Sequels Gap year for the Avenger movies

[psylockolussus]

The Avengers is like a very eventful movie. 5 movies built it up and its not like Spider-Man or X-Men that should get a new movie every 2 to 3 years.

I think the gap should be 4 to 5 years. And Between those 3 to 4 years they should release 6-8 movies that is related to the Avengers movie.

 

[KangConquers]

The Avengers is like a very eventful movie. 5 movies built it up and its not like Spider-Man or X-Men that should get a new movie every 2 to 3 years.

I think the gap should be 4 to 5 years. And Between those 3 to 4 years they should release 6-8 movies that is related to the Avengers movie.

I completely disagree.

Marvel needs to strike while the Iron is hot. I'd like to see Avengers 2 in 2015 and Avengers 3 in 2018. 3 years is plenty of time to put together an Avengers movie.

The reason it took 5 years to build up is you had to introduce the core characters...Ant-Man etc aren't as important as the big 3 of Cap, Thor and Iron Man. Now that those characters are established, making an Avengers 2 should theoretically be no harder than making a new X-Men movie.

The second you start waiting 4-5 years for a sequel, you lose momentum. I think Cap and Thor trilogies should be put on 5 year plans (5 years between movie 1 and movie 3) and Avengers should be put on a six year plan.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

A movie every two years is normal for most successful franchises.

 

[bakertx]

i used to watch movie everyday i even invite my friend to go to the cinema,until i come to a site and a read is about angry birds i did try to play with it and now i am very much addicted to it.







__________________
Too much addicted angry birds

 

[Roughneck]

rrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


I think when they make em they make em.....

I really like the idea they have been running with.....well....wanted to run with.....

2 movies a year.....though as we get into more and more marvel titles I would like to see 3-4 movies a year

1 street level (Punisher, cage, moon knight....)
1 Cosmic (Nova, quasar, captain Marvel...)
2 Avengers (Iron Man, Cap, Thor, Panther....)


have whatever crossover as needed or just nods is great. but if it works for the Story why not have Cap hop in a help Cloak and Dagger with something.


And if they can all build towards something then great.

I would love if Marvel had all the liscenses but a Punisher, Daredevil and Spidey movies all dealing with Kingpin as a major threat but fighting his minions then a 4th movie has them teaming up to topple the big guy.

Like with the Avengers.....Same for Cosmic, set em up and bring on the Annihilation wave.

Then if all is right with the universe we can put em all together for the mother of all Infinity Gaunlet silver screen throwdowns

 

[TomPiltoff]

I completely disagree.

Marvel needs to strike while the Iron is hot.

The second you start waiting 4-5 years for a sequel, you lose momentum.

What does that even mean? Does the word oversaturation mean anything to you?

 

[psylockolussus]

I completely disagree.

Marvel needs to strike while the Iron is hot. I'd like to see Avengers 2 in 2015 and Avengers 3 in 2018. 3 years is plenty of time to put together an Avengers movie.

The reason it took 5 years to build up is you had to introduce the core characters...Ant-Man etc aren't as important as the big 3 of Cap, Thor and Iron Man. Now that those characters are established, making an Avengers 2 should theoretically be no harder than making a new X-Men movie.

The second you start waiting 4-5 years for a sequel, you lose momentum. I think Cap and Thor trilogies should be put on 5 year plans (5 years between movie 1 and movie 3) and Avengers should be put on a six year plan.

Well the public is gonna have a fatigue with that.

 

[DACrowe]

The public is going to have fatigue either way. Better to get it all before the fatigue sets in. Besides, I think the single heroes--especially when origins are involved--are going to be the ones that start to fade away. Avengers has enough of a novelty factor to have at least two films be treated with hype and anticipation.

 

[November Rain]

I'm with psylockolussus here

The avengers is only as strong as the sum of its parts. and there should be no more than 3 more.

in between they should do their best to build up the reputation of the cast as individuals and get a cohesion going and also keep that marvel universe alight.

no one is going to want to watch iron man on his own when an avengers film has everyone together.

use the other character films to bring a joined threat plot together. The avengers film should be the movie equivalent of an annual special (although a five film build up doesn't seem as necessary anymore, 2-3 films is sufficient).

If marvel fails to deliver on the notion of the avengers, their whole studio premise is screwed over.

as for what they should do with the hulk, he should become a roaming character, heck, all the actors need to start roaming in each other's films now.

 

[Lord]

As long as they make an Ant-man before Avengers 2, it has to have Pym and the Wasp, it MUST

 

[November Rain]

. Now that those characters are established, making an Avengers 2 should theoretically be no harder than making a new X-Men movie.

I completely disagree

outside of potentially bringing back a collection of their old enemies to be the main antagonists, it would be incredibly difficult to whip out a feasible entity that can justify being a threat they couldn't all take down individually within a 2 hour slot.

big villains need big build ups.

let#s not discuss the pitfalls of the phoenix, dr doom or sebastian shaw in their respective superhero team movies.

magneto fluked it and striker was never much of a big hitter, even in wolverine origins.

out of the avengers, i can see them rehashing the red skull and maybe the abomination as a cameo and if they want to pull of anything major like the alien invasion in the ultimate comics, they have to flesh it out over the course of the other character's movies.

 

[DACrowe]

Depends. Them fighting just a supervillain would in itself become generic.

I see it as:

Avengers 1: Loki and possibly someone else (Loki will really need to raise the stakes compared to Thor for this to work).

Avengers 2: Skrulls/Alien invasion (build up in post-credit sequences in between films).

Avengers 3: Civil War. End it with heroes vs. heroes. Of course for this to work they'd have to get everybody back and that may be impossible from a budgetary standpoint. But in theory, it'd make an epic conclusion.

 

[November Rain]

a two part civil war film would be marvel studio's epitaph before a complete reboot.

i'd happily never watch another superhero film again after that. you cant top it.

 

[Avenger]

Three years between Avengers movies makes sense to me. Something like this schedule might work:

2012: The Avengers
2013: Iron Man 3/Thor 2
2014: Cap 2/New solo film (maybe a new Hulk?)
2015: Avengers 2
2016: Thor 3/Something else
2017: Cap 3/Something else
2018: Avengers 3

I imagine the audience would probably be getting kind of tired of it all by Avengers 3, so let that be the MCU's big finale, at least for a while.

 

[VoodooMagic]

Three years between Avengers movies makes sense to me. Something like this schedule might work:

2012: The Avengers
2013: Iron Man 3/Thor 2
2014: Cap 2/New solo film (maybe a new Hulk?)
2015: Avengers 2
2016: Thor 3/Something else
2017: Cap 3/Something else
2018: Avengers 3

I imagine the audience would probably be getting kind of tired of it all by Avengers 3, so let that be the MCU's big finale, at least for a while.

Pirates, Fast and Furious and Transformers all proved you can never kill a franchise that the world has fallen inlove with...even if the movies are less then stellar (Fast Five was amazing though)

 

[VoodooMagic]

Avengers model works well.

I really would like to start seeing Marvel release movies outside of summer though. You telling me Avengers 2 wouldn't open well Dec 14th 2015? Giving us the summer to do Thor 3, Hulk 3, F4 and have all those movies get us pumped for A2?

 

[Cheshire1996]

If they did adapt Civil War well, it would be beyond amazing. But I don't know if Marvel would be interested in doing that or not.

 

[KangConquers]

Three years between Avengers movies makes sense to me. Something like this schedule might work:

2012: The Avengers
2013: Iron Man 3/Thor 2
2014: Cap 2/New solo film (maybe a new Hulk?)
2015: Avengers 2
2016: Thor 3/Something else
2017: Cap 3/Something else
2018: Avengers 3

I imagine the audience would probably be getting kind of tired of it all by Avengers 3, so let that be the MCU's big finale, at least for a while.

This is exactly what I was saying; why wait 5 years between Avengers films? Avengers 3 should end 10 years after Iron Man 1...sort of the culmination of a decade long project...if you take any longer than that, the core audience who got interested in the whole thing after Iron Man will not stick around.

 

[MarvelKnight]

Everything I have read is that Avengers 1 will start to lay groundwork to a mega event that will be avengers 3 in 2017.There will be subtle things strewn throughout the movies between now and a3 in 2017 with A3 being the culmination of events that were hinted at all the way back in A1 in May. Whether that is subtle in movie references that will come to fruition later, or it will be post credits or a combo of both, 2017 is the mega-event for the Avengers and The MCU unless it gets pushed back

 

[Neo_3]

I thought it was 2018.

 

[MarvelKnight]

It's entirely possible that I could be mistaken, I haven't been able to find any recent articles and the last I found have been around October of last year and 2017 is just what I read.

Regardless, I'm sure they'll all kick ***. I heard that Avengers will have a post-credits scene in reference to IM3 and IM3 will serve as IM1 did with the next round of lead ins to A2.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

if you take any longer than that, the core audience who got interested in the whole thing after Iron Man will not stick around.

I disagree. if you have to built something up then take your time and don't rush it.
I think, what can be said now, that TA is the biggest commercially successful movie of all time (not counting anything Cameron did), is, that the audience for TA was bigger than the audience for IM. ittook 5 years and not only didn't MS lose audience in that periode, but instead they gave it time to built up hype.
A TA sequel in 2016/2017 could work exactly like that. new fans will be found on the road to TA2. look at all those crazy Loki fangirls who joined the party last year. if you have a charismatic character in the movies inbetween it will attract new crowd. again, a longer period between TA and TA2 gives more characters the chance to become the new Loki or Coulson in terms of fan appreciation and the hype will be bigger.

 

[cherokeesam]

I disagree. if you have to built something up then take your time and don't rush it.
I think, what can be said now, that TA is the biggest commercially successful movie of all time (not counting anything Cameron did), is, that the audience for TA was bigger than the audience for IM. ittook 5 years and not only didn't MS lose audience in that periode, but instead they gave it time to built up hype.
A TA sequel in 2016/2017 could work exactly like that. new fans will be found on the road to TA2. look at all those crazy Loki fangirls who joined the party last year. if you have a charismatic character in the movies inbetween it will attract new crowd. again, a longer period between TA and TA2 gives more characters the chance to become the new Loki or Coulson in terms of fan appreciation and the hype will be bigger.

1) That's unfair of you to single out KangConquers' post, since it was made a year ago and long before he, you, I or anyone else expected Avengers to turn into the historical blockbuster it became.

2) It did *not* take 5 years for The Avengers to develop. Iron Man was released in 2008, and Marvel announced plans for Avengers to release in 2011 --- THREE years later. Writers strikes and Joss Whedon's schedule pushed the release back until 2012, but that's still *four* years, not five.

3) The first film in the Avengers franchise should naturally take longer to develop than its sequels, because you have to give the solo films time to introduce the characters, and time to develop the team. But now that the first one is out of the way, there is no conceivable reason to wait through Iron Man, Thor, Cap and Hulk sequels as steppingstones to Avengers 2 --- it's unnecessary, because the characters are already introduced, already well-known.

At best, the only thing you need to do is have a couple of solo projects for *new* characters to add to the team --- say, Ant-Man (which could conceivably introduce no less than THREE new Avengers, and possibly four --- Hank Pym, Janet Van Dyne, Scott Lang, and Vision), Black Panther, Ms. Marvel (again, multiple Avengers potentially), and Dr. Strange....or any combination thereof.

Avengers 2 should be due by no later than 2015. Any stalling beyond that will kill interest and hype, as KangConquers said.

 

[mbnasir6]

Some of you are acting like Solo films are nothing and only thr Avengers will bring in audiences, which is not true. Having a solo film every year will keep hype going and will mean that the Avengers sequels won't be rushed and the GA won't feel like its been oversaturated.
Even 2 solo films each year is too much imo, maybe 2 then 1 and 1, one of those being a new character, then A2, then repeat, then end with A3 because then you will really feel like these characters have been around for a long time because they have and Civil War will be bitter sweet because now Marvel movies are something a new generation will have grown up with, or thr current has matured with and will be appreciated for decades to come.

 

[cherokeesam]

Some of you are acting like Solo films are nothing and only thr Avengers will bring in audiences, which is not true. Having a solo film every year will keep hype going and will mean that the Avengers sequels won't be rushed and the GA won't feel like its been oversaturated.
Even 2 solo films each year is too much imo, maybe 2 then 1 and 1, one of those being a new character, then A2, then repeat, then end with A3 because then you will really feel like these characters have been around for a long time because they have and Civil War will be bitter sweet because now Marvel movies are something a new generation will have grown up with, or thr current has matured with and will be appreciated for decades to come.

Why would there be a Civil War in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? The Civil War hinges on registration of superpowers to prevent vigilantism. The movie Avengers are *not* vigilantes, and are already duly authorized by the government.

There will be no Civil War in the MCU. Thank god.