Characters you'd like to see in future Avengers movies?

[Hawkingbird]

Makes him an easy target though

[Christopher_M]

if Cobie Smulders can play Agent Maria Hill with a comedy series being her resume.. why not hire Ellie Kemper as another S.H.I.E.L.D agent? while Sharon Carter isn't a good fit but Bobbi Morse/Mockingbird or Daisy Johnson/Quake...

[MLSkinner]

I like rachel weisz as the scarlet witch. She looks perfect for the part and is a fantastic actress. she's already portraying the wicked witch in the upcoming Oz movie and looks the part and she looks every bit like how I imagine wanda.

[Spider-Vader]

If any character should get an actress from a comedic TV show it should be Wasp. She should be a comedic relief character like she was in Avengers: EMH, that version of the character is my favorite.

[I'm Venom]

I personally think Spider-Man should appear in a sequel.

[Jordacar]

I'd be over the moon if they got Anna Kendrick or Alison Brie for Wasp. Kendrick's chances are good with Edgar Wright's directing AntMan.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by I'm Venom

I personally think Spider-Man should appear in a sequel.

Spider-Man is not going to be in The Avengers because Marvel doesn't own his rights. Sony does. And no, they're not going to sell him back or share him.

[I'm Venom]

Originally Posted by xeno000

Spider-Man is not going to be in The Avengers because Marvel doesn't own his rights. Sony does. And no, they're not going to sell him back or share him.

Glad your crystal ball works better than anyone else's...

If it happened, it would require a lot of negotiations and sharing of the cost and profits, but I can see it as beneficial for both parties, because if Avengers 2 does even close to the numbers Avengers did, that could be a boost for Amazing Spider-Man 3.

[MLSkinner]

Originally Posted by I'm Venom

Glad your crystal ball works better than anyone else's...

If it happened, it would require a lot of negotiations and sharing of the cost and profits, but I can see it as beneficial for both parties, because if Avengers 2 does even close to the numbers Avengers did, that could be a boost for Amazing Spider-Man 3.

you're right. sony would be leaving alot of money and exposure for future spider-man films if they don't let marvel/disney use spidey. same goes for fox with their marvel characters. if these studios care about money, why not?

[Hawkingbird]

Originally Posted by xeno000

Spider-Man is not going to be in The Avengers because Marvel doesn't own his rights. Sony does. And no, they're not going to sell him back or share him.

Originally Posted by MLSkinner

you're right. sony would be leaving alot of money and exposure for future spider-man films if they don't let marvel/disney use spidey. same goes for fox with their marvel characters. if these studios care about money, why not?

Match them up

[Christopher_M]

totally on board for Alison Brie or Anna Kendrick for Wasp.. great actresses that would have the wit to carry the character..



if Marvel wanted a more dramatic actress for the role of Mockingbird.. Kelly Reilly would be a decent choice recently getting attention from her performance in Flight which starred Denzel Washington (Oscar buzz?).. her big break started out with Joe Wright's Pride & Prejudice alongside future comic book film hopefuls Keira Knightley (Captain America/Dark Knight Rises) and Rosamund Pike (X-Men First Class/Man of Steel)...not to mention also sharing screen time with Tony Stark (RDJ) and Magneto (Fassbender) in Sherlock Holmes 1-2/Eden Lake.. she even did a TV movie with Bane/Mad Max Tom Hardy..Kelly also worked with Tom Hiddleston in Othello basically the play that helped him earn the Loki role..

[Christopher_M]

Ruth Wilson (Anna Karenina, Luther, Lone Ranger) had been "rumored" for Ms. Marvel from an unreliable source.. but would be a better fit for either Enchantress or Scarlet Witch.. I feel like making Scarlet an Asgardian (not a mutant) would be a good way to get around the X-Men problem.. considering Kevin Feige has said they can use her and Quicksilver in Avengers films only.. playing Alice in Luther also opens the door for her to play a villainess which at the moment doesn't really exist in the MCU.. I know Hemsworth wants Charlize Theron for Echantress but Ruth already has an in with Disney starring in The Lone Ranger.. plus working with both Thor alum Idris Elba and Tom Hiddleston couldn't hurt her chances for future Marvel roles..

[Christopher_M]

Originally Posted by xeno000

Spider-Man is not going to be in The Avengers because Marvel doesn't own his rights. Sony does. And no, they're not going to sell him back or share him.

I guess you haven't been following that the Oscorp building was going to be in Avengers but they had finished post-production on the city skyline so that hint/link was cut-out.. Marvel Entertainment helped the production of Amazing Spider-Man tenfold compared to the original Sam Raimi films..if you look at the new Spider-Man cartoon they already set him up to join S.H.I.E.L.D. his parents had been revealed in the comics as agents..wouldn't be shocked if that's the big reveal in The Amazing Spider-Man sequels.. yes Sony owns him but having him in Avengers sequels is an excellent way to promote the Spidey brand and sell more tickets to future solo films.. X-Men producer Lauren Shuler Donner already wants to have their mutant characters join the Avengers.. so why wouldn't Sony do the same if it only helps their films?

there's also Norman Osborn who get's control of S.H.I.E.L.D. and turning it into H.A.M.M.E.R. I mean there are a few angles they could bring Spidey into the fold.. as long as Sony was able to use things in their films like naming characters and sharing S.H.I.E.L.D... it could open the door to a bigger Marvel Cinematic Universe.. something I believe is already happening over at Fox with The Wolverine ushering in their new shared universe similar to how Spidey is being rebooted he could easily slide into the world of the Avengers..Feige has mentioned Civil War for Avengers 3 and they'll need characters like Wolverine and Spider-Man for something like that.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Originally Posted by Christopher_M

I guess you haven't been following that the Oscorp building was going to be in Avengers but they had finished post-production on the city skyline so that hint/link was cut-out.. Marvel Entertainment helped the production of Amazing Spider-Man tenfold compared to the original Sam Raimi films..if you look at the new Spider-Man cartoon they already set him up to join S.H.I.E.L.D. his parents had been revealed in the comics as agents..wouldn't be shocked if that's the big reveal in The Amazing Spider-Man sequels.. yes Sony owns him but having him in Avengers sequels is an excellent way to promote the Spidey brand and sell more tickets to future solo films.. X-Men producer Lauren Shuler Donner already wants to have their mutant characters join the Avengers.. so why wouldn't Sony do the same if it only helps their films?

there's also Norman Osborn who get's control of S.H.I.E.L.D. and turning it into H.A.M.M.E.R. I mean there are a few angles they could bring Spidey into the fold.. as long as Sony was able to use things in their films like naming characters and sharing S.H.I.E.L.D... it could open the door to a bigger Marvel Cinematic Universe.. something I believe is already happening over at Fox with The Wolverine ushering in their new shared universe similar to how Spidey is being rebooted he could easily slide into the world of the Avengers..Feige has mentioned Civil War for Avengers 3 and they'll need characters like Wolverine and Spider-Man for something like that.

that. just. won't. happen.

[Christopher_M]

Originally Posted by R_Hythlodeus

that. just. won't. happen.

says you lol I mean Sony, Fox and Marvel are the ones who will decide this not us.. it comes down to money and if Sony/Fox can make a profits on Avengers sequels they'll take that money with a smile on their faces..because they don't have to spend a cent on production/promotion...it's a $1.5 billion dollar hit (plus another $67m plus in home video/vod) which is expected to make the same amount if not more with it's sequel... Disney/Marvel have a lot of money to play with so anything is possible

[Brian Braddock]

Originally Posted by Christopher_M

Ruth Wilson (Anna Karenina, Luther, Lone Ranger) had been "rumored" for Ms. Marvel from an unreliable source.. but would be a better fit for either Enchantress or Scarlet Witch.. I feel like making Scarlet an Asgardian (not a mutant) would be a good way to get around the X-Men problem.. considering Kevin Feige has said they can use her and Quicksilver in Avengers films only.. playing Alice in Luther also opens the door for her to play a villainess which at the moment doesn't really exist in the MCU.. I know Hemsworth wants Charlize Theron for Echantress but Ruth already has an in with Disney starring in The Lone Ranger.. plus working with both Thor alum Idris Elba and Tom Hiddleston couldn't hurt her chances for future Marvel roles..

I'm a huge fan of Luther (and of Wilson) but no way is she hot enough to play either character. She's a damn fine actress but these roles need both talent and looks.

[MLSkinner]

Fox doesn't own the word or term mutant. If wanda is called a mutant in the avengers movies fox can't do anything about it. I've heard the word mutant in so many movies in the last few years, especially on the sy-fy channel. just like disney/marvel doesn't own the word super-soldier, it was just used in the bourne legacy movie.

[Chewy]

Every time someone mentions Spider-Man in this thread an angel loses its wings

[Hawkingbird]

That goes for Scarlett Witch/Quicksilver too

[Hypestyle]

...dramatically, how would Mockingbird be made distinct from the Widow? Besides blonde hair, that is? Both are top-notch spy/martial artists, etc. Seeing the battle-sticks in action would be cool, but how to make sure this isn't just Widow version B?

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

That goes for Scarlett Witch/Quicksilver too

Why?
At least with the Spider-Man/Wolverine arguments, we *know* that other studios have the rights to the characters and have built box-office franchises around them. As for Wanda & Pietro, NOBODY has put them on film yet. And Feige specifically stated long ago that they're legally available to both Marvel Studios for Avengers AND to Fox for X-Men.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Christopher_M

I guess you haven't been following that the Oscorp building was going to be in Avengers but they had finished post-production on the city skyline so that hint/link was cut-out.. Marvel Entertainment helped the production of Amazing Spider-Man tenfold compared to the original Sam Raimi films..if you look at the new Spider-Man cartoon they already set him up to join S.H.I.E.L.D. his parents had been revealed in the comics as agents..wouldn't be shocked if that's the big reveal in The Amazing Spider-Man sequels.. yes Sony owns him but having him in Avengers sequels is an excellent way to promote the Spidey brand and sell more tickets to future solo films.. X-Men producer Lauren Shuler Donner already wants to have their mutant characters join the Avengers.. so why wouldn't Sony do the same if it only helps their films?

there's also Norman Osborn who get's control of S.H.I.E.L.D. and turning it into H.A.M.M.E.R. I mean there are a few angles they could bring Spidey into the fold.. as long as Sony was able to use things in their films like naming characters and sharing S.H.I.E.L.D... it could open the door to a bigger Marvel Cinematic Universe.. something I believe is already happening over at Fox with The Wolverine ushering in their new shared universe similar to how Spidey is being rebooted he could easily slide into the world of the Avengers..Feige has mentioned Civil War for Avengers 3 and they'll need characters like Wolverine and Spider-Man for something like that.

I knew about the Oscorp thing, but that was merely the image of a building, not a character. These studios jealously guard their sole right to use the Marvel characters they have licensed because of the monetary and legal concerns. While allowing crossovers between studios might seem logical to fans, there are so many complex legal issues involved that none of the other studios is ever likely to allow it.


You have only to look at the example of Marvel trying to bargain with Fox for the right to use Galactus & The Silver Surfer in its films. Marvel was willing to allow Fox to keep the rights to Daredevil longer than their contract allowed in exchange for use of the characters. Even with that major concession on the table, Fox refused to accept the deal. Fox allowed Daredevil's rights to revert to Marvel, even though they had a director and writer hired for the reboot, rather than simply share a couple of characters on a limited basis.


Now I ask you, does that make it seem likely that the other studios will ever be willing to allow their characters to appear in Marvel films? Allowing villains from the Fantastic Four to appear in Marvel Studios' films would have been an excellent promotional opportunity for Fox, particularly in light of how poorly its previous FF films fared at the box office. Yet they passed on the deal, and in the process gave up another franchise as well. There must be some very powerful legal disincentives preventing deals like this from being made. Therefore, I don't think a crossover is ever going to happen.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Hypestyle

...dramatically, how would Mockingbird be made distinct from the Widow? Besides blonde hair, that is? Both are top-notch spy/martial artists, etc. Seeing the battle-sticks in action would be cool, but how to make sure this isn't just Widow version B?

Mockingbird/Bobbi Morse is also a scientist and researcher at SHIELD, not merely an agent. The writers could play with that aspect of the character, which has been long neglected (or forgotten) in the comics universe.

[Christopher_M]

Originally Posted by MLSkinner

Fox doesn't own the word or term mutant. If wanda is called a mutant in the avengers movies fox can't do anything about it. I've heard the word mutant in so many movies in the last few years, especially on the sy-fy channel. just like disney/marvel doesn't own the word super-soldier, it was just used in the bourne legacy movie.

however, they do own the mutant "term" when it applies to "Marvel characters".. the deal includes a majority of X-Men canon characters and mutants.. Namor being one of the only mutants Fox can't use because he was around before X-Men even existed.. unless Fox let's them call her a mutant she won't be..

[Christopher_M]

Originally Posted by xeno000

I knew about the Oscorp thing, but that was merely the image of a building, not a character. These studios jealously guard their sole right to use the Marvel characters they have licensed because of the monetary and legal concerns. While allowing crossovers between studios might seem logical to fans, there are so many complex legal issues involved that none of the other studios is ever likely to allow it.


You have only to look at the example of Marvel trying to bargain with Fox for the right to use Galactus & The Silver Surfer in its films. Marvel was willing to allow Fox to keep the rights to Daredevil longer than their contract allowed in exchange for use of the characters. Even with that major concession on the table, Fox refused to accept the deal. Fox allowed Daredevil's rights to revert to Marvel, even though they had a director and writer hired for the reboot, rather than simply share a couple of characters on a limited basis.


Now I ask you, does that make it seem likely that the other studios will ever be willing to allow their characters to appear in Marvel films? Allowing villains from the Fantastic Four to appear in Marvel Studios' films would have been an excellent promotional opportunity for Fox, particularly in light of how poorly its previous FF films fared at the box office. Yet they passed on the deal, and in the process gave up another franchise as well. There must be some very powerful legal disincentives preventing deals like this from being made. Therefore, I don't think a crossover is ever going to happen.

I can't speak for Sony which I have hope it will happen because of the "strong" relationship between Marvel/Sony over TASM production...However, direct quotes from Fox producer Lauren Shuler Donner..you can't really fight this when it's coming from the people who will make it happen lol I was also speaking of X-Men and Spidey.. I never did mention SS or Fantastic Four.. btw the legal issues are being worked on by Disney lawyers to figure out how to get them back or bring them into the fold (cameos) without rights being in question....deals can be made it's entertainment and these films aren't parodies or box-office-bombs in the making.. it's a billion and a half dollar franchise pure win-win for both studios..

Q: Now that The Avengers has done so well, it seems like the other studios with Marvel properties can see the advantage of making a deal. Can you see a world where this generation of X-Men could be in an Avengers movie?


Lauren Shuler Donner: I would love it. I would love it. I personally have close ties to Marvel because of Kevin Feige, because Kevin worked for me. But to take our characters and mingle them in the way that they were written, yeah, absolutely.

when it comes to Surfer and Galactus Marvel wanted them for Guardians of The Galaxy but have moved on without them obviously...plenty of existing cosmic characters or new ones Marvel can create... I feel like Fox would need them to beef-up their new Fantastic Four franchise..even with a slew of awesome villains that have never been used..Daredevil wasn't a character the studio had faith in or they wouldn't have waited till the rights were on the chopping block before trying to make another film...they will never going to be willing to "trade/give up" Fantastic Four characters...