MCU: Phase II - Part 1

[OB12]

Marvel should really make some movies separate from the Avengers like Heroes for Hire. They can occupy the same world, but shouldn't all lead to the Avengers. Centering everything around that team is like putting all your eggs in one basket.

I want to see variation, just like there was in the comics. We simply haven't had a buddy comic book movie yet, so having Power Man and Iron Fist would fill that gap. They could have a hit on their hands.

This is a great point. There is no reason why everything needs to feed into The Avengers. I'd love to see the MCU become as deep and rich as it can be. Establish characters like Cage, Fist, Daredevil, Dr. Strange and Blade. Maybe do a Midnight Sons film or use the SHIELD show offshoot characters like Cage and IF into their own vehicles.

 

[DrCosmic]

Marvel should really make some movies separate from the Avengers like Heroes for Hire. They can occupy the same world, but shouldn't all lead to the Avengers. Centering everything around that team is like putting all your eggs in one basket.

I want to see variation, just like there was in the comics. We simply haven't had a buddy comic book movie yet, so having Power Man and Iron Fist would fill that gap. They could have a hit on their hands.

Yes... putting all your eggs in a 1.5 Billion dollar basket. The same argument could have been made against the Avengers film in the first place.

 

[Dark Raven]

They were building towards a team film. Marvel doesn't only consist of the Avengers however. There are other teams and non-Avengers characters out there. Having everything only centred around the Avengers is ultimately much like these earlier comic book movies where only a single character or team exists in a particular universe, only on a grander scale.

The Avengers should be about the Avengers, not simply Super Hero Team Up where everyone who has ever had a movie comes together as one team.

Otherwise if Marvel had the Fantastic Four, would their sole existence be to get drafted into the Avengers? I never liked them in that team in the comics. I prefer them as a separate entity.

Having non-Avengers related franchises ensures variety and greater longevity. Why only have one Billion-dollar franchise when you could potentially have two?

 

[DrCosmic]

Hmm... you're confusing Avengers related with Avengers membership. GotG is an Avengers related movie, it's building up Thanos to appear in Avengers 2. The GotG aren't going to become Avengers. Ant-Man, as far as we know, is set in the 60s, and will only be building the background of the MCU. It's not like earlier CBMs at all then is it?

Marvel doesn't have the fantastic four, or Spider-Man or the X-Men. If they did, it would probably make a lot more sense for them to develop stories that don't feed into the story that they're developing... all they have, with the possible exception of Daredevil, are Avengers characters. There's little point in separating any of them from the Avengers story, or giving them their own independent story that doesn't help make Avengers 2/3/4 the biggest movie of all time.

Having a non-Avengers franchise ensures variety how, exactly? How does taking time away from developing the Avengers super-franchise ensure greater longevity? How does that play out in your head? Because honestly, Marvel Studios can't have two billion dollar franchises, or else Iron Man would be a billion dollar franchise.

 

[spideymouse]

Hmm... you're confusing Avengers related with Avengers membership. GotG is an Avengers related movie, it's building up Thanos to appear in Avengers 2. The GotG aren't going to become Avengers. Ant-Man, as far as we know, is set in the 60s, and will only be building the background of the MCU. It's not like earlier CBMs at all then is it?

Marvel doesn't have the fantastic four, or Spider-Man or the X-Men. If they did, it would probably make a lot more sense for them to develop stories that don't feed into the story that they're developing... all they have, with the possible exception of Daredevil, are Avengers characters. There's little point in separating any of them from the Avengers story, or giving them their own independent story that doesn't help make Avengers 2/3/4 the biggest movie of all time.

Having a non-Avengers franchise ensures variety how, exactly? How does taking time away from developing the Avengers super-franchise ensure greater longevity? How does that play out in your head? Because honestly, Marvel Studios can't have two billion dollar franchises, or else Iron Man would be a billion dollar franchise.

I'm going to go out and say that despite what Edgar Wright said about his Ant-Man intentions back in 2006, we know very little about that movie as it currently stands, who it will star, where/when it's set, etc. We cannot make any claims to what part of the MCU it will be building. Besides, he said it would be '60s AND present day in that interview.

As for variety, I'd think that Dr. Strange, Namor, and even Luke Cage/Iron Fist/Heroes For Hire are a few examples of non-Avengers characters (along with Daredevil) that could add some mighty different dimensions to the MCU, as well as expand the superhero genre into new territories that could very well be a hit with audiences. Don't get me wrong, you want to make sure you're giving the audiences their Avengers again and again, but in order to keep feeding someone steak, you need to cleanse the palette with something different and refreshing here and there.

As for longevity, non-Avengers characters grant Marvel Studios a way to keep the Marvel movie machine going without using up their actors' limited film contracts too quickly. So for example, Chris Evans' last three movies could be three Avengers sequels rather than two Avengers sequels and a Cap 3 in Phase 3. Not that I'd necessarily want that, but that's what I imagine he meant by longevity.

 

[DrCosmic]

We can claim that the things Wright said and no one has ever contradicted are still true. To be fair though, no one ever said it would be part of the MCU, so...

Aside from Daredevil, all of those other characters you mention can fit very well into the Avengers story, either by being Avengers themselves, or by building up the issues that the Avengers face. All of them have been Avengers before, and not including them in the Avengers does nothing to help add dimensions to the MCU, cleanse the palette or expand the genre.

I'm not sure that's what he meant by longevity, we'll wait til he comes back, because I wouldn't want that either, and I'm relatively sure that's not what Feige was thinking we they wrote up all those six film contracts.

 

[cherokeesam]

Even Daredevil is an Avenger in the Bendisverse; everybody's a goddamn Avenger.

But that doesn't mean the MCU needs to follow that lead and turn this into the Avengerverse; before Bendis muddled up the team, the Avengers were definitely a separate entity that had their own identity, and didn't have to recruit every costumed character in Marvel history to be legitimate. There were/are other teams that developed their own identity, and played outside the bounds of Avengerdom; the MCU should do the same. With the characters that we know/assume belong to Marvel Studios, you've got potential teams of The Inhumans, The Runaways, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Defenders, Heroes for Hire, and the Midnight Sons --- all perfectly capable of becoming successful franchises in and of themselves.

 

[spideymouse]

Even Daredevil is an Avenger in the Bendisverse; everybody's a goddamn Avenger.

But that doesn't mean the MCU needs to follow that lead and turn this into the Avengerverse; before Bendis muddled up the team, the Avengers were definitely a separate entity that had their own identity, and didn't have to recruit every costumed character in Marvel history to be legitimate. There were/are other teams that developed their own identity, and played outside the bounds of Avengerdom; the MCU should do the same. With the characters that we know/assume belong to Marvel Studios, you've got potential teams of The Inhumans, The Runaways, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Defenders, Heroes for Hire, and the Midnight Sons --- all perfectly capable of becoming successful franchises in and of themselves.

I completely agree with this, and therefore completely disagree that the Avengers world should be the be-all, end-all of the MCU. Rather, I feel like the Avengers world, as large as it is, should just be one chunk of the MCU. Even if Ant-Man isn't Avengers-related, why the hell wouldn't his movie be part of the MCU?

 

[DrCosmic]

I completely agree with this, and therefore completely disagree that the Avengers world should be the be-all, end-all of the MCU. Rather, I feel like the Avengers world, as large as it is, should just be one chunk of the MCU. Even if Ant-Man isn't Avengers-related, why the hell wouldn't his movie be part of the MCU?

We don't know why for sure, but the only quotes we've heard about it are that it is a standalone event and that Feige has put no pressure on Wright to make it part of the MCU, perhaps because it began development before the MCU did.

Even Daredevil is an Avenger in the Bendisverse; everybody's a goddamn Avenger.

But that doesn't mean the MCU needs to follow that lead and turn this into the Avengerverse; before Bendis muddled up the team, the Avengers were definitely a separate entity that had their own identity, and didn't have to recruit every costumed character in Marvel history to be legitimate. There were/are other teams that developed their own identity, and played outside the bounds of Avengerdom; the MCU should do the same. With the characters that we know/assume belong to Marvel Studios, you've got potential teams of The Inhumans, The Runaways, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Defenders, Heroes for Hire, and the Midnight Sons --- all perfectly capable of becoming successful franchises in and of themselves.

GotG is it's own legitimate team. Does using them to build up Thanos for the Avengers story result in more money and a better story? Yes, yes it does. No one cares enough about Bendis to follow his lead. This is just modern storytelling. Build to the event, cut the fat, maximize the biggest thing you have, then use it to push your weaker things.

 

[spideymouse]

We don't know why for sure, but the only quotes we've heard about it are that it is a standalone event and that Feige has put no pressure on Wright to make it part of the MCU, perhaps because it began development before the MCU did.

Link, please? Preferably post-May 2008?

 

[Aztec]

Even Daredevil is an Avenger in the Bendisverse; everybody's a goddamn Avenger.

I agree. It's absolutely stupid that there's like 97 members of The Avengers in the comics. How are you supposed to get into a team when you don't have more than 2 panels to focus on any character? Bendis stinks. He really does. Avengers Assemble 1-7 were pretty cool but 8 was just a rushed piece of utter nonsense. Why does this guy get EVERY SINGLE SERIES?

 

[cherokeesam]

We don't know why for sure, but the only quotes we've heard about it are that it is a standalone event and that Feige has put no pressure on Wright to make it part of the MCU, perhaps because it began development before the MCU did.



GotG is it's own legitimate team. Does using them to build up Thanos for the Avengers story result in more money and a better story? Yes, yes it does. No one cares enough about Bendis to follow his lead. This is just modern storytelling. Build to the event, cut the fat, maximize the biggest thing you have, then use it to push your weaker things.

Or: not. Instead, do just exactly what the comics have done for decades --- create new teams with new focuses and new identities, run them up the flagpole and see who salutes. There is, for instance, absolutely no reason the Avengers should have any connection whatsoever to a potential Midnight Sons or Heroes for Hire film, as those teams focus on entirely different subgenres of comics (i.e., horror and urban action, respectively). And yet by their very nature, those teams have great potential to be cinematic and to drum up their own audiences independently of the Avengers.

 

[Captain Marvel]

God, I hope we see a Midnight Sons movie in the near future with Dr. Strange, Ghost Rider, and Blade. Just, for the love of God, no SHIELD involvement in that. I swear, every time a new movie is mentioned people are constantly talking about how SHIELD has to be involved, even when it makes no sense whatsoever. SHIELD does not have to be involved in Heroes-For-Hire (street-level heroes should be beneath their direct involvement), it shouldn't be involved in Midnight Sons (they shouldn't even know about the supernatural), and it damn well shouldn't be involved in Guardians of the Galaxy (Knowhere isn't even in the Milky Way Galaxy!).

 

[DrCosmic]

Or: not. Instead, do just exactly what the comics have done for decades --- create new teams with new focuses and new identities, run them up the flagpole and see who salutes. There is, for instance, absolutely no reason the Avengers should have any connection whatsoever to a potential Midnight Sons or Heroes for Hire film, as those teams focus on entirely different subgenres of comics (i.e., horror and urban action, respectively). And yet by their very nature, those teams have great potential to be cinematic and to drum up their own audiences independently of the Avengers.

I guess only time will tell whether they spend 150M making movies to "see who salutes" like they did with cheap comics back in the day, or if they do what they do in comics now very successfully, what they did in Phase 1 and will do again in Phase 2, which is build up to big events which all the characters' storylines tie into. We shall see. Who could guess what will happen?

 

[cherokeesam]

I guess only time will tell whether they spend 150M making movies to "see who salutes" like they did with cheap comics back in the day, or if they do what they do in comics now very successfully, what they did in Phase 1 and will do again in Phase 2, which is build up to big events which all the characters' storylines tie into. We shall see. Who could guess what will happen?

You've got a short memory. Not every Marvel Studios movie has to be budgeted for $150 million; remember when the studio first launched, they specifically stated that they planned to produce *in addition to the tentpoles* smaller films budgeted around $30 million. Plus, there's always TV, such as the SHIELD show and a Hulk show (that remains locked in vaporware right now), and neither of those have any ties to the Avengers at all.

Feige said awhile back that he didn't want the MCU to revolve entirely around the Avengers, so I'm not sure why you think it should.

 

[metaphysician]

It would, because part of the whole Luke Cage thing is him hanging around his old neighbourhood of Harlem, and hiring himself out precisely where the action is in New York, when other "bigger" superheroes can't help.

And why can't you have him hang around his old neighborhood in [insert bad side of Chicago here], otherwise doing the same thing? The "bigger super heroes can't help" isn't going to be relevant anyway, after all, due to the general scope of the MCU.

 

[metaphysician]

God, I hope we see a Midnight Sons movie in the near future with Dr. Strange, Ghost Rider, and Blade. Just, for the love of God, no SHIELD involvement in that. I swear, every time a new movie is mentioned people are constantly talking about how SHIELD has to be involved, even when it makes no sense whatsoever. SHIELD does not have to be involved in Heroes-For-Hire (street-level heroes should be beneath their direct involvement), it shouldn't be involved in Midnight Sons (they shouldn't even know about the supernatural), and it damn well shouldn't be involved in Guardians of the Galaxy (Knowhere isn't even in the Milky Way Galaxy!).

While I agree plenty with Guardians of the Galaxy ( though you shouldn't assume Knowhere will actually factor in ), and mostly with Midnight Sons ( SHIELD probably should have an idea of the supernatural world, even if its a tough nut to crack and they are completely ignorant of large chunks of it ), I can't agree with regard to Heroes for Hire. SHIELD effectively functions as the federal super law enforcement agency, amongst other things, and street level heroes are going to have *some* contact with it. Either they are vigilantes who will be at least theoretically criminals of interest to SHIELD, or publically accepted and active heroes who will have at least occasional contact with SHIELD ( handing over defeated super crooks, if nothing else ).

 

[KangConquers]

You've got a short memory. Not every Marvel Studios movie has to be budgeted for $150 million; remember when the studio first launched, they specifically stated that they planned to produce *in addition to the tentpoles* smaller films budgeted around $30 million. Plus, there's always TV, such as the SHIELD show and a Hulk show (that remains locked in vaporware right now), and neither of those have any ties to the Avengers at all.

Feige said awhile back that he didn't want the MCU to revolve entirely around the Avengers, so I'm not sure why you think it should.

I have no idea why people can't grasp the fact that a character being a part of the MCU doesn't automatically mean an appearance in the Avengers. It just means they exist in the same world as the Avengers, which can be done as simply as showing the character watching the Battle of New York on TV.

 

[DrCosmic]

You've got a short memory. Not every Marvel Studios movie has to be budgeted for $150 million; remember when the studio first launched, they specifically stated that they planned to produce *in addition to the tentpoles* smaller films budgeted around $30 million. Plus, there's always TV, such as the SHIELD show and a Hulk show (that remains locked in vaporware right now), and neither of those have any ties to the Avengers at all.

Feige said awhile back that he didn't want the MCU to revolve entirely around the Avengers, so I'm not sure why you think it should.

Based on our previous conversations, I'm relatively sure you're misquoting Feige. I'd love to read what he actually said if you can find it, your memory being stronger than mine and all.

I have no idea why people can't grasp the fact that a character being a part of the MCU doesn't automatically mean an appearance in the Avengers. It just means they exist in the same world as the Avengers, which can be done as simply as showing the character watching the Battle of New York on TV.

Actually, I think Sam feels the same way you do, iiuc. I'm the one who's saying that they're not going to create a story entirely separate from Avengers in the MCU, likening Avengers to the Marvel big summer event (Secret Invasion, World War Hulk, Fear Itself, Avengersisassembled, House of M, AvX, etc) where everyone's (Avenger or not) story ties into it, even if they don't actually appear in it. Case in point: GotG via Thanos.

I think this makes both Avengers and the contributing franchise stronger critically and commercially.

 

[Dr Tactics]

Based on our previous conversations, I'm relatively sure you're misquoting Feige. I'd love to read what he actually said if you can find it, your memory being stronger than mine and all.

Well I couldn't find the Feige quote but

http://www.starburstmagazine.com/mo...-marvel-studios-scrapping-their-smaller-films A little while ago it was reported that Marvel Studios might be testing the water by making low(er)-budget films about some of their less well-known characters, with Doctor Strange, Luke Cage and Iron Fist being among the speculated names.

But this weekend at the Kapow! Comic Convention Marvel’s Chief Creative Officer Joe Quesada threw the likelihood of these films into doubt: “We’re still a very small studio and our business right now is making tentpole movies,” he said. “I was asked earlier in the day if I have any favourite characters I’d like to see in a movie and I have tons, but they don’t fit into our business plan right now. Our business plan is not to make small budget movies, our business plan is to make tentpole movies.”

So IMO the smaller aspect of the MCU will be played out in the small screen. The SHEILD TV show

 

[Chewy]

Feige did state pretty explicitly that they intend to stick to 2 movies a year.

(in reference to a Black Widow movie)

When will there be a standalone? Both is what we’re heading toward. A lot of it is that we’re only going to make two movies a year, maybe sometimes it’ll be one movie a year like this year, maybe someday it’ll be three movies a year just depending on what comes together. But really, it’s two movies. So there’s kind of a backup on the runway right now in terms of when can something go. We do like when some of the characters appear in other people’s movies.

http://movieline.com/2012/04/30/kev...-universe-building-and-the-legacy-of-elektra/

 

[KangConquers]

Based on our previous conversations, I'm relatively sure you're misquoting Feige. I'd love to read what he actually said if you can find it, your memory being stronger than mine and all.



Actually, I think Sam feels the same way you do, iiuc. I'm the one who's saying that they're not going to create a story entirely separate from Avengers in the MCU, likening Avengers to the Marvel big summer event (Secret Invasion, World War Hulk, Fear Itself, Avengersisassembled, House of M, AvX, etc) where everyone's (Avenger or not) story ties into it, even if they don't actually appear in it. Case in point: GotG via Thanos.

I think this makes both Avengers and the contributing franchise stronger critically and commercially.

I was supporting his point.

The fact is, for 80% of Marvel's existence, these characters have existed together without stepping on each other's toes at every turn. I think that's an ideal model for the films. Yes, there will be interactions, yes there will be team-ups, but don't shoe horn the whole universe into the Avengers franchise. That would be incredibly forced.

 

[KangConquers]

Well I couldn't find the Feige quote but


So IMO the smaller aspect of the MCU will be played out in the small screen. The SHEILD TV show

It's quotes like the Quesada one that convinced me that Phase 3 will be highly sequel based. Marvel just doesn't have a huge well of tent pole ready properties.

 

[DrCosmic]

I was supporting his point.

The fact is, for 80% of Marvel's existence, these characters have existed together without stepping on each other's toes at every turn. I think that's an ideal model for the films. Yes, there will be interactions, yes there will be team-ups, but don't shoe horn the whole universe into the Avengers franchise. That would be incredibly forced.

Why do you feel it would feel forced? The GotG doesn't sound like it'll be forced by building up Thanos for Avengers 2. Hypothetically, Daredevil wouldn't have felt forced if he had been established in his own film and had shown up for the ground fighting at the end of Avengers. So what exactly is it that would be incredibly forced?

Contrast this with getting the money and critical acclaim of "what happens next" for every MCU film. Of having one big epic story instead of a bunch of smaller ones with some meaningless cameos/easter eggs the likes of which previous CBMs in non-shared universes have had to little impressiveness.

There's a reason that books that aren't attached to the event going on don't do as well. You can get people to watch a movie (or buy a comic book) about a hero they normally wouldn't if they feel that story is important to the overall story. If you want to recapture the storytelling style of the old comics you would need to make movies a lot cheaper and be selling them primarily to kids.

 

[KangConquers]

There's a reason that books that aren't attached to the event going on don't do as well. You can get people to watch a movie (or buy a comic book) about a hero they normally wouldn't if they feel that story is important to the overall story. If you want to recapture the storytelling style of the old comics you would need to make movies a lot cheaper and be selling them primarily to kids.

It's funny that you put it that way. "selling it primarily to kids." I think Bendis lowered the maturity level of comic books by about 5-10 years, and basically turned previously adult and mature characters into Bayformers; to each his own though.

The current comic book model at Marvel is terrible (at least pre-NOW.) For the past 10 years, my favorite books have been the ones that existed outside of the big dumb crossover events. No matter how plodding and horrible Secret Invasion was, I could always pick up Ed Brubaker's Captain America or JMS's Thor and get a quality story.

As for the MCU, I think they should just (at least for the moment) avoid making movies that could be damaged by Avengers association, or that could in turn, damage the Avengers franchise by being forced into the movie.