If the Guauntlet fits, you must admit .... it's time for Thanos!

***** yeah, Thanos thread.

I'd like to see he and Magus as the villains in GOTG, then hopefully the main for A2. But unlike some I don't want to see him finished with at the end of Phase II; I'd like if he was defeated and then in the background for Phase III, only making maybe one or two appearances, and then returning to the spotlight for a full-on epic Infinity Gauntlet movie.

Or, he could be killed off in A2. That way it gives a good reason for why he won't be around in Phase III, and can be replaced by another villain as the big bad, like Ultron, then have him come back by either resurrection (like in the IG comic) or via time travel.

Either way, I don't think A2 will be the last we see of Thanos.

 

Well supposedly he will show up in guardians of the galaxy and avengers 2. Personally I think he will be the main bad guy in avengers 3. Hoping we start seeing more hints too him in future MCU movies.

 

I agree with all of this. And there's some definite solid reasoning for believing this.

1. Thanos is The Avenger's greatest threat (that Marvel owns the film rights to ) This seems to be the main argument around these boards as for why he should be saved for Avengers 3 and built up over both Phase 2 and 3.

2. Loki's scepter could contain the Mind Gem, "He who put the scepter in your hand." Remember Loki did just fine with his own spear in Thor and it had no blue gem in it to speak of. Assuming it was the Mind Gem, we will likely see the rest of the gems in future films. But there does not seem to be enough films in Phase 2 to introduce them all.

3. Joss Whedon states, "By being smaller. More personal, more painful. By being the next thing that should happen to these characters, and not just a rehash of what seemed to work the first time." Thanos is not smaller than Loki and his army. Nor is he more personal.

4. Ant-Man is several years away from Avengers 3. To tease or setup Ultron in Ant-Man (2015) will lose most of its spark by the time we see Ultron in A3.

5. Remaining baddies (other than Ultron and Thanos) include MoE, Kang, Korvac and several others that don't quite have the impact of Thanos, let alone greater impact.

If Avengers 2 was more conclusive, I'd say hell yea bring Thanos on and thrill us all. But since we already know Phase 3 exists, I believe the Mad Titan will bide his time until Avengers 3.

 

Why can't Thanos be the big bad in Avenger 2 and NOT be killed? Why can't he simply be defeated and run away to lick his wounds? Why can't he try the Avengers, be defeated, then acquire the Infinity Gauntlet to try the Avengers again in a future film?

I think it is pretty clear Thanos will be in Avengers 2 but I don't think he will be completely defeated. It seems to me there is too much material for Thanos to be over and done in only one phase. Loki wasn't killed off, why does Thanos have to be?

 

Personally, I see Thanos having a major role causing the events in GotG which causes them to either come to Earth or send word to Earth that Thanos is now coming for them in Avengers 2, which sets up the connection between the two films that Gunn just confirmed there will be.

Sidenote: he also just confirmed there's no Iron Man in GotG. Now this could be a ruse but my guess is he's telling the truth.

 

....except movie franchises aren't set up on an escalating threat scale.

Movies aren't video games. It doesn't go "Level 1 Boss," "Level 2 Boss," "Level 3 Boss," etc. Instead, it's about compelling storytelling and interesting characters. It's perfectly acceptable for the Avengers to fight Thanos in one film, and Paste-Pot Pete in the next, as long as the story is interesting and compelling.

 

Are you sure they arent?

Iron Monger < Whiplash < Mandarin
Lizard < Electro < Green Goblin
Scarecrow < Joker < Bane

Seems like the good ones are. Or if you prefer, lets get away from CBMs...

Le Chiffre < Greene < Silva
Barbosa < Davy Jones < Calypso
Nero < John Harrison (or whoever the hell Cumberbatch is playing)


So lets take your theory and run with it.

"it's about compelling storytelling and interesting characters. It's perfectly acceptable for the Avengers to fight Thanos in one film, and Paste-Pot Pete in the next"

Lets assume that for the sake of argument, all movies ever have compelling storytelling and interesting characters. Not too much of a stretch when it comes to Marvel/Disney. What then, is the next step as far as improvement? Probably creating a series that progresses logically and rationally keeps us intrigued with the conflict and action sequences? So then wouldnt part of that "compelling storytelling" include Joss Whedon making an intelligent trilogy and knowing how it progresses before telling it? Knowing where it ends before it begins? Why progress in a downward direction regarding threat, and an upward direction regarding the overall power level and teamwork functionality of The Avengers? That, my friend, seems unintelligent.

I think we might have to agree to disagree on this one Sam. I would not pay to see Paste Pot Pete after already seeing The Avengers face Thanos.

 

One of the few times I agree with you. I feel like Thanos should get his treatment in A2 then bring in someone else for A3.

 

Y'know what screw it... I take back everything I just said. You nullify any credibility your statement had by saying Paste-Pot Pete could follow Thanos.

That is ridiculous.

 

When thinking about it both of you guys have a point. While the scale of the threat does get bigger with each installment, giving the right story almost any character can be made into a bigger threat than the previous one. Take the Dark Knight Trilogy for example. It can be said arguably that the scale of threat level can go Bane>Joker>Ras Al Guhl or Joker>Bane>Ras Al Guhl depending on the right storytelling. Yet, Nolan went Scarecrow/Ras>Joker>Bane.
With that being said Whedon can definitely make the scale of Avengers villains work like this Loki/Chituri army>Thanos>Ultron.
Even in video games the biggest and baddest isn't always the final boss.

 

Agreed. If they go with the Age of Ultron story for A3, then that definitely has the potential to be bigger than both Loki and Thanos, even though at the same time it can be a complete step down.

 

It's a joke, obviously, in case you didn't realize.
The point is that the threat can be *significantly* lower than the previous film's, and still be compelling as long as the story is well-written and absorbing.

Take 007. You seem to think that the Craig series is built on an escalating threat level, and I find that fascinating that you think so. What's your reasoning on that? Not to be snarky, I genuinely am wondering; because to me, it was clear that Skyfall was intended to be the most intimate and personal Bond film ever --- i.e., Bond literally going back home and defending himself and his boss from a rival co-worker who'd gone rogue.

And take it even farther back over a vast span of 007 movies....I'd say the biggest threat level Bond ever faced was Drax in Moonraker, when the series went all sci-fi and threatened to destroy the whole world and all life on it. Hell, the very next film, Bond was facing down what? A corporate sleaze who wanted to blow up San Francisco.

The threat level "stepped down" significantly from Raiders to Temple of Doom; from Star Wars to Empire; from Star Trek The Motion Picture to Wrath of Khan. There's plenty of other examples that illustrate that a smaller threat actually made a *better* story than the predecessor with the higher threat level.

 

Always making a bigger threat in the next film is not what makes for a compelling story. Creating a bigger bad in the following film puts an unnecessary burden on the sequel that it will eventually fail to carry through.

Red Skull was a big threat to the world that Winter Soldier is unlikely to match but Winter Soldier is much more personal to Cap. If we are going on an escalating threat level, it seems to me Winter Soldier should have come before Red Skull, but that's not how the series is working. The Cap/Bucky relationship is what will make the film work, not the threat to the world.

I also thought Joker was a smaller threat, very personal but smaller, than Al Ghul was but that could just be me.

 

Avengers 2 would be too soon for thanos. He needs more hype then what he has gotten already. The masters of evil would fill in nicely for the second movie. Baron Von Zemo played by Christoph Waltz would be perfect IMO.

 

Avengers 2 wouldn't be too soon.

 

For comic fans yeah we would love more hype for Thanos. For the GA however, he doesn't need more hype and that's who Marvel are targeting. Having him in GotG before A2 is enough hype for the GA. Unlike us they don't know the extreme hype surrounding him so it makes no sense to drag his character out over 2 phases.

 

Even for comics fans Thanos doesn't need more hype imo.

 

Yeah that's why I said we would love it not necessarily need it.
I think set up over the course of Thor and GotG, Thanos' story in A2 can be pretty epic and definitely cement him in the minds of the GA as one of the greatest villains.

 

Exactly.
People who are wanting to stretch Thanos' presence out over at least two more phases are banking on Thanos becoming a hugely popular villain among the general audiences, and that simply has not been proven yet. All the GA know about him right now is that he's a big purple gangster who lives in space, brokers alien mercenaries to the highest bidder, and is currently looking to severely punish Loki for not bringing him back a Cosmic Cube as a souvenir of his failed expedition to Midgard.

Truth be told, Thanos may not become a popular villain with the movie crowd. I certainly *hope* he is, of course, but if he's not, it would be pretty disastrous for Marvel Studios to hang their hopes for *many* future films on the recurrence of an unpopular villain.

 

I can't see Thanos not being popular with the mainstream. He's such a unique and new character to the big screen, it would be something completely different and fresh that they'd have never seen before...and in a good way imo. Especially if Marvel backs him up with some truly ground breaking antics and achievements.

 

The GA audience can be very fickle. People loved Loki because they felt bad for him in the beginning and the actor did a phenomenal job portraying him. People loved the Joker because of the sheer audacity of his actions and once again a phenomenal portrayal by the actor. Have the right actor portraying him and an excellent story pertaining him and the audience will eat him up.

 

Yeah.
I love Thanos, obviously, but movie audiences tend to love villains who are layered and complex instead of one-dimensional. Loki and Magneto and The Joker -- especially Ledger's version -- are very multifaceted and fascinating; one-noters like Red Skull, Abomination, Whiplash, Parallax, Ironmonger, and Topher's Venom far less so.

It'd be hard to add layers beyond "megalomania to the nth extreme" to a character like Thanos.

 

well, if my belief that Marvel NOW is sort of working with Marvel Studios, they can sort of take a back store from Thanos Rising, which I am MORE than sure you read the first issue sam.

That could be template maybe, depending on how fans react to that, it could be a way to go to make Thanos multilayered.