Hathaway fan.

I *do* thank god Raimi didn't make Spidey 4, because I loved TASM and think that Webb and Garfield did a much better job with the franchise than Raimi. Exception being: villains. Lizard (not so much Ifans, who did a great job in his role as Dr. Connors proper) was a terrible villain, storywise and appearance-wise. Raimi always made better villains, except for Venom.

But the whole narrative of the transition from Spidey 3 to TASM shoots a lot of holes in the myths that some of you guys seem to have built up about the "need" for a reboot. The reality is pretty clear that Sony, Raimi, and audiences were already in full-go mode for Spidey 4; but when Raimi couldn't find a script he wanted out of the 4 drafts he was presented with, Sony did an end-around and rebooted. Didn't have anything to do with the (misguided) perception that "Spider-Man 3 sucked, and everybody hated it."

As for Hathaway: I'm glad she got the chance to play Catwoman, who was by far my favorite part of TDKR. I *definitely* want to see Black Cat get a proper debut in the Spidey series, but Hathaway was not, to my mind, the actress for that role. (Nor, for that matter, was she signed on to play Black Cat --- as stated above, Raimi wanted to rewrite Felicia's story to make her an entirely new and original villain, "Vulturess." Yeegads.)

[pr0xyt0xin]

Fair enough about Hathaway.

I don't know how misguided the perception that SM3 sucked is but... to each his own I suppose.

[Dark Raven]

I think Kang could work if they ever wanted to do a Star Trek style reboot and preserve the original films but have an alternate timeline. He could be the MCU equivalent of Nero.