Sequels Gap year for the Avenger movies

[BigThor]

6 year trilogy, really, because the movie falls on the 3rd year.

Granted, we did have a 4 year wait from Iron Man 1. I think Avengers 3 in 2018 wraps up this part of the MCU into a nice tidy little 10 year package.

Yeah you're right, I don't know what the **** I was thinking.

 

[spideymouse]

I didn't say have him after Avengers 3. As long as Doctor Strange shares the screen with Downey and co at some point, it's in continuity.

We just had a 1.5 B Avengers movie, with a cast that gelled in a fantastic way. Whether you like it or not, this is now the classic Avengers line-up to a new generation of people. This team worked really well, and is full of great actors. Why spoil it by trying to add six new heroes every Avengers movie?

I say add Ant-Man and Wasp in Avengers 2, and add Vision and Black Panther in 3. Why cluster**** everything into this trilogy, thus crippling the franchise ten years down the road? Everyone seems to have such a short term vision for this thing.

I believe you're misreading what I'm saying. For one, I don't consider the Avengers franchise as a trilogy--it's just part of an ever-expanding, continuously progressing MCU narrative that could and should go beyond three movies. Secondly, I'm certainly not suggesting that they force six new characters into each Avengers movie.

What I am saying is that expanding the MCU beyond the Avengers franchise means that they should be introducing new heroes (Avengers and non-Avengers) during the second and third phases simultaneously while the major Avengers solo films build up to Avengers 2 and 3. But they can't introduce those new heroes between now and Avengers 3 if they only have 4-5 movies in between each Avengers sequel, and if 3-4 out of those 4-5 are sequels to the major solo Avengers. If you force Avengers 2 to release in Summer 2015, you can have at most 2 movies introducing new parts of the MCU, and that's only if neither of them are minor solo Avengers. The same is true if you force Avengers 3 to release in Summer 2018.

You suggest introducing new Avengers in the Avengers sequels, but I'm not exactly convinced that it's a good strategy, given how Hawkeye was given the short end of the stick in the first one, as well as how you would be spreading the screen time out across even more characters.

 

[I'm Venom]

Another reason The Avengers 2 shouldn't release until 2015 is because they need a lot of time to develop it and lay down more foundation in other films before they can gather everyone together. From what I read, it's going in this order:

Iron Man 3, Thor 2, and Captain America 2, and that covers 2013-2014.

 

[KangConquers]

I believe you're misreading what I'm saying. For one, I don't consider the Avengers franchise as a trilogy--it's just part of an ever-expanding, continuously progressing MCU narrative that could and should go beyond three movies. Secondly, I'm certainly not suggesting that they force six new characters into each Avengers movie.

What I am saying is that expanding the MCU beyond the Avengers franchise means that they should be introducing new heroes (Avengers and non-Avengers) during the second and third phases simultaneously while the major Avengers solo films build up to Avengers 2 and 3. But they can't introduce those new heroes between now and Avengers 3 if they only have 4-5 movies in between each Avengers sequel, and if 3-4 out of those 4-5 are sequels to the major solo Avengers. If you force Avengers 2 to release in Summer 2015, you can have at most 2 movies introducing new parts of the MCU, and that's only if neither of them are minor solo Avengers. The same is true if you force Avengers 3 to release in Summer 2018.

You suggest introducing new Avengers in the Avengers sequels, but I'm not exactly convinced that it's a good strategy, given how Hawkeye was given the short end of the stick in the first one, as well as how you would be spreading the screen time out across even more characters.

I think you're the one misreading now. I'm saying only two new characters should be added each Avengers film, (for example, introducing Ant-Man and Wasp in an Ant-Man film and having them show up in the subsequent Avengers sequel).

I personally would be fine sticking with this team of six for 3 films. People get way too stuck on wanting to see every single of their favorites on the big screen. That's how cluster**** films like X-3 and Spider-Man 3 occur.

I really just can't imagine anyone wanting to put off seeing an Avengers film in 2015 so we can get an Ant-Man solo film, or a Doctor Strange film, that may or may not succeed, and that probably won't greatly effect the Avengers franchise; Ultron's clearly not going to be the baddie in Avengers 2, so the idea of shoving Ant-Man in there at the expense of a punctually released Avengers sequel is stupid.

 

[Angamb]

I agree, and they are, but this still only works if Marvel starts committing to more than two movies a year, which they haven't. Not yet.

I think they will start doing it sooner or later, specially if they want to introduce another avenger on his/her own, before the next Avengers sequel.

Lets hope they release three movies on 2014, with a new solo movie for Black Panther or Ant-man, so the audience will be acquainted with the character once they release Avengers 2.

 

[I'm Venom]

Lets hope they release three movies on 2014, with a new solo movie for Black Panther or Ant-man, so the audience will be acquainted with the character once they release Avengers 2.

I don’t want any more additions to the cast. It’s perfect as it is now. Black Panther is redundant since he’s just agile and strong.

Ant-man? Seriously? He’s just lol. That’ll never happen.

 

[souNdwAve89]

I don’t want any more additions to the cast. It’s perfect as it is now. Black Panther is redundant since he’s just agile and strong.

Ant-man? Seriously? He’s just lol. That’ll never happen.

It will unless they put the project on the shelf. Edgar Wright just showed some footage of the movie during Iron Man 3's panel today.

 

[spideymouse]

I think you're the one misreading now. I'm saying only two new characters should be added each Avengers film, (for example, introducing Ant-Man and Wasp in an Ant-Man film and having them show up in the subsequent Avengers sequel).

I personally would be fine sticking with this team of six for 3 films. People get way too stuck on wanting to see every single of their favorites on the big screen. That's how cluster**** films like X-3 and Spider-Man 3 occur.

I really just can't imagine anyone wanting to put off seeing an Avengers film in 2015 so we can get an Ant-Man solo film, or a Doctor Strange film, that may or may not succeed, and that probably won't greatly effect the Avengers franchise; Ultron's clearly not going to be the baddie in Avengers 2, so the idea of shoving Ant-Man in there at the expense of a punctually released Avengers sequel is stupid.

Yeah, no, you still aren't understanding me. You were originally implying that I wanted Marvel to be adding six new Avengers for each sequel, so I was refuting that claim. I fully understand that you would be in favor of adding one or two Avengers at the most for each Avengers sequel, with which I don't entirely disagree.

What seems to be a contradiction is that you would introduce these new characters in their own solo films first before adding them to the roster in a subsequent Avengers sequel, and yet you are not at all in favor of doing so for Avengers 2. The whole point of our back-and-forth has been about this exact trade-off. So which is it that you want:

I'm saying only two new characters should be added each Avengers film,

or

I personally would be fine sticking with this team of six for 3 films

?

By the way, the latter is most probably not going to happen. Feige has gone on record that we can "absolutely" expect new characters in the Avengers sequels, stating that "that's the fun of it--introducing new characters." So let's just say hypothetically that Avengers 2 does indeed add one or two new members; would you rather they be introduced in their own origin movie(s) first or cold turkey in Avengers 2? It sounded like you would go with the former.

Again, please don't misread me. I'm no more a fan of cluster****s than you. I'm just concerned about how they will achieve what they intend to do if they have zero movies in between GotG and Avengers 2.

 

[catintheengine]

We really have to think about this from a logistics point-of-view.

These actors, many of them at least, are a little older. Many of them have other things they plan to do with their careers. They aren't going to want to play the same character forever.

Not only that but eventually we, as fans, will get burned out on these films. General audiences will also, eventually, get burned out. That's just the sad inevitability.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking to do Avengers 2 and Avengers 3 back-to-back. Keep the proverbial momentum going. I'm with a lot of other people on these forums expecting to see A2 release in 2015, but I expect we will get A3 a little sooner than many expect, and it will drop in 2017.

I really think Guardians of the Galaxy is going to be Marvel's way of testing the waters on a non-Avengers movie. It may take place in the same universe, it may even have subtle tie-ins or references, but I don't think we will see Nick Fury or Tony Stark make a surprise after-credits appearance.

 

[psylockolussus]

My wishlist
May 2015- Ant-Man
July 2015- The Avengers 2
May 2018- The Avengers 3

A 3 year gap for the Avengers movies is the most ideal because its not too early and its not too long.

 

[Tony Stark]

We really have to think about this from a logistics point-of-view.

These actors, many of them at least, are a little older. Many of them have other things they plan to do with their careers. They aren't going to want to play the same character forever.

Not only that but eventually we, as fans, will get burned out on these films. General audiences will also, eventually, get burned out. That's just the sad inevitability.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking to do Avengers 2 and Avengers 3 back-to-back. Keep the proverbial momentum going. I'm with a lot of other people on these forums expecting to see A2 release in 2015, but I expect we will get A3 a little sooner than many expect, and it will drop in 2017.

I really think Guardians of the Galaxy is going to be Marvel's way of testing the waters on a non-Avengers movie. It may take place in the same universe, it may even have subtle tie-ins or references, but I don't think we will see Nick Fury or Tony Stark make a surprise after-credits appearance.

I can tell you that Fiege made it plain that none of the main guys (i.e. Thor, CA, Tony, Hulk) will be making easter egg appearances because it counts against their contract, for number of films.

 

[catintheengine]

I'm alright with that. I'm anxious to see if a lesser known Marvel property can stand on its own.

 

[spideymouse]

I can tell you that Fiege made it plain that none of the main guys (i.e. Thor, CA, Tony, Hulk) will be making easter egg appearances because it counts against their contract, for number of films.

I'm alright with that. I'm anxious to see if a lesser known Marvel property can stand on its own.

At the same time, Sam Jackson did sign that 9-film contract, partially for this express purpose of making cameos like in Captain America: The First Avenger. If anyone, they would be using him as a bridge. (I've said in other threads that I'd like to see Carol Danvers become the next Coulson, but that's a much more important role to cast than Agent Coulson's was.)

 

[catintheengine]

I have a feeling that we will see Maria Hill step up and sort of take on the Coulson role.

 

[spideymouse]

i have a feeling that we will see maria hill step up and sort of take on the coulson role.

Scherbatsky!!!!

 

[catintheengine]

It makes sense to me anyway. She, from Avengers, seems to have a very different 'handling' style from Coulson and even Fury. I think it could make for an interesting dynamic.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

So. Not to say anything about wanting to wait longer for Avengers. But I would be just fine with Avengers 3 being as late as 2020. NO later obviously.

But 8 years ain't so bad for a 3 movie trilogy. Especially with a bunch of filler in between. (I use the term "filler" very loosely fyi.

The X-Men franchise has planned for over 13 years now. And I happen to doubt they'll stop there.
Harry Potter 10 years with almost the entire same lead cast. Children no less.

My only hope is that they continue to put out quality material. And if I am thirty by the time the story is finished so be it!

I'm just happy Marvel is in charge of one of the largest movie events since James Bond. It's a good day to be a fanboy.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I can tell you that Fiege made it plain that none of the main guys (i.e. Thor, CA, Tony, Hulk) will be making easter egg appearances because it counts against their contract, for number of films.

This may be true but what about Hawkeye and Black Widow?

I imagine Black Widow will be in Cap 2. I wouldn't mind seeing Hawkeye in Ant-Man.

You don't think they'd just leave them out of Phase 2? :/