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

[djsunyc]

with the infinity gauntlet, time gem, doctor strange and all that stuff...they can easily jump off to another parallel universe where we can have 3 different actors playing the same characters and tell completely different stories.

 

[Protar]

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.

And I would argue that Chris Evans is Captain America. Audience's wouldn't accept a recast. But they would accept a different actor playing a different character. You're comparing apples and oranges. James Bond does not have the strict and intricate continuity that the MCU does. Every time a new Bond is cast it's basically a reboot save for very broad strokes. The MCU can't do that, and it's supposed to always be contemporary so they can't have Iron Man stay in his 40s for twenty years.

 

[Chris B]

As characters, Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor are bigger than Evans, RDJ, and Hemsworth. Notwithstanding how much those guys have defined those roles. Going forward, they should just recast and adopt the sliding timescale method of the comics as needed.

 

[Protar]

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.

I have no doubt that someone else could play Tony Stark, but no one can play Tony Stark in the same way RDJ did. So aside from the awkwardness of getting used to a new face, you'd be getting a different interpretation of the character. And that moves things into the territory of broad strokes, where continuity is loose and malleable. That destroys everything that Marvel has built over - by that point - more than a decade.

You can't compare it to James Bond. James Bond has been built over decades as that kind of loose franchise. He's been in his late thirties for near on 50 years. I don't think the MCU should be that franchise.

 

[Mike Murdock]

I haven't seen any indication that Hemsworth has any desire to abandon being Thor (a la Chris Evans) and he hasn't priced himself out of the role (a la Robert Downey Jr.). I see no reason why he needs to be recast. My position generally is, if you're going to recast, do it generally. Don't have the three main Avengers all change actors at the same time. That'll come off too much as a reboot.

But they're also setting themselves up to be less dependent so they can take a timeout with the characters like they have instead. But I think Thor's in the best position to continue to produce movies (aside from the quality not being quite as high as the other movies, but that's a problem with Thor, not Hemsworth).

 

[Mandon Knight]

As far as the Avengers goes, it's always been an organic, interchangable team in that the main 4 (CA, Iron Man, Thor and Hulk) can drop in and out around a team with evolving members who dip in and out as per the needs of the story, that's how the comics have gone and there is no reason why the films can't.

Presumably Avengers 3 (Parts I & II) will reunite everyone after the events of Civil War or provide us with new team members eventually taking over the main leadership and drive of the team, so either way we still get more Evans, Hemsworth & RDJ.

 

[Lord]

Considering the potencial they still have for more stories, but the less space Marvel has for these old trilogies, i think they could start merging brands, Thor would most likely have to keep separate in order to keep exploring that mythological part of the MCU, Ragnarok will most likely end his storyline, but they still have a healthy dose of storylines that they could explore, even if they want to give it a hiatus, Thor isn't all that difficult to recast in a few years from now, just say the gods are reincarnating, Loki as a kid could be very entertaining to see if done right.

With Iron Man and Captain America, i think they could easily merge them into the same movie, giving both characters a new trilogy, without having to take too much space from new properties. Captain America: Civil War is already joining them both under a single movie, something like a Iron Man/ Captain America team-up, these kind of stories have already happened before, and both of them bring in a connection to a more science-fiction spy world, and with the future films either exploring new countries (Black Panther and Inhumans), focusing on street levels conflicts (Spdier-Man and the Netflix shows), going to the supernatural (Doctor Strange), or going cosmic (Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain Marvel), i feel like Iron Man/ Captain America still bring in some things the other franchises don't.

This also gives the next Iron Man film a clear Director everyone can trust, i mean, i loved Iron Man 3, but many fans seem to have a very negative opinion on Shane Black, so it's very doubtful he would come back, with the Russo brothers, i think everyone would be on board. The enemies both heroes usualy face also go hand-in-hand, you can go with either Hydra, AIM or the Mandarin, and it wouldn't realy feel "wrong" for any of the hero.

I agree that it's a bit more difficult to recast the MCU, because it's more contemporary, which is why i think they should get the most out of RDJ for as long as they can, as in another decade from now, they will most likely have to retire the character.

 

[Grizz]

The big problem Marvel will face is that once the Infinity War is over, what will they offer to keep audiences coming back? Where do you go after an intergalactic war with the ultimate Marvel villain? Will the general movie going audience want to watch smaller scale Avengers movies?

This issue combined with the expiring contracts of the major players (not to mention their increasing ages) means we are probably heading for a big reset of the movie universe. Cap, Stark and Thor will be written out of the shared universe as their contracts expire. Marvel will let Dr. Strange, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, etc. move the storyline forward as far as it will go.

But Disney isn't going to want to throw money away by indefinitely leaving their biggest characters on the sidelines, all in the name of continuing a coherent shared universe. The solution will be a true end to the MCU as we know it and a full reset of Marvel movies.

Would it make sense to build another shared universe? Probably not. The shine of the Avengers will have more than worn off. The best long term strategy would be to expand the individual universes of the iconic Marvel characters. Reboot all of the characters. Retell their origins if needed. Keep Cap in the 40s and 50s. Cast young actors for the roles and release a movie every other year for 10-12 years. Release Cap and Iron Man movies in even years with Hulk and Spiderman in odd years. Have each character gradually build towards their iconic villains.

 

[Destructus86]

I think they will show up in other movies but I'm thinking we are done with their standalones and Marvel is ready to move on to new heroes.

 

[Typhoon22]

They've had their time. Now it's time for the others.

MCU isn't just about those 3. I'm sure most people were lolling 10 years ago at IM etc. and look where they are now. Honestly i'm tired to see Iron Man etc. I want some new stuff. And Marvel has more than enough good stuff to come up with.

 

[Human Torch]

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.

They already said we're getting recasts when the time comes, so I ain't even worried.

I can understand the gimmick (though I despise it) of "mantle passing" in the comics. You're desperate to find something new to do with Thor for the next two years. The guy's been around forever! Surely everything that can be done with the character,has been done. What do we do? Let's make Thor a woman! And eventually the novelty wears thin and fans want back to the character they originally liked to begin with.

The movies don't have that problem. Thor gets a solo movie every 3/4 years.So does Cap. It's not like they will run out of stories to tell at that rate.

 

[Flint Marko]

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.

Boom, hit the nail on the head.
Setting their heavy hitters up as "legacy characters" ain't gonna work. Wait a few years, and then recast. It's that simple.

 

[Lord]

The big problem Marvel will face is that once the Infinity War is over, what will they offer to keep audiences coming back? Where do you go after an intergalactic war with the ultimate Marvel villain? Will the general movie going audience want to watch smaller scale Avengers movies?

This issue combined with the expiring contracts of the major players (not to mention their increasing ages) means we are probably heading for a big reset of the movie universe. Cap, Stark and Thor will be written out of the shared universe as their contracts expire. Marvel will let Dr. Strange, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, etc. move the storyline forward as far as it will go.

But Disney isn't going to want to throw money away by indefinitely leaving their biggest characters on the sidelines, all in the name of continuing a coherent shared universe. The solution will be a true end to the MCU as we know it and a full reset of Marvel movies.

Would it make sense to build another shared universe? Probably not. The shine of the Avengers will have more than worn off. The best long term strategy would be to expand the individual universes of the iconic Marvel characters. Reboot all of the characters. Retell their origins if needed. Keep Cap in the 40s and 50s. Cast young actors for the roles and release a movie every other year for 10-12 years. Release Cap and Iron Man movies in even years with Hulk and Spiderman in odd years. Have each character gradually build towards their iconic villains.

Wait, a reboot with the same characters in a few years? But if Thanos was the biggest bad guy, are they just going to end up doing him again?

When it comes to events, they still have stuff they can use, like the Kree-Skrull war, Kang the Conquerer, the Incursions, the bit in Infinity where all other planets target Earth, or even just the political aspect of the characters who keep the Infinity Stones and what they will do in order for the wrong people to not get their hand on it. If Marvel eventualy get the FF back, then they will also have Galactus at their disposal for another major event.

While an Iron Man movie can make a Billion, Marvel has already taken the first step to replace the big three franchises for a while, last year's Guardians of the Galaxy for example got a big start, and from an interview i think Gunn even said he had some 4 more stories to tell with the group, there you have it, a strong franchise that is probably gonna go on for 2 more phases after Infinity War. Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Captain Marvel and Inhumans are also positioned to become heavy hitters, while the Hulk is still there waiting his chance to get his next movies, they now have Spider-Man too, so when it comes to carrying on popularity, the new generation is off to a good start.

I think that rebooting their universe in a few years may be catastrophic, they have a strong engine going on, where they always have a new franchise to pick up from the previous one, as long as they keep it smart and give the fans good movies, people will keep going to see them.

I would honestly like to see more films out of the big three, but i think Marvel's keeping with their guns and they will most likely not make more past the first trilogies, in least for now.

 

[Chris B]

I stand by the idea that all three should take a one or two phase hiatus, while spending the mean time focusing on the likes of Spider-Man, Dr. Strange, Black Panther, etc. in the meantime. And ideally even Namor and/or the Fantastic Four if the legal situations with those two can be solved.

 

[Grizz]

The issue Marvel/Disney will have is keeping general audiences interested and invested when their most popular characters are absent from the larger story. They are already going into third tier characters like Ant Man, Strange, Black Panther, Inhumans and Captain Marvel. The only one of those that looks built to be a hit would be Black Panther.

How patient will Disney and Marvel be if the box office dips considerably after Infinity War? My guess is not very much. I think we will then see 3-4 years of smaller properties before the big reset and the return of the big 3.

 

[Pecola1]

A bunch of people have probably said this already...
I think the cap should get more movies, or at least he will. He can easily have Bucky replace him, then after that have Falcon replace him.
If it becomes to late for falcon, and all the characters get too old, they could probably easily recast someone like falcon, who so far hasn't had a solo movie, and hasn't ever been the main focus of a film. (Though it would be better if they didn't have to)

 

[Lord]

Well, the Guardians of the Galaxy were what? A C-Level team of characters? I wouldn't call Doctor Strange third rate though, he's in least B-Level, as i think every Marvel reader knows who he is, and even those who don't read comics much may have an idea about who he is, or have heard a bit about him, yet, the character is still not a household name like Spider-Man and Hulk. Marvel has also been pushing the Inhumans into B-Level for some time, while Black Panther is in a similar position as Doctor Strange.

I doubt Ant-Man will be more than a one-shot, but i think Marvel will find more characters to push into the spotlight like they did with Guardians (and in a way with Iron Man and Thor too). It also seems like Fox may not hold the Fantastic Four for too long, i think that with Marvel passing on the torch from franchise to franchise, they can keep this thing going for in least 10 more years after the end of Phase III, they certainly have enough characters in their library to do so.

 

[DACrowe]

My guess is that they will all get more movies after their third entries...

When they're recast in Phase 4. I suppose, they could just not have any of them in Phase 4, but that seems unlikely since they are the lead Avengers.

But there will be more movies for all of them, just probably not with those actors playing them after the second Infinity Wars film is done.

 

[DACrowe]

I have no doubt that someone else could play Tony Stark, but no one can play Tony Stark in the same way RDJ did. So aside from the awkwardness of getting used to a new face, you'd be getting a different interpretation of the character. And that moves things into the territory of broad strokes, where continuity is loose and malleable. That destroys everything that Marvel has built over - by that point - more than a decade.

You can't compare it to James Bond. James Bond has been built over decades as that kind of loose franchise. He's been in his late thirties for near on 50 years. I don't think the MCU should be that franchise.

But that is exactly what is happening. It is the MCU's plan.

Marvel Studios and Kevin Feige aren't going to say "well that was good enough" and end it after Phase 3 for most of their moneymakers. They want a sliding timescale like in the comics and James Bond, because it can potentially go on forever (or until audience interest dries up) and be making them hundreds of millions in the process every year.

The only official ending we'll ever get to one of these kinds of movies was The Dark Knight Rises. And I'm not convinced fans want closure on these characters anyway, given how the geek community backlashed against that one. But Kevin Feige is not Christopher Nolan, and he is not trying to make a standalone piece of cinema. He is trying to make a franchise that can be as self-sustaining as Bond or the Marvel Universe of the comics. Those do not have endings.

 

[Dasher10]

I say give Downey one last ride in Iron Man 4 in 2020, then recast for Avengers 4.

Remember when Marvel recast Hulk and War Machine? Remember how many people loved Cheadle and Rufallo when they took over? Recasting is no big deal.

 

[Grizz]

Seems like you could "reboot" the MCU without retelling origin stories and starting over at Square 1. You can start it off with a new Avengers movie, one that recasts all of the main characters with younger actors. It would essentially be what Superman Returns tried to do, which is continue an older series with all new actors and all new stories.

The Avengers are already formed with no backstory to tell. We just pick up with a new adventure. Once the movie is over, we once again get standalone films for the main characters. These would not be origin stories and would start to build the new over-arching storyline for the new MCU and a new set of Avengers films.

This is pretty much what Marvel and Sony appear to be doing with Spiderman right now. Just starting off in a world where Spidey already exists and jumping into new stories.

 

[InternetPeople]

OR the MCU could move on to other characters with new and fresh stories increasing their profiles among the GA thus making new "A-list" characters. Part of the reason Spiderman failed at Sony is because there are only so many ways to tell his story without doing the same story again. Spiderman fatigue became a real thing and something Marvel needs to be aware of with their other characters.

As we saw with GotG, Marvel has the ability to raise the profiles of more obscure properties to the levels of the previously established characters. Marvel is more than Iron Man and Captain America, it has its own level of brand awareness that draws people to the theatres. Groot is getting his own damn cartoon and he says four words!

Disney did not acquire Marvel so they could keep making movies about the same three characters, they acquired the entire library of characters and I believe they should use them.

With a limited amount of resources, time and money, it makes sense for Marvel to move on from their original characters, otherwise we will continue to get the same characters forever with few new properties or the team-up films will become further and further apart. A thought experiment for you, if every Marvel property were given a sequel in Phase IV, and add in 3 new properties in that phase, how many years would we be talking until the next Avengers type film? 4 years? 5? More? And then after that because everyone gets a sequel, right? Which adds more years between the next team-up film. The point is Marvel will have to retire some characters and raise the profiles of others just to find enough room to highlight new properties or some characters will need to be one-and-done while continuing to fund more Iron Man movies.

I like that Marvel is expanding into other platforms like Netflix and television to tell their stories. There are thousands of stories to tell but when you can only get a handful per year you are already limited but if you keep telling stories for the same characters the shine will wear off, the stories and characters will get dull, Marvel will lose some clout and it will be much harder to elevate those obscure properties that could turn into real blockbusters.

 

[Dasher10]

Also, I'd make Iron Man 4 a big send-off for Downey with a plot that comes full circle back to Iron Man 1.

The story would be an adaptation of The Five Nightmares, Armor Wars, Inevitable, Demon in a Bottle and Iron Monger.

Act 1

Ezekiel Stane is out for revenge for the death of his father and infiltrates Stark Industries alongside Ghost and Spymaster, bankrupts Stark and uploads the Iron Man schematics to the internet.

Act 2

A penniless Stark suffers from depression and alcoholism while living in a homeless shelter and only cleans up after his drinking buddy dies of alcohol poisoning. Tony has broken up with Pepper and he has nothing. He's completely alone with only his brilliant mind to assist him... which is when he arrives on a military base and decides to crash at Rhodey's place, provided the Air Force can loan him enough money to build a new Iron Man suit.

Act 3

Tony now sets out to destroy any copycat Iron Man he can find. A cult leader named the Controller, Hammer Industries' floating sea lab where Tony has to fight Justin Hammer's teenage daughter Sasha (who finds the whole fight kind of fun since she's a big fan of Tony's) and eventually gets the phone number of Sasha's mom (Justin Hammer's ex-wife) Rumiko Fukajawa. Tony then tracks down Spymaster who's a competitor of his named Sinclair Abbot who's not only upgraded his own armor but created a new armor named Firepower. Tony defeats both and Spymaster coughs up Zeke's whereabouts. Tony defeats both Zeke and Ghost in the final showdown with Ghost bailing on Zeke over the course of the fight. Zeke attempts to kill himself to prevent Tony from winning on his own terms. Tony stops him and Zeke lands in prison.

Post-Credits

Scene 1: Tony is shown to be reestablishing a new corporation named Resilient.

Scene 2: Ghost is seen in a dark alley pulling down a wanted poster of him/her and then encounters Baron Zemo who offers to possibly assist Ghost as they are both outlaws. Ghost's only response is, "Hail Hydra."


So there you go. A film that offers callbacks to the three preceding films, adapts classic stories and expands Iron Man's rogues gallery while also setting up Thunderbolts. (The full Thunderbolts lineup will be Zemo, Songbird, Blizzard, Ghost, Shocker, Moonstone, Mach and Taskmaster.) It also offers closure as well as a new beginning for Stark. Possibly with Rumiko as a new love interest, possibly back with Pepper.

I'd also continue his story in Avengers 4 which would adapt Kang Dynasty and then once the timeline is fixed, Tony walks into SHIELD HQ and meets with the director only to see that it's now either Norman Osborn or Justin Hammer. I'd prefer the latter since Norman Osborn renaming SHIELD, "HAMMER" always bugged me a bit when he's not connected to Hammer Industries. I'd personally involve both running the show. All of Phase 5 would be Dark Reign.

Phase 5 films would include

Captain Marvel: War of the Marvels
Hulk: Code Red
Iron Man: World's Most Wanted
Thunderbolts: Dark Avengers
Black Panther: Enemy of the State
Spider-Man: Turning Point
Avengers: Siege

 

[Grizz]

I wouldn't say the general public got tired of Spider Man. They got tired of bad Spider Man movies. Nobody appears to be tired of Batman. We are going on our 5th Batman and 3rd Joker in only 25 years and 8 movies. The difference is Chris Nolan made excellent Batman movies, even though he retold the Joker story less than 20 years after Burton and Nicholson. Spidey got progressively worse after the second movie.

Guardians was clearly a necessary movie in the larger picture of the Thanos-Infinity Gauntlet-Cosmic universe that Marvel is building in the movies. You could also argue that it is a pretty "cinematic" comic book. I believe most felt like it could be a huge hit if made into a quality movie. You can say that for Black Panther, Dr. Strange and maybe even Captain Marvel and Inhumans. You can't really say the same thing for the even lesser known characters that are still on the table.

There is a reason why Iron Man, Thor, Cap and Hulk are main characters, both in the comics and the movies. They aren't just coincidentally popular. They are the most popular characters because they are the most interesting and appealing to mass audiences. Make no mistake, it is with the mass audiences where Marvel-Disney make all of their money with ticket sales and toys.

I think it says a lot about their future plans that a character as big as Daredevil is being relegated to television, and NETFLIX at that. There is a limit to how much the general public will accept and embrace the lesser known characters.

 

[Lord]

I disagree with the idea that people don't want resolutions for their characters in these movies, The Dark Knight Rises is divisive for many reasons, but not so much due to being a conclusion for its story. I honestly don't want Infinity War Part II to once again feature a cliffhanger type of post-credits scene, Iron Man 3's ending was the kind of conclusion i would like for the heroes to eventualy have, simply walking into the sunset without having to worry about a vast number of secondary plot threads to be adressed.

The James Bond franchise may be what the MCU is aiming for, but besides the first 6 films in that series, any new film could have been the last, they were mostly one-shot adventures that didn't carry much weight from the past or had every post-credits scene hyping yet another moment for the future.

Guardians of the Galaxy wasn't exactly a cinematic comic book IMO, it was filled with tie-ins for present events, and the post-Marvel Now comic is not very good. In short, the movie had little to do with the comics, Gunn simply seemed to take the cosmic action figures he liked from his childhood and put them all in the same movie.

They also still have a spot open for more Hulk movies, a Runaways script, and plenty of ideas for spin-offs starring the likes of Nick Fury, Black Widow, etc.