Iron Man, Thor and Captain America: Past their first Trilogies

[Lord]

What does the future hold for them? Not just the characters, but also their franchises. Iron Man has already finished his trilogy, and it doesn't seem like he'll have another film until in least 2019, while Thor is going to have a final go before having to take a long hiatus, and considering that character's films were nothing exceptional, it's doubtful he'll ever have another chance again. It seems like Captain America has the highest chances of staying around for a bit longer, as the Directors are very popular with the fans right now, and Marvel seems to have high hopes for the future of the brand. The set-up of Hydra even allows for a vast number of new storylines.

Many speculate that these characters may not even survive past Phase III. So, what does the future hold for these characters? Should they get more movies of their oun after Phase III or give the spotlight to other characters now? Guardians of the Galaxy seems like a hot property right now, and Marvel will surely put Spider-Man back in the spotlight again, and along with all the other new heroes we're seeing getting their movies, it doesn't seem as likely that these 3 heroes will have their chance to shine anytime soon.

I honestly would like to see more of them, i vote for Iron Man 4 in Phase IV or V, while Cap and Thor could return not long after.

 

[Mjölnir]

I'm fairly sure that Marvel will keep making movies with them if the actors want to stay around. They are all bringing in plenty of money and that's not something studios want to turn away from.

Since RDJ seems to have realized that it's not only he who has become a star again, it's also him as Tony Stark that's the biggest thing out there for him, I'd say that the least likely one to continue is Evans, just because he said he wanted to go into directing. That doesn't mean that he can't stay in acting only for Cap, I'm just saying he seems the most likely candidate to stop, at least for a while.

It's of course possible that any of them feels that it's been too much after the two IW movies, and if any of the actors walk away I think Marvel might wait a bit before they recast. But recast they will as ultimately the characters are larger than the actors. Of course Cap has the best solution as Bucky can take his place for a while, which I think is a much more compelling choice than replacing Tony with Rhodey.

The question remains if they will keep going with them already in phase IV, and it's a bit tricky. It could certainly be possible to take a slightly bigger break after IW, but then again the actors aren't getting any younger so they probably don't want to wait too long either. I'm not sure how they will reason there.

If I got my way I'd stick making movies with the big 3 as long as it works. Making one-movie events like Civil War can also be a way to keep them around but make more room for others if they have the need.

 

[Protar]

I think post Infinity War their contracts will up. Even if they can be renegotiated, that's only delaying the inevitable. The MCU has decades ahead of it if they play their cards right, so they need to start setting up new characters to take over. There doesn't need to be any recasting, instead new characters should take up the mantles.

Bucky can take over Captain America. Iron Lad can take over Iron Man (though he'll probably still be called Iron Man). They could keep RDJ in a mentor role, but the fact is he's getting too old to play Iron Man. By the time IWP2 is out he'll be in his 50s. Lady Thor could take over from Thor possibly.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Recast. The idea of sitting their best heroes on the sidelines while knockoffs take over on a permanent basis is ridiculous.

 

[MbJ]

I wouldn't really miss Thor if he stopped appearing.

 

[Zarex]

Recast. The idea of sitting their best heroes on the sidelines while knockoffs take over on a permanent basis is ridiculous.

Though Feige and others have brought up the endless stream of Bonds and Batmen as a way to deal with actors either aging out of their roles or simply deciding to hang up the spandex, there is an inherent problem doing this in a connected universe. After eight or so appearances in the MCU what is going to be the audience reaction when Phil Coulson or Maria Hill calls a thirty-something actor in an armored suit "Tony"?

The MCU films are connected in a way that's quite different from any other prior film series. Think of the awkwardness of changing Rhodeys and multiply that by 1,000 if Cap, Thor, and Iron Man are switched out and much of the supporting cast remains the same.

Personally, I would much prefer knock-offs. Rather than bringing in a new actor to do an RDJ impersonation, put someone else in the suit. Tony must have a long lost adult son out there someone. Have King Thor toss his hammer down to Midgard and have someone else (perhaps even an alien horse-like being) pick it up. Have Steve hand the shield over to a trusted ally - or perhaps have it fall into the hands of a baddie. Introduce a Yelena Belova Black Widow and a Kate Bishop Hawkeye.

Comics tend to be static, and the medium accomodates this. But sometimes change in the comics - Dick Grayson Batman, Barry Allen and Wally West Flash, Bucky Captain America, Kyle Rayner GL, Miles Morales Spidey - can be wonderful. I would much prefer that the MCU keep moving forward rather than maintaining the false eternal youthfulness of the comics.

 

[Protar]

Recast. The idea of sitting their best heroes on the sidelines while knockoffs take over on a permanent basis is ridiculous.

Recasting should be as a last resort. The current actors have made their mark so much that it would be a disservice to the characters to let other actors take on the role. They're iconic. And it can't be like Bond where it's the same character with a different interpretation, because that ruins the strong continuity of the MCU. Legacy characters allow the character to continue, whilst not confining the new actors to the old characters.

 

[DA_Champion]

Marvel is really exemplary for their willingness to put their biggest brands on the sidelines and spend time developing c-listers like captain marvel, guardians of the galaxy and doctor strange.

It's sound business strategy, but takes confidence to stick with.

 

[FortyMedusa]

Recasting is a terrible idea for the MCU. I completely agree with Zarex. Find another way, the comics always have. Rhodey has been Iron Man, we now have a female Thor and Captain America has been Sam Wilson and Bucky Barnes.
Plus characters like Black Widow and Hawkeye can be replaced by other heroes such as Ant-Man and Wasp or Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver just for example.
In the comics the line up of Avengers is constantly changing, why can't that work in the movies?

 

[Mjölnir]

Though Feige and others have brought up the endless stream of Bonds and Batmen as a way to deal with actors either aging out of their roles or simply deciding to hang up the spandex, there is an inherent problem doing this in a connected universe. After eight or so appearances in the MCU what is going to be the audience reaction when Phil Coulson or Maria Hill calls a thirty-something actor in an armored suit "Tony"?

The MCU films are connected in a way that's quite different from any other prior film series. Think of the awkwardness of changing Rhodeys and multiply that by 1,000 if Cap, Thor, and Iron Man are switched out and much of the supporting cast remains the same.

Personally, I would much prefer knock-offs. Rather than bringing in a new actor to do an RDJ impersonation, put someone else in the suit. Tony must have a long lost adult son out there someone. Have King Thor toss his hammer down to Midgard and have someone else (perhaps even an alien horse-like being) pick it up. Have Steve hand the shield over to a trusted ally - or perhaps have it fall into the hands of a baddie. Introduce a Yelena Belova Black Widow and a Kate Bishop Hawkeye.

Comics tend to be static, and the medium accomodates this. But sometimes change in the comics - Dick Grayson Batman, Barry Allen and Wally West Flash, Bucky Captain America, Kyle Rayner GL, Miles Morales Spidey - can be wonderful. I would much prefer that the MCU keep moving forward rather than maintaining the false eternal youthfulness of the comics.

The audience will get used to it. If the new actor does a good job people will just adjust and keep being immersed.

I don't think the Rhodey thing was much of a deal at all. There were some rumblings among the nit-picking comic nerds (not meant negatively) but that's not indicative of if the larger audience cares.

In the end the characters are always bigger than the actors. Recasting has worked before and as for this being a shared universe, that hasn't been done at all in this way before so the audience learns as it goes. They can certainly do some interesting alternatives at times, like making Bucky take up the Cap mantle for a while, but they just won't scrap their most popular characters forever. It's also worth noting that the comics mix things up like that because they have been going on for decades, with new issues every month, so they run into fatigue far quicker than the movies do where you at best get a movie with a character every other year.

As long as the MCU keeps going long enough there will be recastings.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Though Feige and others have brought up the endless stream of Bonds and Batmen as a way to deal with actors either aging out of their roles or simply deciding to hang up the spandex, there is an inherent problem doing this in a connected universe. After eight or so appearances in the MCU what is going to be the audience reaction when Phil Coulson or Maria Hill calls a thirty-something actor in an armored suit "Tony"?

It wouldn't be a big deal. Audiences are smart enough to know that RDJ can't play this role forever. They've already recasted one of their main roles (Banner) and that worked out well. There have been plenty of series where actors have been recast, the MCU included.

Tony Stark is the biggest and most popular hero Marvel has or at least has the full, unshared rights to. They would be burning millions of dollars by not making more movies with him in it.

Yeah, they change the mantle in the comics often...and IT NEVER WORKS! Every single time Marvel does it, then end up going back to the original within a couple of years. It is one of the biggest complaints about the current 616 Marvel Universe. People care about Thor. Nobody gives a crap about Lady Thor. Why would you expect a failed strategy in the comics to carry over successfully to the films?

I guarantee if they introduce a new guy in the Iron Man armor audiences will be complaining about wanting Tony Stark back.

Recasting is the only way.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

They can certainly do some interesting alternatives at times, like making Bucky take up the Cap mantle for a while, but they just won't scrap their most popular characters forever

They could do it temporarily, sure. But in the end it will always be Steve Rogers back in the red, white, and blue. That's who these characters are.

DC is going to do the same thing with characters like Bruce Wayne and Kal-El. They are not just going to stop using Superman when Cavill ages out of the role.

 

[Zarex]

The audience will get used to it. If the new actor does a good job people will just adjust and keep being immersed.

I don't think the Rhodey thing was much of a deal at all. There were some rumblings among the nit-picking comic nerds (not meant negatively) but that's not indicative of if the larger audience cares.

In the end the characters are always bigger than the actors. Recasting has worked before and as for this being a shared universe, that hasn't been done at all in this way before so the audience learns as it goes. They can certainly do some interesting alternatives at times, like making Bucky take up the Cap mantle for a while, but they just won't scrap their most popular characters forever. It's also worth noting that the comics mix things up like that because they have been going on for decades, with new issues every month, so they run into fatigue far quicker than the movies do where you at best get a movie with a character every other year.

As long as the MCU keeps going long enough there will be recastings.

I have no doubt people would get used to it, but I think changing things up would be much more interesting. Isn't it better to have a new character in the suit rather than having another actor portray Tony Stark doing Tony Stark things in a way that's almost definitely going to be negatively compared to RDJ?

If it is RDJ's long lost son, you have three generations of Starks in the MCU. You can have Tony working alongside the new guy, or popping in to make snarky comments on how he's handling the role. If Tony dies in battle, he can take on the Jarvis role and exist as an AI cracking wise inside of the helmet.

RDJ made the Tony Stark character. If you're going to replace Iron Man, let the new actor create his own character.

 

[Protar]

It wouldn't be a big deal. Audiences are smart enough to know that RDJ can't play this role forever. They've already recasted one of their main roles (Banner) and that worked out well. There have been plenty of series where actors have been recast, the MCU included.

Tony Stark is the biggest and most popular hero Marvel has or at least has the full, unshared rights to. They would be burning millions of dollars by not making more movies with him in it.

Yeah, they change the mantle in the comics often...and IT NEVER WORKS! Every single time Marvel does it, then end up going back to the original within a couple of years. It is one of the biggest complaints about the current 616 Marvel Universe. People care about Thor. Nobody gives a crap about Lady Thor. Why would you expect a failed strategy in the comics to carry over successfully to the films?

I guarantee if they introduce a new guy in the Iron Man armor audiences will be complaining about wanting Tony Stark back.

Recasting is the only way.

The films aren't the comics. Comics in general stick to the status quo a lot more than most forms of media, and their timelines and continuity is a lot looser. The MCU has a very defined continuity, it's supposed to be taking place in present day. If the MCU is still going ten, twenty, thirty years down the line, it doesn't make any sense for Iron Man to still be the same guy in his 30s or 40s. They're already clearly setting up the concept of legacy characters with Bucky. Sebastian Stan didn't sign that seven movie deal for nothing. They'll do the same with the other characters.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Isn't it better to have a new character in the suit rather than having another actor portray Tony Stark doing Tony Stark things in a way that's almost definitely going to be negatively compared to RDJ?

In a word, no. It would not be better. It would be significantly worse.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The films aren't the comics. Comics in general stick to the status quo a lot more than most forms of media, and their timelines and continuity is a lot looser. The MCU has a very defined continuity, it's supposed to be taking place in present day. If the MCU is still going ten, twenty, thirty years down the line, it doesn't make any sense for Iron Man to still be the same guy in his 30s or 40s. They're already clearly setting up the concept of legacy characters with Bucky. Sebastian Stan didn't sign that seven movie deal for nothing. They'll do the same with the other characters.

The James Bond franchise would have died 40 years ago if the films weren't starring the real James Bond.

Steve Rogers IS Captain America. It will never work with Bucky long term. Audiences won't accept it.

 

[Zarex]

It wouldn't be a big deal. Audiences are smart enough to know that RDJ can't play this role forever. They've already recasted one of their main roles (Banner) and that worked out well. There have been plenty of series where actors have been recast, the MCU included.

Recasting Banner worked largely due to the fact that Norton's character didn't interact with anyone else in the MCU - not Fury, not Coulson and not Stark. And he only had the one appearance.

Tony Stark is the biggest and most popular hero Marvel has or at least has the full, unshared rights to. They would be burning millions of dollars by not making more movies with him in it.

I would suggest that Iron Man is the biggest and most popular hero. Tony Stark is just a name.

Yeah, they change the mantle in the comics often...and IT NEVER WORKS! Every single time Marvel does it, then end up going back to the original within a couple of years. It is one of the biggest complaints about the current 616 Marvel Universe. People care about Thor. Nobody gives a crap about Lady Thor. Why would you expect a failed strategy in the comics to carry over successfully to the films?

It has worked in the comics. Hal Jordan and Barry Allen are both replacement characters. Carol Danvers finally replaced Mar-Vell. There's a bunch of other minor character, especially at DC, that have been successfully swapped out.

Marvel ends up going back to the original characters largely to goose sales in a declining marketplace and because it's extremely easy for artists to change a head and make minor adjustments to speech patterns. This is much less true in a connected movie-verse. And as we've heard countless times, the movies ain't the comics. Comic book readers tend to want the same characters in the same stories ad infinitum.

I guarantee if they introduce a new guy in the Iron Man armor audiences will be complaining about wanting Tony Stark back.

Recasting is the only way.

I guarantee they'll want Robert Downey Jr. back, not Tony Stark. If you put another guy in the suit you can have Iron Man, Tony Stark and RDJ.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

there can only be on way and the way is recast the actors. one by one. organically so that the audience has time to adapt. if they decide to put Justin Theroux in the role of Tony Stark (or anybody else) let him interact a little with Evans' Cap or Ruffalo's Hulk. As long as tother known characters in universe act like nothing happend, the audience will not care about it. look at the situation of the other recasts in the MCU so far not a single one of them was a big deal in the end, because the other actors made us believe that Fandral, Rhodey and Banner always looked that way or in the words of Col James Rhodes 'It's me, I'm here, deal with it'

 

[Zarex]

The James Bond franchise would have died 40 years ago if the films weren't starring the real James Bond.

Steve Rogers IS Captain America. It will never work with Bucky long term. Audiences won't accept it.

Who is the real James Bond? One fan theory to explain the extreme differences in the actor portraying the character is that "James Bond" is a code name given to a top MI5 agent. Just like Iron Man. And Captain America. There's little to no consistency in the character through the Bond films, which wouldn't fly in the MCU.

I think the chances of audiences accepting a Bucky or Sam Captain America are much greater than accepting a blue eyed blonde twenty something actor that RDJ, Chris Hemsworth and Scarlett Johansson call "Steve".

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I would suggest that Iron Man is the biggest and most popular hero. Tony Stark is just a name.

You would be wrong. Iron Man is just a suit of armor without Tony Stark. Stark is the character, and that's who people come to see.

 

[Zarex]

You would be wrong. Iron Man is just a suit of armor without Tony Stark. Stark is the character, and that's who people come to see.

And a great character he is, but one that has been created largely by RDJ. I have faith that Feige and company can come up with a new great character to inhabit the suit.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Who is the real James Bond? One fan theory to explain the extreme differences in the actor portraying the character is that "James Bond" is a code name given to a top MI5 agent. Just like Iron Man. And Captain America. There's little to no consistency in the character through the Bond films, which wouldn't fly in the MCU.

That theory is 100% incorrect as anyone who would watch through the films knows. James Bond is the half-Scottish, half-Swiss son of Andrew and Monique Bond who died in a climbing accident in France when he was 11. After college he joined the Royal Navy rising to the rank of Commander before joining MI6. He eventually resigned to marry Teresa di Vicenzo, but after she is murdered by arch-nemesis Ernst Stavro Blofeld on their wedding day he rejoins MI6 and goes on a worldwide rampage of revenge against Blofeld, eventually succeeding in the film For Your Eyes Only. Later when the same thing happens to his good friend Felix in Licence to Kill, he has to relive the experience.

There are numerous references to his past in later films, and while Casino Royale rebooted, what we learn from Skyfall matches his story in the original films.

He is clearly one guy. Not several. The only version of the character in which there were several James Bonds taking up the mantle was in the 1967 version of Casino Royale which was intended as a spoof comedy.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

That theory is 100% incorrect as anyone who would watch through the films knows. James Bond is the half-Scottish, half-Swiss son of Andrew and Monique Bond who died in a climbing accident in France when he was 11. After college he joined the Royal Navy rising to the rank of Commander before joining MI6. He eventually resigned to marry Teresa di Vicenzo, but after she is murdered by arch-nemesis Ernst Stavro Blofeld on their wedding day he rejoins MI6 and goes on a worldwide rampage of revenge against Blofeld, eventually succeeding in the film For Your Eyes Only. Later when the same thing happens to his good friend Felix in Licence to Kill, he has to relive the experience.

There are numerous references to his past in later films, and while Casino Royale rebooted, what we learn from Skyfall matches his story in the original films.

He is clearly one guy. Not several. The only version of the character in which there were several James Bonds taking up the mantle was in the 1967 version of Casino Royale which was intended as a spoof comedy.

 

[Mjölnir]

I have no doubt people would get used to it, but I think changing things up would be much more interesting. Isn't it better to have a new character in the suit rather than having another actor portray Tony Stark doing Tony Stark things in a way that's almost definitely going to be negatively compared to RDJ?

If it is RDJ's long lost son, you have three generations of Starks in the MCU. You can have Tony working alongside the new guy, or popping in to make snarky comments on how he's handling the role. If Tony dies in battle, he can take on the Jarvis role and exist as an AI cracking wise inside of the helmet.

RDJ made the Tony Stark character. If you're going to replace Iron Man, let the new actor create his own character.

It's a pretty normal normal opinion with fans that if someone has done something well only that person can do it well. There are probably many that can do Tony Stark well, however. Perhaps not exactly like RDJ is doing him but someone might be even better, who knows?

Of course someone filling in for RDJ has some huge shoes to fill, but that goes for anyone that tries to replace him with a new character as well. No one is going to be less disappointed with a new character if RDJ goes away and the replacement is bad.

James Bond is probably stronger than ever as a franchise, and we're on the sixth guy playing the same character. In the beginning it was a big deal replacing Sean Connery but as time has gone by the character has shown to be larger than any actor.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I say recast all 3 and continue their stories.