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

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Two very different movies featuring the same character are less repetitive than two similar movies with similar villains (aka almost every franchise Hollywood has ever churned out, comic book movies included)

And two very different movies featuring very different villains is even *more* refreshing than that.

Hence, bringing in a new villain for TA3 instead of an even MORE POWERFUL (!!!!!) Thanos for TA2. Thanos with infinite power with the Cosmic Cube in TA2! Yay! Thanos with....even more infinite power with the Gauntlet in TA3! Yayyy....wait, what...??? No thanks.

Keep it fresh.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Or it means developing a character beyond the routine "try to do something eeevil, fight hero(es), lose"

It's not repetitive to tell two different stories featuring the same villain. And it makes a lot more structural sense, in terms of the movies they have made and are making, to build up to a grand finale featuring Thanos. Instead of killing him off swiftly to make room for Ultron or Kang or whoever to take center stage for a flick. Before The Big Recast®

Exactly. One of the things that makes great franchises great are villain relationships. Star Wars, LOTR, Potter, they all have them. One guy coming in and telling a bunch of peons what to do... not so interesting, at the end of the day.

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

Avengers isn't Star Wars. With Marvel comics you expect to see different villains each time round. For Star Wars, Darth Vader is really the only villain. The Avengers have many other villains in their rogues gallery. Repeating Thanos as the main villain each time that they battle just means preventing another villain from taking centre stage.

A New Hope: Grand Moff Tarkin, Tusken Raiders
Empire Strikes Back: Boba Fett, Lando Calrissian
Return of the Jedi: Jabba the Hutt, Emporer Palpatine

Thanos was the true main villain in Avengers, but in no way prevented Loki from taking center stage. I think a smart way to do Thanos would be similar to Palpatine in the Prequel Trilogy, he was revealed at the end of the first film, played the field in the second film and let others do his fighting for him and then gained his full power and became the unstoppable main villain in the third.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Only if recasts are necessary. By the time Avengers 3 rolls out, some of the players may opt to stay with this gravy train for as long as it's still running. If TA2 and TA3 rake in another billion plus at the box office, I'd think some contract renegotiations might be in order.

Recasts are going to be necessary. The idea that all the actors will re-sign for affordable prices is optimistic at best, naive at worst. Very few of them are on 'gravy trains.' This is simply a set up for further career moves for at least Cap and Widow.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

And two very different movies featuring very different villains is even *more* refreshing than that.

...

Keep it fresh.

You can keep it 'fresh' or you can keep it successful: James Bond had Blofield. New James Bond has the mysterious conspiracy thing people whatever. Harry Potter had Voldemort, The Dark Knight trilogy had Scarecrow, Star Wars had Darth Vader, Pirates of the Caribbean had Barbossa, Transformers with Megatron, Lord of the Rings with Sauron, Matrix with Agent Smith. Add in different villains, change the role of your main villains, that's how successful franchises start, with long continuous stories.

Overall, Thanos being "the villain" and being "built up" in Avengers 2 does not prevent the Avengers from fighting any number of other villains.

[Dark Raven]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Thanos was the true main villain in Avengers, but in no way prevented Loki from taking center stage. I think a smart way to do Thanos would be similar to Palpatine in the Prequel Trilogy, he was revealed at the end of the first film, played the field in the second film and let others do his fighting for him and then gained his full power and became the unstoppable main villain in the third.



You can keep it 'fresh' or you can keep it successful: James Bond had Blofield. New James Bond has the mysterious conspiracy thing people whatever. Harry Potter had Voldemort, The Dark Knight trilogy had Scarecrow, Star Wars had Darth Vader, Pirates of the Caribbean had Barbossa, Transformers with Megatron, Lord of the Rings with Sauron, Matrix with Agent Smith. Add in different villains, change the role of your main villains, that's how successful franchises start, with long continuous stories.

Overall, Thanos being "the villain" and being "built up" in Avengers 2 does not prevent the Avengers from fighting any number of other villains.

But that's not what Chewy is saying. I've suggested as you mentioned above, that Thanos can be built up over the various films, more as a behind-the-scenes villain than the main one, and then emerge as the main one for the final climactic battle in the third film.

What Chewy seems to be suggesting is that Thanos is the main baddie in the 2nd film, fights the Avengers and then perhaps loses. Then for the 3rd film he comes back, even more powerful, yet still the main baddie, and fights them again. So it's like in TA2 they're fighting Thanos on a power scale of 8, and then in TA3, they're fighting him on a power scale of 10.

That's entirely different to Thanos acting like Palpatine and letting others do the fighting for him, then in the final film gaining full power and going out and fighting himself.

[Chewy]

You'll notice that i never suggested he fight them in TA2, or lose. Just that he be the main baddie, and have an actual presence in the film. No more pulling the strings from the shadows.

He would also presumably have a few more mercs along the lines of the Other under his command. People like Annihilus, Nebula, Terrax, Ronan, etc. There are lots of ways to make the actual movies different with unique visuals/fights while keeping Thanos as the through-line.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

You can keep it 'fresh' or you can keep it successful: James Bond had Blofield. New James Bond has the mysterious conspiracy thing people whatever. Harry Potter had Voldemort, The Dark Knight trilogy had Scarecrow, Star Wars had Darth Vader, Pirates of the Caribbean had Barbossa, Transformers with Megatron, Lord of the Rings with Sauron, Matrix with Agent Smith. Add in different villains, change the role of your main villains, that's how successful franchises start, with long continuous stories.

Overall, Thanos being "the villain" and being "built up" in Avengers 2 does not prevent the Avengers from fighting any number of other villains.

But here's the thing: in all those movie franchises you listed (except one), the series were set up as a saga with definite endings. They each had an over-arching storyline. (Might as well add the X-Men trilogy to that list, and Raimi's Spider-Man.) So it makes sense that there's a central villain in those.

But the one movie franchise you got wrong...? Bond. Yes, Blofeld is a recurring villain, but neither he nor SPECTRE represent any over-arching storyline, nor a presence that resonates through each and every film. In fact, Blofeld is only a central villain in one Bond film, and has brief cameos in three or four others.

I know some of you guys keep hoping like hell that Marvel wants to make a single story arc with one central villain (and hey, who better than Thanos to be The Big Bad?), but that's simply not the case. There is NO evidence to that effect in the existing films, nor any hint of Feige wanting to make it that way for the future films. Thanos will have a presence in a *few* films --- TA1 & 2, GOTG, and probably TDW --- but he had NO presence in the Iron Man films, nor TIH, and I'll bet any amount of money you care to lose that there's not going to be any hint of Thanos in IM3, CATWS, or Ant-Man.

I have to keep going back to this, but it really *is* that simple: Marvel is following the same formula they always have in comic books. You've got a host of titles that operate independently of each other, and Avengers is just one more series. Avengers stories have *never* depended on what happens in the individual solo titles of their members (Cap, Thor, IM), and have always operated with independent storylines.

Thanos is just one of many, many Avenger villains. He may (or may not) be the most powerful, but he has never been the be-all/end-all of Avenger stories. Nor will he be in the MCU. There are more fish to fry beyond him --- some bigger, some smaller.

But the power threat doesn't matter....it only matters that each Avenger film tells an interesting story with interesting characters. You don't need the crutch of trilogy-ism or over-stories to do that.

[Chewy]

I feel like people who keep screaming "It's just like the comics! Open-endings!" ignore that those very same comics operate in the exact same way - there are no definite ends. But there are definite arcs, with definite beginnings, middles, and ends. With overarching threats and themes and central characters that are not "swapped out" until the arc ends.

And that's the only reason the whole recast-and-continue mantra may work - because there are different stories to tell, with different themes, different characters, different threats, and different beginnings, middles, and ends. A series of disjointed, disconnected one-shots is of interest to no one. In film form or comic book form.

[DrCosmic]

Exactly, which is why they're not doing disconnected whatevers. The idea that Avengers is just one more franchise instead of the clear culmination of the rest of the MCU, the marking point of one phase to another is just blind.

Sam, go ahead and read up on Blofield, who basically was the first story arc for James Bond, over the course of six movies, from over the course of 20 years. That's how successful franchises start. If they catch on and become household names as Bond did, as Avengers will if it does a great overarching story, then you can do another story arc afterwards, or follow the Bond route and do a bunch of one shots, which, like they are in comics, will be hit and miss critically and commercially. Or, they could go the Star Wars route (also not set up as a single saga, Lucas at one point said 10+ films), and do sets of trilogies, and become even bigger than Bond, or maybe even Star Wars.

I know some of you guys keep hoping like hell that Marvel wants to make a single story arc with one central villain

you have to make up emotional viewpoints for you opponents so that you can have a reasonable argument. Is this just a debate tactic, or do you really believe you can read minds?

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Outside of Pym Ultron has no more of a personal connection to the characters than Thanos does. Actually Thanos has been screwing around with Loki, attempting to obtain the cosmic cube, and unleashed an army on the Earth, so his personal connection to the heroes is already greater.

Having Thanos "give the villain a push" in two straight Avengers movies is kind of weaksauce. Everything, especially Marvel greenlighting a Guardians of the Galaxy movie (risky!), the first film's tag, and Whedon's love for the character, points to Thanos as the full-on villain for the Avengers sequel. You can only tease something for so long without the audience getting fed up with it

This is how I feel. So many fans want them to put off Thanos until Avengers 3, which will probably be somewhere between 2017-2020. That's at least 5, and up to 8 years of them teasing a character. Most people will lose interest or forget about certain elements after that long.

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Exactly, which is why they're not doing disconnected whatevers. The idea that Avengers is just one more franchise instead of the clear culmination of the rest of the MCU, the marking point of one phase to another is just blind.

Yeah, you tell the next part of Iron Man's story, you tell the next part of Thor's story, you tell the next part of Cap's story, and you tell the next part of Thanos' story, and then you bring them all together in Avengers 2. You don't cross those stories over beyond teases beforehand, otherwise you rob Avengers of its event feel. And it is an event - look how many people who never bothered to venture into the theater for the solo flicks went to see Avengers.

And the redbox rentals/bluray sales for the original five movies picked up in a huge way after the Avengers trailer came out. That's one of the reasons the movies are spaced out the way they are - they need GotG available on home media, so people who skip it in theaters can go check it out (aka drop $$$ into Disney's pockets) after they see the Avengers 2 trailer and discover that the baddie was featured in GotG first. It's easy to see the effect all of the solo build-up had on the success of the Avengers, but I think people sometimes forget it goes both ways.

[DrCosmic]

That's true, I couldn't find *anything*, even toys for the MCU when Avengers was coming out. And even in those next parts of the stories, they come out of Avengers, both narratively and thematically. You can watch IM3 without having seen Captain America and be just fine. But you can't watch IM3 without having seen Avengers or there's gonna be some... when did Tony become so unselfish?

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Exactly, which is why they're not doing disconnected whatevers. The idea that Avengers is just one more franchise instead of the clear culmination of the rest of the MCU, the marking point of one phase to another is just blind.

So if the Avengers movies are designed to be turning points, marking the end of one phase and the beginning of another, then why on earth would anyone believe that Thanos would show up *again* in Phase III....? If he does, that's not the ending of anything; it's the flogging of a dead horse year after year after year.

Your own assertion --- and I don't dispute it --- is the perfect argument for Thanos wrapping up Phase II, with Phase III beginning anew with a different core villain.

[terry78]

I'm trying to think who is bigger than Thanos in regards to threats. I know there are a lot of them out there but as far as being known as well...don't know.

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

So if the Avengers movies are designed to be turning points, marking the end of one phase and the beginning of another, then why on earth would anyone believe that Thanos would show up *again* in Phase III....? If he does, that's not the ending of anything; it's the flogging of a dead horse year after year after year.

Your own assertion --- and I don't dispute it --- is the perfect argument for Thanos wrapping up Phase II, with Phase III beginning anew with a different core villain.

Why does each phase have to be the same? With one big villain behind the scenes? and then coming out to face the avengers?

Now that, THAT is repetitive and too artificial.

[jaqua99]

Edit, chewy found it, but its basically confirmed Thanos will extend into phase 3
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2012/09/20...l-kevin-feige/

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by terry78

I'm trying to think who is bigger than Thanos in regards to threats. I know there are a lot of them out there but as far as being known as well...don't know.

Nobody outside of a comic book shop or an AEMH fan knows who *any* of the Avenger villains are. Thanos, Kang, Ultron, the MOE, etc. etc. etc. So audience recognition doesn't even factor into the equation. As for "bigger threats": as I keep saying, you can't base a series on an escalating threat level. All you're doing is piling on increasingly higher levels of absurdity, a la Michael Bay. "THREAT LEVEL YELLOW! THREAT LEVEL ORANGE!! THREAT LEVEL RED!!! THREAT LEVEL....UM...MAROON!!!!"

Originally Posted by jaqua99

Edit, chewy found it, but its basically confirmed Thanos will extend into phase 3
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2012/09/20...l-kevin-feige/

No. No, it isn't.

"I see Phase Two unfolding in the same way of us taking our time, us doing what's right for each individual movie, while folding in elements that will not only build up to the culmination of Phase Two, but even Phase Three" does *not* translate to "Thanos will be one of those elements in Phase Three." Feige said they're "folding in" more elements, which more than likely means that they'll plant seeds in Phase II movies for whatever *new* threats the heroes face in Phase III.

[DrCosmic]

So... they're planting seeds in Phase II that carry to Phase II, we know they're planting seeds for Thanos in Phase II... but they're not carrying Thanos to Phase III??? It's basically confirmed.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

So if the Avengers movies are designed to be turning points, marking the end of one phase and the beginning of another, then why on earth would anyone believe that Thanos would show up *again* in Phase III....? If he does, that's not the ending of anything; it's the flogging of a dead horse year after year after year.

Your own assertion --- and I don't dispute it --- is the perfect argument for Thanos wrapping up Phase II, with Phase III beginning anew with a different core villain.

... I honestly don't understanding what you're saying here. It's like you've just thrown the words ending, turning point culmination, villain and phase into a blender and come out with some strange smoothie I'm not sure I want to taste or not. If you're equating turning point with ending, as it appears you are, I'd rather just leave it alone.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

So... they're planting seeds in Phase II that carry to Phase II, we know they're planting seeds for Thanos in Phase II... but they're not carrying Thanos to Phase III??? It's basically confirmed.



... I honestly don't understanding what you're saying here. It's like you've just thrown the words ending, turning point culmination, villain and phase into a blender and come out with some strange smoothie I'm not sure I want to taste or not. If you're equating turning point with ending, as it appears you are, I'd rather just leave it alone.

Yes, I believe Thanos is the culmination of Phase II, as Feige indicates. That means I seriously, seriously doubt we'll see him beyond TA2. No, he won't get "killed" --- Thanos never dies --- but he'll be defeated, as far as the Avengers are concerned.

As much as I'd love to see Thanos again and again and again, and even get his own series or whatever, the simple fact of the matter is that general audiences don't want overkill and same old-same old. By the time Phase III starts, we'll likely have seen *at least* bits and pieces of The Mad Titan in TA1, TA2, GOTG, and possibly even Thor TDW. Maybe even more than that, I don't know. Audiences will definitely be ready to move on to a new villain by Phase III, not a "new 'n' improved" Thanos 2.0.

[DrCosmic]

Feige doesn't indicate Thanos will be the culmination of Phase II. He only indicates things from Phase II will culminate in Phase III. If you imagine that there's some other seeds that will be planted in Phase II so that this will not include Thanos, that's entirely your creation, nothing to do with Feige.

But hey, if your desire is to see Thanos again and again, you'll get your wish, just like those who wanted to see Palpatine and Blofield again and again got their wish, without it feeling same-old-same-old. Audiences won't be ready to move on until the villain's story is fulfilled. If that story plays out of 20 years like Blofield's or 10 years like Voldemorts or 16 (40?) years like Palpatine's, as long as the intermediate villains are interesting, audiences will love it, and you'll springboard an incredible critical and commercial success. This is the idea of the story arc that has served comics and films so well. Marvel won't disregard it.

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Nobody outside of a comic book shop or an AEMH fan knows who *any* of the Avenger villains are. Thanos, Kang, Ultron, the MOE, etc. etc. etc. So audience recognition doesn't even factor into the equation. As for "bigger threats": as I keep saying, you can't base a series on an escalating threat level. All you're doing is piling on increasingly higher levels of absurdity, a la Michael Bay. "THREAT LEVEL YELLOW! THREAT LEVEL ORANGE!! THREAT LEVEL RED!!! THREAT LEVEL....UM...MAROON!!!!"



No. No, it isn't.

"I see Phase Two unfolding in the same way of us taking our time, us doing what's right for each individual movie, while folding in elements that will not only build up to the culmination of Phase Two, but even Phase Three" does *not* translate to "Thanos will be one of those elements in Phase Three." Feige said they're "folding in" more elements, which more than likely means that they'll plant seeds in Phase II movies for whatever *new* threats the heroes face in Phase III.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

So... they're planting seeds in Phase II that carry to Phase II, we know they're planting seeds for Thanos in Phase II... but they're not carrying Thanos to Phase III??? It's basically confirmed.



... I honestly don't understanding what you're saying here. It's like you've just thrown the words ending, turning point culmination, villain and phase into a blender and come out with some strange smoothie I'm not sure I want to taste or not. If you're equating turning point with ending, as it appears you are, I'd rather just leave it alone.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Feige doesn't indicate Thanos will be the culmination of Phase II. He only indicates things from Phase II will culminate in Phase III. If you imagine that there's some other seeds that will be planted in Phase II so that this will not include Thanos, that's entirely your creation, nothing to do with Feige.

But hey, if your desire is to see Thanos again and again, you'll get your wish, just like those who wanted to see Palpatine and Blofield again and again got their wish, without it feeling same-old-same-old. Audiences won't be ready to move on until the villain's story is fulfilled. If that story plays out of 20 years like Blofield's or 10 years like Voldemorts or 16 (40?) years like Palpatine's, as long as the intermediate villains are interesting, audiences will love it, and you'll springboard an incredible critical and commercial success. This is the idea of the story arc that has served comics and films so well. Marvel won't disregard it.

Bingo

[Spider-Vader]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

Edit, chewy found it, but its basically confirmed Thanos will extend into phase 3
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2012/09/20...l-kevin-feige/

I hope this is true, I can't wait to see Thanos fight the Avengers...but they need to save that for the third movie. How are they going to top Thanos? Unless they get the rights to Galactus, then they can't. Anything after Avengers 2 will seem incredibly small in comparison.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Feige doesn't indicate Thanos will be the culmination of Phase II. He only indicates things from Phase II will culminate in Phase III. If you imagine that there's some other seeds that will be planted in Phase II so that this will not include Thanos, that's entirely your creation, nothing to do with Feige.

But hey, if your desire is to see Thanos again and again, you'll get your wish, just like those who wanted to see Palpatine and Blofield again and again got their wish, without it feeling same-old-same-old. Audiences won't be ready to move on until the villain's story is fulfilled. If that story plays out of 20 years like Blofield's or 10 years like Voldemorts or 16 (40?) years like Palpatine's, as long as the intermediate villains are interesting, audiences will love it, and you'll springboard an incredible critical and commercial success. This is the idea of the story arc that has served comics and films so well. Marvel won't disregard it.

Except for one important fact: the fact that you are greatly, greatly overestimating the importance of Thanos to the Marvel Universe.

Palpatine/Vader, Blofeld and Voldemort were set up to be the nemesis (nemeses?) of their respective heroes. So was Magneto. So was Dr. Doom. So was Loki. So was The Joker. So was Lex Luthor. All of these are *foils.* Nemesis. Archrivals. You expect to see them in their respective heroes' stories.

Thanos is not the archrival or nemesis of The Avengers. In fact, his only true nemesis is a fairly obscure (to general audiences) Marvel (anti-)hero named Adam Warlock. Who is not an Avenger. Oh, and an even more obscure Marvel hero: Eros, or Starfox. Who is an Avenger....but one almost nobody (evne in comic book shops) has ever heard of.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of issues that the Avengers have *ever* faced Thanos.

So no, Thanos is not the archenemy of the Avengers. So one would not expect to see him recurring again and again and again in an Avengers franchise.

One would expect to see Thanos in one phase, then see the team move on to other threats in another phase.

Like they've always done in the Avengers comics.

Seriously: it would help some of you guys to actually read the comics before you start speculating on how certain characters and story arcs should develop and be portrayed.

[Chewy]

The movies are not the comics.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Except for one important fact: the fact that you are greatly, greatly overestimating the importance of Thanos to the Marvel Universe.

...

Seriously: it would help some of you guys to actually read the comics before you start speculating on how certain characters and story arcs should develop and be portrayed.

Are you ever going to admit that the Marvel Universe and the Marvel Cinematic Universe are not the same universe? Does your browser filter out the word "cinematic?" We're talking about the MCU and you say "No the Marvel Universe isn't like that" and start telling a bunch of comic book nerds they should read comics.

As it stands now, the Avengers is set up with Thanos as the mastermind behind their problems who intends to cause more. He is set up as their nemesis. That's what happened in the film that we all saw. So what does it matter who is his archnemesis in the comics?

Originally Posted by Chewy

The movies are not the comics.

I will strive for this level of succinctness.

[Whiskey Tango]

Originally Posted by Chewy

The movies are not the comics.

truth

[cherokeesam]

What a surprise --- DrCosmic, Chewy, and WhiskeyTango all come up with the same excuse: "The movies are not the comics."

Yes....yes, they are. Kevin Feige, Jon Favreau, and Joss Whedon in particular have made it abundantly clear that they intend to be as faithful to the spirit and content and character of the comics as possible. Yes, that requires some tweaking of costumes here and there, modernization of concepts that are outdated by several decades, and simplification of story arcs and backstories that have been glommed up by years of retcons and "WTF???" writers, but otherwise, this *is* the Marvel Universe that we comic-book readers have known and loved for generations. Minus some very glaring omissions that remain in the hands of Sony and Fox Studios, of course.

And no, Doc, the MCU has *not* tried to make the case that Thanos is the nemesis of the Avengers, or the "mastermind behind all their problems." Where is it shown that Thanos caused Bruce Banner to get gamma-fied, or square off against Emil Blonsky? Where is Thanos in Iron Man 1 or 2? I also must have missed Thanos in CATFA as well --- was he responsible for the Super-Soldier Serum or something?

The Thor movies are the *only* direct or indirect link the Avengers have to Thanos, through Loki's "gangsta deal," the Cube, and the Gauntlet. (Which you three, IIRC, seem to pretend doesn't exist anyway, since it's a deleted scene and all.) And even Thor is completely unaware of Thanos' existence at this point.

So no: again, Thanos is *not* the nemesis of the Avengers, nor has he been set up to be that. He is just the Big Bad for Phase II, period. Anything beyond that is sheer speculation and wish magic.