Has the MCU peaked?

[psylockolussus]

The next huge event with the F4 and X-Men is gonna make Endgame look like a friendly stroll in the park

Just wait on it

I'm curious who will they share screentime for that big crossover.

But if it is mostly legacy characters of Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Thor, Black Panther... then hmmm.

I think its safe to say for now, that Peter Parker would be there given the current relationship of Sony and Marvel. Stephen Strange, Carol Danvers and maybe Scott Lang would still be around for the neXt Endgame. Shang-Chi is popular now so he'd be there. Eternals despite the reviews, they didn't do horribly at the boX office so they would stick around. Blade and Deadpool are probably there too, as they are next in line getting a solo movie. Moon Knight? Maybe.

Guardians, Hulk, Nick Fury, Clint and original Thor though? At some point some of these characters would be retired like Natasha, Tony and Steve.

 

[1WngdAngel]

I've stalked these forums off and on for years, but I do want to weigh in on this topic.

1. It's perfectly all right to dislike any of these films or the MCU as a whole, so please don't misconstrue anything I'm about to say as that you can't. You also don't need to justify any dislike to me, I'm just some random wanting to join the conversation.

2. Marvel has been consistently caught between a rock and hard place for a few years now it seems. There is definitely a segment of people out there, be there a majority or minority I'm not sure, that scream loudly about the Marvel formula and the need for something different.

In my personal experience these folks tend towards being film buffs first and therefore care far more about all the technical aspects of film and writing more than your average movie goer. I have noticed, however, that anytime a Marvel property does veer away from the "formula" it is usually not met well from that same demographic. So what, exactly, are Marvel to think and subsequently do then?

3. The last two years of the pandemic has turned our instant gratification culture up to 100 and injected it with steroids. I see this on every site I go with user feedback for anything I watch and follow. People want to know the point right now or said thing is trash and not worth their time. Or people get so invested in their own personal theories or online theories that there is no room for deviation without disappointment.

4. This ties in with point 3: people want bigger and louder, not a rebuild. I see this a lot as well, even in this thread if I remember correctly. People are wanting the next IW/EG right now. We just had this huge event we've been building to for a decade, NOW we need to go even bigger! SO again, disappointment and they seem to be oblivious to the fact that Phase 4 is the Phase 1 to this new saga.

5. Pushing "D-list" characters. Now this just amuses me because the Avengers were, at best, C-listers before the MCU took off. The Avengers and their extended cast were huge in the 60s & 70s, but after that it was the X-Men that absolutely dominated the Marvel world. There's a reason no movie studio optioned out any of the Avengers rights when Marvel was having their fire sale, they weren't considered profitable.

6. Wanting dead characters back, whether by resurrection in-universe, variants, or reboots. Now this is likely a personal hang up of mine, but I love this about the MCU and the reason I dropped comics years ago. Comics refuse to move on from characters that have been around for 80 years. It gets stale seeing the same people over and over and rehashing stories. The MCU doesn't have this luxury, they will be forced to move on from characters one way or another and I love the creative burden that has on the storytelling.

Again, this all my humble personal opinion and I am, admittedly, fairly easy to please when it comes to television and film. So take it for what you will and if anyone would like to discuss any of these points I'd be more than happy to. I've loved everything we've gotten for what it is so far and am excited for everything we're getting.

 

[InCali]

I've stalked these forums off and on for years, but I do want to weigh in on this topic.

1. It's perfectly all right to dislike any of these films or the MCU as a whole, so please don't misconstrue anything I'm about to say as that you can't. You also don't need to justify any dislike to me, I'm just some random wanting to join the conversation.

2. Marvel has been consistently caught between a rock and hard place for a few years now it seems. There is definitely a segment of people out there, be there a majority or minority I'm not sure, that scream loudly about the Marvel formula and the need for something different.

In my personal experience these folks tend towards being film buffs first and therefore care far more about all the technical aspects of film and writing more than your average movie goer. I have noticed, however, that anytime a Marvel property does veer away from the "formula" it is usually not met well from that same demographic. So what, exactly, are Marvel to think and subsequently do then?

3. The last two years of the pandemic has turned our instant gratification culture up to 100 and injected it with steroids. I see this on every site I go with user feedback for anything I watch and follow. People want to know the point right now or said thing is trash and not worth their time. Or people get so invested in their own personal theories or online theories that there is no room for deviation without disappointment.

4. This ties in with point 3: people want bigger and louder, not a rebuild. I see this a lot as well, even in this thread if I remember correctly. People are wanting the next IW/EG right now. We just had this huge event we've been building to for a decade, NOW we need to go even bigger! SO again, disappointment and they seem to be oblivious to the fact that Phase 4 is the Phase 1 to this new saga.

5. Pushing "D-list" characters. Now this just amuses me because the Avengers were, at best, C-listers before the MCU took off. The Avengers and their extended cast were huge in the 60s & 70s, but after that it was the X-Men that absolutely dominated the Marvel world. There's a reason no movie studio optioned out any of the Avengers rights when Marvel was having their fire sale, they weren't considered profitable.

6. Wanting dead characters back, whether by resurrection in-universe, variants, or reboots. Now this is likely a personal hang up of mine, but I love this about the MCU and the reason I dropped comics years ago. Comics refuse to move on from characters that have been around for 80 years. It gets stale seeing the same people over and over and rehashing stories. The MCU doesn't have this luxury, they will be forced to move on from characters one way or another and I love the creative burden that has on the storytelling.

Again, this all my humble personal opinion and I am, admittedly, fairly easy to please when it comes to television and film. So take it for what you will and if anyone would like to discuss any of these points I'd be more than happy to. I've loved everything we've gotten for what it is so far and am excited for everything we're getting.

Pretty much agree with this. People want the FF NOW! X-Men NOW! Let things progress. There's a thing called delay of gratification and I'd rather set things up properly than rush into things. Look what happened to Justice League. I don't need that. Though I'm one of the few that didn't hate the movie, it wasn't anywhere close to an event movie.

As far as Marvel characters go, virtually none of them were EVER A or B list characters (notable exceptions being SM and Hulk) and I'd include the 60s when DC dominated. IM, CA, Thor were elevated after the movies.

Bottom line is that you can't please everyone and the negative tends to take up a lot of air in the room.

 

[Bayne]

Slight correction: the copyrights would expire *for their earliest works*. Copyright isn't all or nothing, Action Comics #1 going public domain wouldn't put this weeks latest Superman comic in the public domain.

I know, that's why I specifically pointed out that FalconCap won't be public domain for a long time.

But only being allowed to reference the earliest works does still mean anyone can make a movie about Steve Rogers being Captain America using all the basic building blocks of the original Cap Comics, which I think includes the Shield (though maybe not the round design), Bucky, Red Skull and Hydra, unless I'm overestimating the age of those, so that's pretty much all of the most iconic Cap elements the general audience already knows. And they can then take their Cap in an original direction as long as it doesn't hew too close to something Marvel's already done with him.

I'd like to see Marvel comics create a new character that isn't a legacy character of someone that would later appear in phase seven and so on. Like when I think of newer faces of Marvel Comics, the most popular characters took someone's mantle or a carbon copy with some variations and thats just eh.

Miles Morales - Spider-Man
Kamala Khan - Ms. Marvel
Laura Kinney - the Wolverine
Amadeus Cho - Hulk

Marvel ComiXs have the resources to introduce someone new that isn't a clone or legacy character of an eXisting Marvel character, and make that character the neXt big Marvel character.

They have tried to repeatedly with varying degrees of success. America Chavez, Echo, Songbird, Honey Badger, etc, etc.

The reason Spider-man, Ms. Marvel and Wolverine rose to the top (beyond incidental writing quality or style differences) is because the audience is just more willing to give a shot to characters with those names/connections.

And I would also point out that while Spider-man and Wolverine are *very* much in the legacy wheelhouse with major thematic similarities to Logan and Peter, Ms. Marvel is basically the legacy character equivalent of clickbait. The name is pure marketing and she has literally nothing in common with Carol beyond them both being kickass female superheroes.

 

[metaphysician]

But wouldn't also allow anyone to sell merch based on the 1940s Cap design? I think that's what would really eat into their profits and make them want to promote more characters that nobody else can sell any merch for.

In theory, yes. However, there are a couple reasons why this would probably be much less an issue than it seems.

1. You could make public domain merch, but it better be *unambiguously* based solely in the 40s design. You don't want ambiguity when faced with an irked giant megacorp, because money tends to break ties in copyright disputes.

2. This assumes only copyright is in play, trademark protection would very likely still apply, and still prevent most forms of knockoff merchandise.

3. Ultimately, I suspect the public won't generally *want* "based on the 40s version knockoff merch", at least not to any greater extent than they already consume cheap bootleg merchandise.

 

[metaphysician]

I know, that's why I specifically pointed out that FalconCap won't be public domain for a long time.

But only being allowed to reference the earliest works does still mean anyone can make a movie about Steve Rogers being Captain America using all the basic building blocks of the original Cap Comics, which I think includes the Shield (though maybe not the round design), Bucky, Red Skull and Hydra, unless I'm overestimating the age of those, so that's pretty much all of the most iconic Cap elements the general audience already knows. And they can then take their Cap in an original direction as long as it doesn't hew too close to something Marvel's already done with him.

I think Hydra actually only came later, but yes. . . technically. However, keep in mind that you aren't just limited to those elements, but to those elements *as they existed in the PD material*. So, using Red Skull as an example, you *only* have free usage of him as he existed in the 40s comics, not *any* of the later versions and stories. Which really, really hems in your ability to do anything new with him, because you *can't* bring in elements from those later non-public domain stories, even innocently or coincidentally.

The Sherlock Holmes precedent really does suggest that its not worth the effort, because trying to untangle "new and valid public domain story usage" from "impingement on copyrighted stories" is difficult and expensive at best. And that is for a much simpler case than a comic book character with hundreds if not thousands of appearances.

 

[psylockolussus]

They have tried to repeatedly with varying degrees of success. America Chavez, Echo, Songbird, Honey Badger, etc, etc.

The reason Spider-man, Ms. Marvel and Wolverine rose to the top (beyond incidental writing quality or style differences) is because the audience is just more willing to give a shot to characters with those names/connections.

And I would also point out that while Spider-man and Wolverine are *very* much in the legacy wheelhouse with major thematic similarities to Logan and Peter, Ms. Marvel is basically the legacy character equivalent of clickbait. The name is pure marketing and she has literally nothing in common with Carol beyond them both being kickass female superheroes.

Hmm. Kamala Khan is heavily tied to Carol Canvers which is going to be the case in the upcoming movie. For me, I just wish they just called her Fangirl or something. Giving the "Ms. Marvel" codename forever made her a legacy character.

As for Honey Badger, I didn't see her getting a big push in the comics.

I have to look up Songbird, I first encountered her in the videogame and she seemed like an original character without any inspiration from previous Marvel characters.

 

[Bayne]

Hmm. Kamala Khan is heavily tied to Carol Canvers which is going to be the case in the upcoming movie. For me, I just wish they just called her Fangirl or something. Giving the "Ms. Marvel" codename forever made her a legacy character.

As for Honey Badger, I didn't see her getting a big push in the comics.

I have to look up Songbird, I first encountered her in the videogame and she seemed like an original character without any inspiration from previous Marvel characters.

Kamala really isn't heavily tied to Carol in the comics. She's a fan of Carol, which is why she chose the name, and due to an accidental shape-shifting incident she looked like Carol for a few hours in her origin story, which led to them meeting and Carol has given her occassional advice since then. That's basically it. I've read almost every appearance of Kamala afaik and the two of them have only actually appeared together a handful of times.

 

[psylockolussus]

Well I am not going to read her entire comic book history as thats tldr, but the title alone makes her a legacy character. I've just been so familiar with Carol as Ms. Marvel through the comics, videogames and cartoon before Kamala was invented. So when Kamala was introduced, I immediately thought of her as a legacy character despite the different background/powers.

And in the movies, they are really trying to make her a Carol Danvers Supporting character unless The Marvels isn't really a Capt. Marvel 2.

Marvel should avoid introducing new characters as legacy / clone of eXisting superheroes. What I liked about Guardians, Shang-Chi and Eternals getting a movie treatment was they seemed different compare to the previous Ips that got a movie.

 

[Bayne]

They certainly seem to be trying to tie the two much closer together in the MCU than the comics did, based on what little know so far. As a huge fan of Kamala, I'm really not happy with that decision, either. There was something far more normal and adult about the fact that the two of them aren't actually connected in any way other than the fact that they choose to be friends and respect and occassionally help each other rather than just being thrown together by fate like Laura and Logan.

Either way, her comics run clearly proves Marvel can make a hugely successful character that is not actually based on a previous character. Because she absolutely isn't. But giving them a name that makes people think it, as you did, apparently does help so they keep doing it.

As far as making things different I think that's fine. But a) there's nothing wrong with a little from both columns - the MCU can have both legacy and non-legacy characters. And b) legacy characters are not fundamentally less original than non-legacy characters. Ms Marvel in the comics is way more different from Captain Marvel than, say, Nova is different from Captain Marvel. Shang-Chi I adored and can't wait to see more of, but he's not really that different from Iron Fist (just better). And the massive parallels between the Guardians and the Avengers are pretty obvious.

 

[Primal Slayer]

And in the movies, they are really trying to make her a Carol Danvers Supporting character unless The Marvels isn't really a Capt. Marvel 2.

I cant imagine that they changed the name for nothing. Not using the Captain Marvel title says a lot.

 

[SirStrangefolk]

I'd like to see Marvel comics create a new character that isn't a legacy character of someone that would later appear in phase seven and so on. Like when I think of newer faces of Marvel Comics, the most popular characters took someone's mantle or a carbon copy with some variations and thats just eh.

Miles Morales - Spider-Man
Kamala Khan - Ms. Marvel
Laura Kinney - the Wolverine
Amadeus Cho - Hulk

Marvel ComiXs have the resources to introduce someone new that isn't a clone or legacy character of an eXisting Marvel character, and make that character the neXt big Marvel character.

I agree. But I think introducing a character in the comics and pushing them to popularity only through that is near impossible at this point. They put some of those characters in books with names like "Iron Man", "Hulk", etc. because those big names are dang near the only books that sell enough anymore to justify their own existence. They have occassionally tried introducing a new hero in a solo run, but those tend to be massive flops because nobody buys issues for something like "Mosaic", who pretty much has disappeared from the Marvel universe entirely after his own mini series ended.

Spoiler: Mosaic

I think their best shot within the comics themselves is to at least make sure the character is also part of an arc in some established book, like being part of a story that involves other big heroes or joining a team with bigger heroes. And really, rather than trying to explode a character from first introduction in a solo book to succesful franchise they really should pay attention to supporting characters that resonate with readers and can be expanded upon. Or at least introduce characters in other books with the intent to grow them. After all, Wolverine started as a Hulk supporting character, Black Panther started in Fantastic Four, Punisher in Spider-Man, Black Widow in Iron Man, Moon Knight in Werewolf by Night, etc.

But even that alone won't be enough. I really think that nowadays they pretty much need to include such characters in other media if they want them to last. Like I said before, I really believe that Gambit being on the team in the 90s X-Men cartoon and being playable in the Marvel VS Capcom games not long after his first comic appearances are a big part of why he's still as relevant today as he is. And Joaquín Torres is a legacy character so not the best example, but I think his existence in the MCU has the potential to make the difference between him being a character that gets forgotten completely in a few years and him becoming a major character for a long time to come. The MCU in that sense is not only valuable for the money it brings in by itself, but also the exposure and popularity it can give to characters.

Also with regards to the list you posted I think Amadeus Cho is the odd one out, because he was already a hero in his own right before becoming the legacy hero. Similar to how Sam Wilson was already a hero before becoming Cap. I hope that if we see him in the MCU he can just be himself. I've always prefered him as just "Amadeus Cho" either solo or as a buddy team-up with Hercules. In fact, I think an "Amadeus & Herc" movie is the way to go to introduce both characters into the MCU because that dynamic of it being a double act serves multiple purposes. Firstly, I think the two characters just supplement each other well. Secondly, pairing Herc with Cho immediately sets it apart from Thor's run as a solo mythological character. Thirdly, unlike Thor there have been loads of Hercules movies and shows (Disney animated, Kevin Sorbo, Dwayne Johnson, Kellan Lutz, etc.) so pairing him with Cho would set that movie apart from those. Fourthly, because Hercules is a well known pop culture character he may still draw a lot of normies to the movie that Cho wouldn't attract on his own.

Spoiler: Amadeus & Herc

Hmm. Kamala Khan is heavily tied to Carol Canvers which is going to be the case in the upcoming movie. For me, I just wish they just called her Fangirl or something. Giving the "Ms. Marvel" codename forever made her a legacy character.

I think there's gradations to being a legacy character. Some characters are very clearly legacy characters like Danny Ketch as Ghost Rider or Sam Wilson as Captain America. A character like Kamala does have the same name as Carol used to have because that title will simply sell more issues than a new name, despite the fact that they really aren't very similar at all. They could've made her a fan of Jean Grey and made her the new Marvel Girl instead and almost nothing would've changed. In a similar way I feel like Hulkling is barely a legacy character to Hulk. Sure, the name and design are somewhat similar but the origin and powers and themes are completely different and they don't really have anything to do with each other at all. Or Monica Rambeau who also randomly got that name despite having nothing to do with Mar-Vell.

I don't think the codename itself necessarily will make her forever a legacy character. Otherwise these would also all be legacy characters:

Johnny Storm's Human Torch (from Jim Hammond)
Bruce Banner's Hulk (from Xemnu)
Johnny Blaze's Ghost Rider (from Carter Slade)
Stephen Strange's Doctor Strange (from Carlo Strange)
Natasha Romanoff's Black Widow (from Claire Voyant)
Vision (from Aarkus)
Sam Wilson's Falcon (from Carl Burgess)
Warren Worthington III's Angel (from Thomas Halloway)
Hercules (from Varen David)
Maxwell Dillon's Electro (from Electro the robot)
Arthur Douglas/ Drax "The Destroyer" (from Kevin Marlow)

and I don't think anyone considers all of these legacy characters nowadays.

 

[psylockolussus]

Mosaic was part of Marvel comics's plan to make Inhumans the neXt big thing which obviously ended when Inhumans' movie was downgraded to a Friday show and flopped.

 

[psylockolussus]

I cant imagine that they changed the name for nothing. Not using the Captain Marvel title says a lot.

They might not want to call it Captain Marvel & Ms. Marvel.

 

[SirStrangefolk]

Mosaic was part of Marvel comics's plan to make Inhumans the neXt big thing which obviously ended when Inhumans' movie was downgraded to a Friday show and flopped.

Sure, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter that he is Nuhuman in origin because it is pretty much an identical origin to being a mutant. Like, for 99% of characters those origins could be swapped and it wouldn't make a difference except for the fact that they might interact with others from that group more often. And Kamala is a Nuhuman and she's popular.

They might not want to call it Captain Marvel & Ms. Marvel.

Especially not since 1. they're including Monica as one of the "Marvels" and 2. who knows they might want to make a Marvels 2 where someone else like Blue Marvel or Marvel Boy is a Marvel too

 

[metaphysician]

Ultimately, this feels like one of those "yes its not fair, life isn't fair" situations. The characters who came first, and have decades more existence, will *always* have a massive advantage in popularity and interest than new characters. Given the choice between an established character with the weight of history and the greater depth that generally arises from more content and time to refine them, versus a new character of unproven nature and uncertain staying power? The former is going to get far more attention, because they are going to be a smarter bet of one's personal energy and investment. Legacy characters are a way to bootstrap new characters and avoid this trap.

 

[halo10]

Its just the first movie, we cant pretend to have it all in the first movie.
at the end.... I felt the characters were more "real" and I connected with them the most in Eternals.
This may be unpopular opinion, but I felt ShangChi "formulaic" and "been there done that", whatever the settings/locations/mystical topic were. I felt "Marvel style" and I didnt connect 100%.

i felt Shang Chi was two different parts - first half felt more realistic and more Black Widow style
while the 2nd half of Shang Chi felt more like " The Chronicles of Narnia " .

a totally so real to so mystic Fantasy Sy fy... whatever was built up to be in the 1st half became
an effort to accept a totally different format in the 2nd half . ...

 

[psylockolussus]

I feel like if Disney could make Moana / Elsa popular just through the movies, Marvel Studios could easily grab someone obscure or new from the comics, and make them popular just through 1 solid movie with good marketing.

 

[TheFuture]

I don't think it's near peaking yet but there's definitely a tough transitional period happening. As the MCU has become bigger in both story being told and commercially, it's hard to focus and latch onto one single thing. I say that as a big fan and maybe the pandemic can be blamed for it, but it's amazing to me how many hours they've clocked post pandemic yet we're all none the wiser in regards where it's all going.

I think the second people get to grasp where it's all actually going over the next few phases excitement will build again.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Like No Way Home will absolutely make money and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the best grossing film this year...but I don't see it being the first pandemic-era film to make a billion.

Oh it won't, huh? Haha, sorry, couldn't resist.


Anyway, for me personally, NWH definitely felt like a shot in the arm for not only Spider-man but the MCU (and my enthusiasm for the MCU). I finally felt inspired to go and start watching the MCU Disney+ shows, and I'm getting a good idea of what they're going for nowadays. Instead of building toward a specific event crossover, they're just building up the shared universe with tons of continuity ties with past movies and plot seeds for the future. It's hard to tell where everything's going to lead, because it isn't all leading to one specific place this time. Maybe at some point one or more plot seeds will prove to be exceptionally fertile and we'll see them grow into something as big as the Infinity Stones arc, who knows, but for now we've just got to wait and see.

Also, it's funny hearing the discussion about C and D list characters, because I remember in the old days a lot of people were glad that Spider-man and the X-men couldn't be used because it force Marvel to use lower tier characters.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Oh it won't, huh? Haha, sorry, couldn't resist.


Anyway, for me personally, NWH definitely felt like a shot in the arm for not only Spider-man but the MCU (and my enthusiasm for the MCU). I finally felt inspired to go and start watching the MCU Disney+ shows, and I'm getting a good idea of what they're going for nowadays. Instead of building toward a specific event crossover, they're just building up the shared universe with tons of continuity ties with past movies and plot seeds for the future. It's hard to tell where everything's going to lead, because it isn't all leading to one specific place this time. Maybe at some point one or more plot seeds will prove to be exceptionally fertile and we'll see them grow into something as big as the Infinity Stones arc, who knows, but for now we've just got to wait and see.

Also, it's funny hearing the discussion about C and D list characters, because I remember in the old days a lot of people were glad that Spider-man and the X-men couldn't be used because it force Marvel to use lower tier characters.

Well, I would say we are leading somewhere. Endgame, Far From Home, Loki S1, No Way Home, and now Multiverse of Madness will all have dealt with the multiverse in an increasingly prominent way.

Kang is coming, and we are currently seeing the initial setup of that storyline. Much like the Infinity Saga was teased as early as seeing the space stone in Thor and CA:TFA.

 

[kguillou]

My prediction is when we look back on phase 4, its going to be seen as an extremely mixed and chaotic bag. No Way Home, Shang Chi, Doctor Strange 2, Love and Thunder and Guardians of the Galaxy 3 will be seen as highs, the rest will be seen as lows/disappointments.

I think Phase 5 will be when things really kick into gear and the next "plan" starts to take shape. We start building up to the next big bad and the post credits scenes will once again start building up to it.

Let's be honest, we're all waiting for the X-Men and the Fantastic Four to make the debuts into this world and I think once those are introduced the party is really gonna get started and when we start getting the likes of Dr Doom, Magneto, Galactus and the Silver Surfer, that will be the MCU's apex which I think will start happening in phase 5.

 

[LivingBrocholy]

It's hard to imagine a conflict with bigger stakes than the fight against Thanos in Infinity War and Endgame. The MCU has also lost some of it's most vital characters: Tony Stark/Iron Man, Steve Rogers/Captain America, Chadwick Boseman's T'Challa/Black Panther.

My question is, has the MCU passed its peak? I enjoyed Shang-Chi, but it felt like a variation on what's gone before.

I have mixed feelings about the Multiverse. In one hand it makes sense that if the Infinity Saga treat was universal level, the new treat will be multiversal level. Also, is a good oportunity to mix hypothetical scenarios of MCU, things that we haven´t seen from MCU and bringing back franquises from early 2000. More if we take in consideration that many actors from 2000s franquises are getting old. But in other hand I believe that is too soon for the multiverse. MCU Fantastic Four and X-men haven´t shown up. I can´t see them as major players in next sagas and next sagas will probably be in a smaller scale than this one.

Some people may use Captain America 2 as an example. A good movie from a character that faced aliens and now is facing humans. The conflict that Rogers faced is smaller than what he countered before. However, that´s a solo movie. Then we have Age of Ultron. A good movie that wasn´t received well by the fandom because "is just a day at office for Avengers". What makes sense because the first movie had a bigger treat than Age of Ultron.

The only reason I´m hyped is because Marvel/Disney has the enough money to build the X-men we didn´t received from Fox. You know, a 5O, a giant size team, X-factor, Exile, X-callibur, X-Force, New Mutants and even a well adapted Dark Phoenix Saga. But that´s it. I guess that rest of people are hyped because we would see a MCU of Namor, Dr Doom(that will be more faithful to the comics because armor tech and magic have been introduced), Fantastic Four, Dark Avengers and New Avengers.

Responding to your question: no. The MCU hasn´t peaked yet. But it wouldn´t be a surprise if it peaks later.

 

[LivingBrocholy]

I think it has peaked but not because they can't go bigger. I really don't like the direction they are going. Phase 4 has been straight ass and don't get me started on the Disney plus shows. The only thing I'm looking forward to in this phase is Moon Knight and Blade and Blade is on the back end. I really don't understand why they are sitting on F4, Silver Surfer and Wolverine. ESPECIALLY Wolverine. They need their new "Tony Stark" but I digress. Silver Surfer makes so much sense with Eternals and Guardians of the Galaxy but yet not a peep out of the property. Just not really feeling this phase and the way it is going so I guess it has peaked.

Yes. It makes no sense that Marvel rathers to do a Captain America 4, Agatha Harkness show, an Echo show and a Groot show when they have the best of their properties on hand. I just expect that the Echo show is to use Netflix Daredevil, even if they won´t do a straight mention to the events of Netflix shows.

I guess that Marvel wants to replicate the success of Avengers and GoG. You know, unkown characters whose movies became blockbusters. But that hasn´t been working with Eternals, Shang Chi or even Hawkeye(that had the lowest ratings). Some people may say that is lockdown fault but Spiderman NWH and Venom 2 had better box office. Venom is a villain and if it had a better box office is because is more famous.

Also, unlike comic book characters. Actors age. When it will be a crossover of Avengers and X-men. Anthony Mackie and Nataly Portman will be almost 50.

 

[LivingBrocholy]

Spiderman shooooo is breaking records now huh................

I think crowds will go to theaters when there is something they want to watch and I'm going to say it again, pushing D list characters is not a way to bring fans to theaters. Call me a hater or whatever but I really think Marvel is going about this wrong.

I believe that Marvel wants to replicate the success of Avengers, GoG and Defenders. But I agree, Marvel should start to use their main properties now(F4 and X-men) and not losing time with Echo, Wolf Man, Captain America 4, Agatha Harkness and Groot. My only expectation with Echo is that they bring back the Defenders. But to be fair. Marvel has been doing that with Black Knight and Moon Knight(not known as F4, not even Hulk but is much less unnecesary than the half of the projects is producing now).